Hello,
I know right now my blog is new and my readership is either miniscule or non-existant, but I'd be remiss as a human being if I didn't make this post. Anyone who reads this or finds this blog, please contribute to the relief efforts in Haiti. I'll post two links of favorite organizations:
The Red Cross Haiti Relief Effort
Doctors Without Borders Haiti Relief Effort
I made my donation and you can too. You don't need to send a lot, anything you can spare will make a difference. This is a non-partisan call for disaster relief. Anyone who reads this, please help.
Thank You,
Chris
Friday, January 15, 2010
So I'm a little late to the pile....
Alright,
I've been off for a few days from my amatuerish attempts to write a blog venting my contempt for all things well, for lack of a better term stupid that I see in politics, what did I miss?
-Haiti imploded with up to 100,000 dead
-President Obama showing he's a lot more responsive to foreign crises than "Mr. Security" Bush rolled out a relief response in 1 day
-By the way, incidentally not only was Bush much slower to respond to the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid (6 days) than Obama was to the "Magical Exploding Cock Bomber" (3 Days) but Bush couldn't even respond to Katrina in less than four days, and that was in New Orleans! major props to Obama on this one, now if only he showed this sense of urgency on health reform...ending the Iraqi War...well, at least he's your man in a crisis, Obama I don't think was reading "My Pet Goat" (upside down as well....god Bush was a clown) and sitting for seven minutes...he was responsive, exactly what we needed our President to be on 9/11, Katrina...I digress.
-Conservatives and Republicans, after the intial attacks failed "he responded TOO swiftly!" as a contrast to bashing him for taking three days waiting for the fact in the case of the "cock bomb who killed no one" (except a young man's manhood). We've arrived at this denominator already, sadly. Being a "conservative" or a Republican no longer amounts to philosophical positions or even a semi-coherent (though loaded with cognitive dissonance) worldview anymore; being a "conservative" or a Republican now amounts to snipes, invective and vociferous hatred tossed at anything or anyone in the Democratic Party or anyone associated with the Democratic Party. Antagonism, obstinance, being childish, namecalling (like that stupid "Democrat Party" thing), and just plain hatred describe today's conservative. I'd also toss in a healthy amount of conspiratorial insanity (yep, the John Birch Society is clearly back) along with following stupid and lazy people because they're pretty faces who can rile a crowd.
Alright, I went to find an abstract for "Game Change", ran into a conservative blog addressing "Game Change" and flamed it. I guess now I'll go off subject for a moment and ask, why do conservatives consider taking someone else's position, not addressing it and instead attacking someone else as legitimate debate? I notice this tactic up and down the right wing. Ruminating on this, can it be possible that even Righties know they can't actually defend many of their positions so rather than sinking into policy and minutaie they respond with hatred? It would seem that's how they handle matters; reaction, anger and more ignorant spewing of the usual name calling (COMMUNIST! SOCIALIST! LIBRUL!).
Conservatives are being inhuman about this tragedy and it's not being confined to the idiots who command the legions of morons this time. Steve King, possibly the biggest douche in Congress, and that's saying a lot has a solution to the horror in Haiti: deport the Haitians so they can be relief workers. Not only is that one of the most disgusting solutions I've ever seen offered (I won't go there, the Hitler is used too often) but it is one of the most innapropriate comments made during a time of misery. What's most galling about this kind of disgusting bigotry, this politics above all, even humanity, this putrid display of indifference and oppurtunism; this is an elected official saying this! Steve King should be censured IMMEDIATELY for saying such disgusting things and everyone on the right should disavow him (yeah, right).
The rhetoric coming out of Capitol Hill has become so toxic in this past year it's become like a cancer. Republicans like King, Bachman and Virginia Fox aren't talk show hosts, they have responsibilities to this country to comport themselves civily. Saying health reform is a plot to kill old people is irresponsible, claiming you'll refuse to fill out a census because you're afraid of Nazi tactics being used on you is abhorrent, but those are typical lunatic fringe statements. But Steve King and Rush Limbaugh litterally take the cake. Haiti is in a terrible HUMAN crisis, possibly 100,000 people have died by the quake itself; the capitol city is ravaged and raised, people will die from lack of aid in droves and all these people can think about is POLITICS? I have an idea, let's send Steve King to Haiti, make him assist the Red Cross, let's pull Limbaugh out of his multi-million dollar rant house (shut-in) and let's make him assist the Marines in distrubting aid, let's make Pat Robertson's phony charity money actually go to relief for people (instead of his diamond mines). Let's take every person who says something completely disgusting about Haiti or Haitians and let's do something they've either never done or have been so removed from they forget what it even is: let's immerse them in human misery.
Let Rush Limbaugh tell Haitians in Port-Au-Prince up close and personal that President Obama only aided them to shore up support with the black community; let Pat Robertson tell a gathering of sick and injured people in the capitol that they got what they deserved and need to convert to God; let's let Steve King tell refugees seeking sanctuary from this horror that they need be deported so they can offer up aide. Let these human horrors confront those who suffer and continue to suffer that cheap, racist attacks on the president and indifference to their plight means more than pulling up our sleaves and trying to help rebuild and heal these Haitians, our brothers and sisters as humans. Let them do SOMETHING aside from sit on their inscrutible seats of power, in comfort and warmth and health and pass judgement on those who died from afar; let them look a man, or a woman or a child in the eyes and say their condemnations.
These people have revealed who they really are and what they are isn't something myself or anyone with morality or empathy would ever aspire to be: these are reptilian-brained and disgusting people. Cloke thier neighbor in misery and watch them complain about his suffering obscuring their view; these people are the real elitists of this country and they are disgusting; they are garbage. I'll go ahead and close out this rant, which wasn't initially going to be a rant with one final, famous quote, from Army Attorney Joseph Welch to Senator Joe McCarthy, another great human being, "At long last sir, have you no decency?" I can't think of a better quest to ask any of them.
I've been off for a few days from my amatuerish attempts to write a blog venting my contempt for all things well, for lack of a better term stupid that I see in politics, what did I miss?
-Haiti imploded with up to 100,000 dead
-President Obama showing he's a lot more responsive to foreign crises than "Mr. Security" Bush rolled out a relief response in 1 day
-By the way, incidentally not only was Bush much slower to respond to the "shoe bomber" Richard Reid (6 days) than Obama was to the "Magical Exploding Cock Bomber" (3 Days) but Bush couldn't even respond to Katrina in less than four days, and that was in New Orleans! major props to Obama on this one, now if only he showed this sense of urgency on health reform...ending the Iraqi War...well, at least he's your man in a crisis, Obama I don't think was reading "My Pet Goat" (upside down as well....god Bush was a clown) and sitting for seven minutes...he was responsive, exactly what we needed our President to be on 9/11, Katrina...I digress.
-Conservatives and Republicans, after the intial attacks failed "he responded TOO swiftly!" as a contrast to bashing him for taking three days waiting for the fact in the case of the "cock bomb who killed no one" (except a young man's manhood). We've arrived at this denominator already, sadly. Being a "conservative" or a Republican no longer amounts to philosophical positions or even a semi-coherent (though loaded with cognitive dissonance) worldview anymore; being a "conservative" or a Republican now amounts to snipes, invective and vociferous hatred tossed at anything or anyone in the Democratic Party or anyone associated with the Democratic Party. Antagonism, obstinance, being childish, namecalling (like that stupid "Democrat Party" thing), and just plain hatred describe today's conservative. I'd also toss in a healthy amount of conspiratorial insanity (yep, the John Birch Society is clearly back) along with following stupid and lazy people because they're pretty faces who can rile a crowd.
Alright, I went to find an abstract for "Game Change", ran into a conservative blog addressing "Game Change" and flamed it. I guess now I'll go off subject for a moment and ask, why do conservatives consider taking someone else's position, not addressing it and instead attacking someone else as legitimate debate? I notice this tactic up and down the right wing. Ruminating on this, can it be possible that even Righties know they can't actually defend many of their positions so rather than sinking into policy and minutaie they respond with hatred? It would seem that's how they handle matters; reaction, anger and more ignorant spewing of the usual name calling (COMMUNIST! SOCIALIST! LIBRUL!).
Conservatives are being inhuman about this tragedy and it's not being confined to the idiots who command the legions of morons this time. Steve King, possibly the biggest douche in Congress, and that's saying a lot has a solution to the horror in Haiti: deport the Haitians so they can be relief workers. Not only is that one of the most disgusting solutions I've ever seen offered (I won't go there, the Hitler is used too often) but it is one of the most innapropriate comments made during a time of misery. What's most galling about this kind of disgusting bigotry, this politics above all, even humanity, this putrid display of indifference and oppurtunism; this is an elected official saying this! Steve King should be censured IMMEDIATELY for saying such disgusting things and everyone on the right should disavow him (yeah, right).
The rhetoric coming out of Capitol Hill has become so toxic in this past year it's become like a cancer. Republicans like King, Bachman and Virginia Fox aren't talk show hosts, they have responsibilities to this country to comport themselves civily. Saying health reform is a plot to kill old people is irresponsible, claiming you'll refuse to fill out a census because you're afraid of Nazi tactics being used on you is abhorrent, but those are typical lunatic fringe statements. But Steve King and Rush Limbaugh litterally take the cake. Haiti is in a terrible HUMAN crisis, possibly 100,000 people have died by the quake itself; the capitol city is ravaged and raised, people will die from lack of aid in droves and all these people can think about is POLITICS? I have an idea, let's send Steve King to Haiti, make him assist the Red Cross, let's pull Limbaugh out of his multi-million dollar rant house (shut-in) and let's make him assist the Marines in distrubting aid, let's make Pat Robertson's phony charity money actually go to relief for people (instead of his diamond mines). Let's take every person who says something completely disgusting about Haiti or Haitians and let's do something they've either never done or have been so removed from they forget what it even is: let's immerse them in human misery.
Let Rush Limbaugh tell Haitians in Port-Au-Prince up close and personal that President Obama only aided them to shore up support with the black community; let Pat Robertson tell a gathering of sick and injured people in the capitol that they got what they deserved and need to convert to God; let's let Steve King tell refugees seeking sanctuary from this horror that they need be deported so they can offer up aide. Let these human horrors confront those who suffer and continue to suffer that cheap, racist attacks on the president and indifference to their plight means more than pulling up our sleaves and trying to help rebuild and heal these Haitians, our brothers and sisters as humans. Let them do SOMETHING aside from sit on their inscrutible seats of power, in comfort and warmth and health and pass judgement on those who died from afar; let them look a man, or a woman or a child in the eyes and say their condemnations.
These people have revealed who they really are and what they are isn't something myself or anyone with morality or empathy would ever aspire to be: these are reptilian-brained and disgusting people. Cloke thier neighbor in misery and watch them complain about his suffering obscuring their view; these people are the real elitists of this country and they are disgusting; they are garbage. I'll go ahead and close out this rant, which wasn't initially going to be a rant with one final, famous quote, from Army Attorney Joseph Welch to Senator Joe McCarthy, another great human being, "At long last sir, have you no decency?" I can't think of a better quest to ask any of them.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Political Theory: What Does Liberty Mean? Marraige, Personal, Exclusions
This is a subject that gets bandied about a lot in politics, what does liberty actually mean? Liberty is an abstract concept defineable in many measures. To conservatives and by all means I don't mean all conservative but rather mainstream conservatism seems to define liberty in purely economical terms, i.e. personal liberty is more of an extension to be wealthy without feeling social or economic pressures to give; giving is entirely personal and voluntary. Social liberty therefore springs from the concept of economics and personal liberty is measured by how much wealth a person possesses: the more you accumulate the more liberty you should experience. While this is somewhat grounded in reality I'd like to make a reposte: a person's wealth is not really determined by what is in their bank account.
Liberty, happiness mean many things, is a person more or less happy to have good friends and family, someone to love and share in personal substance than someone who is very rich but keeps everyone at arm's length? again, this is in the eye of the beholder. I have noticed though that conservatives seem to define social liberty more from what I'd consider a negative standpoint: defending an organizations right to not allow gay people to work for it, or legislating exclusionary defense of marraige and defintions of whom can get married and who can't. First off, the reason I call these negatives is one example of liberty that comes into question is, does your personal liberty infringe upon or harm another person's personal liberty? harm can be difficult to quantify; when a church for instance, is forced by law to admit gay's to it's pews it's difficult to quantify whether or not enforcing a person's right to sexual choice actually harms a religious person's right to personal morality.
Does permitting the rights of gays to marry result in societal harm? Though this question may seem silly on it's face; rather than insulting those who'd say "yes it does" I'd rather instead logically convince someone that aside from a person's squeamishness or bigotry that allowing gay people to marry does not in fact harm society; not allowing them to marry however, does harm liberty. Marraige is treated as an institution and I suppose that moniker does fit. So as an institution, a legal document it is in marraige's best interest to maintain stability for credibility; instability therefore causes harm. Without touching the easy question of divorce rate which has most definitely destablized marraige as an institution I'd like to in fact argue about whom in fact decides marraige to begin with. Marraige was for much of human history a contract brought about for political means, a house in conflict with another house might be forced to marry it's eldest son to the eldest daughter in royal disputes. Marraiges were also made to sew pacts between nations by binding ruling families together.
The only religious component to marraige was in fact a blessing given by the state church, and even this was often rendered with corruption at it's heart. In fact the very socio-religious aspect in Western terms does in fact spring from the period when the Catholic Church held absolute power over Europe and the Pope could decide by giving or withholding a blessing who in fact would be made king over many nations (emporer in the case of the Holy Roman Empire). Because this practice was done top to bottom even peasants felt compelled to seek a priest to perform a marraige ceremony for terms of legitimacy. So as this ceremony did in fact bind statecraft to religion it's easy to say any state with a state religion would consider marraige holy religious. This ceremony however lost it's all encompasing power when the Catholic Church was rendered persona non grata in governmental dealings in the 15th Century forward; as divine right faded, so did religion as a state institution faded.
In terms of modern times marraige is actually secular, a priest can still perform a ceremony but only the state can legally recognize a person's marraige. This change means that churches should not in anyway suggest that allowing gay couples to wed violates their right to free expression in regards to a state institution. Upholding their rights do however cause personal harm to gays; excluding them from being able to choose who'd they'd like to legitimately spend thier life with visa vie marraige does constitute an infringement of personal liberty. Since church and state are seperated upholding a religion's right to exclude based upon harming a secular institution is striking as passing odd. I'll make another argument, health care.
Recently there has been a debate about whether or not allowing a public plan in health care violates the liberty of those involved from choosing what coverage they should have and negotiating a price. From the absolutely hilarious notion of "death panels" and rationing, which by the way a persuasive argument can be made that private hospitals and insurance companies already have death panels; we know rationing already exists in the system. The motivations for rationing are why personally I oppose the private insurance system and would much rather see a single payer system in place; profits. Does a public not-for-profit plan violate individual liberty? yes and no depending upon your definition. Economically most definitely because a not-for-profit system removes the personal wealth creation consideration from insurance; there is no better or clearer example of a violation of economic liberty. But as we see from the growing numbers of unisured the high cost of a person seeking economic liberty in health insurance does in fact violate social liberty; that is a person's right to have at least basic insurance available when they are sick.
Insurance companies decided one effective means of rationing health would be to create what's known as the "pre-existing condition" clause. While an argument can be made the existence of such a clause does in fact violate the constitution's intent in regards to the bill of rights; i.e. excluding a person based upon their health I won't make that argument here. I will only say it violates personal and social liberty. If a person cannot go visit a doctor when they need to, conditions that are treatable can fester and serious illness and death can result. This method of rationing along with recision, rate increases based upon frequency of illness and other means to keep the sick out of the private system are the hallmarks of violating a person's individual liberty. Not to mention it's social darwinism, death panels and rationing all rolled up in one with the only argument to be made in favor of this continued practice being economic liberty.
I used those two examples to show that negative concepts of social liberty and economic liberty do in fact cause harm to the very populace that's supposed to have liberty in a free society. Therefore the correct position standing for liberty from a modern concept of intent and harm means that gay people should be allowed to marry as a correct expression of individual liberty without causing harm and insurance companies should either cease to operate as for-profit models or at the least should be mandated out of concerns to social and individual liberty to provide policies people can afford. Economic liberty being allowed to trump social liberty in this case does in fact harm a person's individual liberty and therefore measures should be taken to correct this. If conservatives do in fact stand on the side of the right of the individual to liberty, defending the insurance company practices is not just morally wrong but it violates any such profession of respecting individual liberty; unless they only respect individual economic liberty. I'd like any conservative who reads this post to clarify which is more important.
I'll delve into this subject again in later posts.
Liberty, happiness mean many things, is a person more or less happy to have good friends and family, someone to love and share in personal substance than someone who is very rich but keeps everyone at arm's length? again, this is in the eye of the beholder. I have noticed though that conservatives seem to define social liberty more from what I'd consider a negative standpoint: defending an organizations right to not allow gay people to work for it, or legislating exclusionary defense of marraige and defintions of whom can get married and who can't. First off, the reason I call these negatives is one example of liberty that comes into question is, does your personal liberty infringe upon or harm another person's personal liberty? harm can be difficult to quantify; when a church for instance, is forced by law to admit gay's to it's pews it's difficult to quantify whether or not enforcing a person's right to sexual choice actually harms a religious person's right to personal morality.
Does permitting the rights of gays to marry result in societal harm? Though this question may seem silly on it's face; rather than insulting those who'd say "yes it does" I'd rather instead logically convince someone that aside from a person's squeamishness or bigotry that allowing gay people to marry does not in fact harm society; not allowing them to marry however, does harm liberty. Marraige is treated as an institution and I suppose that moniker does fit. So as an institution, a legal document it is in marraige's best interest to maintain stability for credibility; instability therefore causes harm. Without touching the easy question of divorce rate which has most definitely destablized marraige as an institution I'd like to in fact argue about whom in fact decides marraige to begin with. Marraige was for much of human history a contract brought about for political means, a house in conflict with another house might be forced to marry it's eldest son to the eldest daughter in royal disputes. Marraiges were also made to sew pacts between nations by binding ruling families together.
The only religious component to marraige was in fact a blessing given by the state church, and even this was often rendered with corruption at it's heart. In fact the very socio-religious aspect in Western terms does in fact spring from the period when the Catholic Church held absolute power over Europe and the Pope could decide by giving or withholding a blessing who in fact would be made king over many nations (emporer in the case of the Holy Roman Empire). Because this practice was done top to bottom even peasants felt compelled to seek a priest to perform a marraige ceremony for terms of legitimacy. So as this ceremony did in fact bind statecraft to religion it's easy to say any state with a state religion would consider marraige holy religious. This ceremony however lost it's all encompasing power when the Catholic Church was rendered persona non grata in governmental dealings in the 15th Century forward; as divine right faded, so did religion as a state institution faded.
In terms of modern times marraige is actually secular, a priest can still perform a ceremony but only the state can legally recognize a person's marraige. This change means that churches should not in anyway suggest that allowing gay couples to wed violates their right to free expression in regards to a state institution. Upholding their rights do however cause personal harm to gays; excluding them from being able to choose who'd they'd like to legitimately spend thier life with visa vie marraige does constitute an infringement of personal liberty. Since church and state are seperated upholding a religion's right to exclude based upon harming a secular institution is striking as passing odd. I'll make another argument, health care.
Recently there has been a debate about whether or not allowing a public plan in health care violates the liberty of those involved from choosing what coverage they should have and negotiating a price. From the absolutely hilarious notion of "death panels" and rationing, which by the way a persuasive argument can be made that private hospitals and insurance companies already have death panels; we know rationing already exists in the system. The motivations for rationing are why personally I oppose the private insurance system and would much rather see a single payer system in place; profits. Does a public not-for-profit plan violate individual liberty? yes and no depending upon your definition. Economically most definitely because a not-for-profit system removes the personal wealth creation consideration from insurance; there is no better or clearer example of a violation of economic liberty. But as we see from the growing numbers of unisured the high cost of a person seeking economic liberty in health insurance does in fact violate social liberty; that is a person's right to have at least basic insurance available when they are sick.
Insurance companies decided one effective means of rationing health would be to create what's known as the "pre-existing condition" clause. While an argument can be made the existence of such a clause does in fact violate the constitution's intent in regards to the bill of rights; i.e. excluding a person based upon their health I won't make that argument here. I will only say it violates personal and social liberty. If a person cannot go visit a doctor when they need to, conditions that are treatable can fester and serious illness and death can result. This method of rationing along with recision, rate increases based upon frequency of illness and other means to keep the sick out of the private system are the hallmarks of violating a person's individual liberty. Not to mention it's social darwinism, death panels and rationing all rolled up in one with the only argument to be made in favor of this continued practice being economic liberty.
I used those two examples to show that negative concepts of social liberty and economic liberty do in fact cause harm to the very populace that's supposed to have liberty in a free society. Therefore the correct position standing for liberty from a modern concept of intent and harm means that gay people should be allowed to marry as a correct expression of individual liberty without causing harm and insurance companies should either cease to operate as for-profit models or at the least should be mandated out of concerns to social and individual liberty to provide policies people can afford. Economic liberty being allowed to trump social liberty in this case does in fact harm a person's individual liberty and therefore measures should be taken to correct this. If conservatives do in fact stand on the side of the right of the individual to liberty, defending the insurance company practices is not just morally wrong but it violates any such profession of respecting individual liberty; unless they only respect individual economic liberty. I'd like any conservative who reads this post to clarify which is more important.
I'll delve into this subject again in later posts.
Friday, January 8, 2010
First Post of the New Decade
Well, isn't this special? I know it's been a while since I posted, but sometimes life tosses you a curveball to the chin that takes time to recover from. I was debating around new years to either go out and get laid or make a retrospective of the decade; you can see which consideration won out. So, earnestly, rather than making a retrospective of the decade, which I think is both glib for me to do and besides, was done much funnier than I can do on wonkette, I'll instead just make 21 (22) crazy predictions about what I think we'll see for this next decade.
#1. In a bizare twist, Sarah Palin will admit Trig was fathered by Tiger Woods thus causing him to become chaste; oh and she'll sue him for money, Sarah knows who's got deep pockets.
#2. Rush Limbaugh will FINALLY die of fatness, loneliness, being a shut-in for years and hatred for all others except Oxycontin and his own bank account. Oh, and he'll die consuming an entire vat of donut mix lard when no other food source seemed available.
#3. President Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Why do I say this when I'm not even really an Obama supporter? Because I've looked into my crystal balls and have seen the GOP field: cro-mangnons, a snow-billy grifter, a moustache and a human hairball. Rudy Guiliani will pursue his dream of being named "Queen of drag" and thus will lose his comical spot in the GOP as Dick Cheney's cackling creature on his shoulder, ala Jabba the Hut.
#4. Dick Cheney will die and I, your beloved blogger will take time out from my busy schedule to go and piss on his grave...oh and dance a jig, also.
#5. The Boomers will leave the stage of power. That's right, the "Me" generation, the ones who brought us Reagan, Bush, and the "Republican revolution of 1994" all because they liked the idea of Jesus in school and extra hush money for their mistresses will retire. America will the rejoice.
#6. Just to piss off every wingnut Robert Byrd will survive yet ANOTHER decade and remain in the Senate. That one's a bit more cloudy but it will be funny.
#7. The GOP, after making far fewer gains in 2010 than expected will fire Michael Steele. Not knowing what else to do with himself, he'll see an oppurtunity: graft a wig to his bald head and become Don King's long lost son.
#8. As the US economy lurches from one economic upheaval to another, in an amazing mea culpa all the followers of Milton Friedman and "Chicago-school economics" will admit they were wrong all along and commit suicide. America will rejoice.
#9. Sarah Palin, being ever the oppurtunist will take her failed 2012 Presidential bid and marry Newt Gingrich thus becoming the traditional morality hawk's 67th wife. In a related story, gays will finally be allowed to marry when all straight people admit traditional marraige was an institution that we already ruined long ago and thus required no more "defending" (discrimination in other words).
#10. The Governator will switch parties and become a Democrat. Why? Upon hearing of Sarah Palin's nomination as the GOP candidate for President he'll admit that although the GOP has become JUST nazi enough to make him happy, even he can't stand how stupid and crazy she is (although he will grope her first).
#11. Mitt Romney in a surprising revenge move will release a study that shows every tea baggin' Palin supporter posseses a family tree that doesn't fork and that they're all related. Mormon's do love Genealogy.
#12. In an even more surprising move, the South will secede and this time the US will realize it's past mistake and wish them the best of luck. The new Southern nation will be a theocracy named "Falwelia" in rememberance for their continental-sized, segregation supporting bigoted hero. The new nation will last for exactly six months, which is how long the citizenry will take to realize they're too stupid to feed themselves, and beg to return to the Union.
#13. I'll retire my blog.
#14. The Democratic Party now free from Boomer corporatists (see #5) will nominate someone who finally tells the truth when they say the word "change". No more Reaganomics masquerading as "change", no more setting people up with a platform of "universal healthcare" and then saying "it wasn't what we wished for....but". Finally, for the first time since FDR some realistic, principled leadership.
#15. Joe Liebermann will be cannon-fired out of Connecticut and land in Alabama where he'll run for Senate. Good job trying to convince your southern Republican friends to support "that jew".
#16. All redundant lists making pointless predictions about future events will cease to be made.
#17. Paris Hilton will release yet another porno tape, this one involving John McCain. In related news and not to be outdone, disgraced former senator (he lost to Stormy Daniels, an actual porn star) David Vitter will also release a porno of himself being beaten while dressed as a baby, thus beginning his own nauseating "diaper porn" career.
#18. "Dubya" will admit his whole Texas accent rancher thingy was just bullshit to fool the wingnuts. He'll speak with an accent reminiscent of his blue blooded roots from now on and no one will care.
#19. Fox News will go bankrupt and since it was headed there anyway, Rupert Murdoch will change the "news format" and become the 24 hour feces network. People will get to watch Sean Hannity, O'rally, Ailes and Beckerhead take shits 24/7 in 3-D. Viewers will comment that the new network format is both more honest and of more substance than the old GOP talking points repository Fox was before.
#20. The "2012" Mayan Calender hoax will be exposed when an enterprising anthropoligist digs up the remains of the calender maker...a stoned and lazy Mayan named "Auggie" who quit making the calenders because in Mayan, it was "too hard and stuff".
#21. And finally, another attempted bomber, learning the error of the underpants bomber will instead wear a bra onto a plane. When her attempted attack fails, the fear-based society of the United States will demand that all bra's be searched as well. Your beloved blogger will quit his job as a famous attorney and go work as a screener at LAX for the "fringe benefits".
The End.
Oh and as a post-script, I just saw the picture of Megan McCain's glorious melons. So, I'll make this number 22: needing attention after her daily beast column fails Ms. McCain will bear her enormous sweater puppies live and most importantly uncensored at the 2012 RNC. Republican males, unable to handle the sight of such humongous and womanly boobs will run into the bathrooms to hide. The only sound heard will be a single toe tapping.
#1. In a bizare twist, Sarah Palin will admit Trig was fathered by Tiger Woods thus causing him to become chaste; oh and she'll sue him for money, Sarah knows who's got deep pockets.
#2. Rush Limbaugh will FINALLY die of fatness, loneliness, being a shut-in for years and hatred for all others except Oxycontin and his own bank account. Oh, and he'll die consuming an entire vat of donut mix lard when no other food source seemed available.
#3. President Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Why do I say this when I'm not even really an Obama supporter? Because I've looked into my crystal balls and have seen the GOP field: cro-mangnons, a snow-billy grifter, a moustache and a human hairball. Rudy Guiliani will pursue his dream of being named "Queen of drag" and thus will lose his comical spot in the GOP as Dick Cheney's cackling creature on his shoulder, ala Jabba the Hut.
#4. Dick Cheney will die and I, your beloved blogger will take time out from my busy schedule to go and piss on his grave...oh and dance a jig, also.
#5. The Boomers will leave the stage of power. That's right, the "Me" generation, the ones who brought us Reagan, Bush, and the "Republican revolution of 1994" all because they liked the idea of Jesus in school and extra hush money for their mistresses will retire. America will the rejoice.
#6. Just to piss off every wingnut Robert Byrd will survive yet ANOTHER decade and remain in the Senate. That one's a bit more cloudy but it will be funny.
#7. The GOP, after making far fewer gains in 2010 than expected will fire Michael Steele. Not knowing what else to do with himself, he'll see an oppurtunity: graft a wig to his bald head and become Don King's long lost son.
#8. As the US economy lurches from one economic upheaval to another, in an amazing mea culpa all the followers of Milton Friedman and "Chicago-school economics" will admit they were wrong all along and commit suicide. America will rejoice.
#9. Sarah Palin, being ever the oppurtunist will take her failed 2012 Presidential bid and marry Newt Gingrich thus becoming the traditional morality hawk's 67th wife. In a related story, gays will finally be allowed to marry when all straight people admit traditional marraige was an institution that we already ruined long ago and thus required no more "defending" (discrimination in other words).
#10. The Governator will switch parties and become a Democrat. Why? Upon hearing of Sarah Palin's nomination as the GOP candidate for President he'll admit that although the GOP has become JUST nazi enough to make him happy, even he can't stand how stupid and crazy she is (although he will grope her first).
#11. Mitt Romney in a surprising revenge move will release a study that shows every tea baggin' Palin supporter posseses a family tree that doesn't fork and that they're all related. Mormon's do love Genealogy.
#12. In an even more surprising move, the South will secede and this time the US will realize it's past mistake and wish them the best of luck. The new Southern nation will be a theocracy named "Falwelia" in rememberance for their continental-sized, segregation supporting bigoted hero. The new nation will last for exactly six months, which is how long the citizenry will take to realize they're too stupid to feed themselves, and beg to return to the Union.
#13. I'll retire my blog.
#14. The Democratic Party now free from Boomer corporatists (see #5) will nominate someone who finally tells the truth when they say the word "change". No more Reaganomics masquerading as "change", no more setting people up with a platform of "universal healthcare" and then saying "it wasn't what we wished for....but". Finally, for the first time since FDR some realistic, principled leadership.
#15. Joe Liebermann will be cannon-fired out of Connecticut and land in Alabama where he'll run for Senate. Good job trying to convince your southern Republican friends to support "that jew".
#16. All redundant lists making pointless predictions about future events will cease to be made.
#17. Paris Hilton will release yet another porno tape, this one involving John McCain. In related news and not to be outdone, disgraced former senator (he lost to Stormy Daniels, an actual porn star) David Vitter will also release a porno of himself being beaten while dressed as a baby, thus beginning his own nauseating "diaper porn" career.
#18. "Dubya" will admit his whole Texas accent rancher thingy was just bullshit to fool the wingnuts. He'll speak with an accent reminiscent of his blue blooded roots from now on and no one will care.
#19. Fox News will go bankrupt and since it was headed there anyway, Rupert Murdoch will change the "news format" and become the 24 hour feces network. People will get to watch Sean Hannity, O'rally, Ailes and Beckerhead take shits 24/7 in 3-D. Viewers will comment that the new network format is both more honest and of more substance than the old GOP talking points repository Fox was before.
#20. The "2012" Mayan Calender hoax will be exposed when an enterprising anthropoligist digs up the remains of the calender maker...a stoned and lazy Mayan named "Auggie" who quit making the calenders because in Mayan, it was "too hard and stuff".
#21. And finally, another attempted bomber, learning the error of the underpants bomber will instead wear a bra onto a plane. When her attempted attack fails, the fear-based society of the United States will demand that all bra's be searched as well. Your beloved blogger will quit his job as a famous attorney and go work as a screener at LAX for the "fringe benefits".
The End.
Oh and as a post-script, I just saw the picture of Megan McCain's glorious melons. So, I'll make this number 22: needing attention after her daily beast column fails Ms. McCain will bear her enormous sweater puppies live and most importantly uncensored at the 2012 RNC. Republican males, unable to handle the sight of such humongous and womanly boobs will run into the bathrooms to hide. The only sound heard will be a single toe tapping.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Human Courage Triumphs Over Fear and Why Saving this Plane Wasn't Voluntary
The attempted terrorist attack of Northwest Flight 253 was countered by Bush's Patriot Act and Homeland Security agencies.....err, maybe not. In fact it was the actions of courageous passengers and crew feeling compelled to place the safety and the lives of others above themselves which thwarted the attempt. This was a classic case of the rejection of Randian thinking on the most basic of human instincts: self sacrifice. Had these people not taken action their lives and those of the other passengers would have been lost. There are a few ways to view this story; one of which is philisophically: the triumph of objectivism and rational self interest occured or the leftist view that team-work was necessary in order to thwart this attack. Let's look at each theory and decide which philosophy best fits.
Objectivists (or hard righties) believe all actions and decisions should be left to the individual and to the individuals self-centered desires; there should be no such thing as compulsory charity or government programs such as welfare. Objectivists believe every person is imbued with the right to choose only for themselves and should never feel compelled to act in a group unless it personally suits them to do so. This is what's meant by "voluntary action"; all motivation should all come from a stand point of "self interest"; whatever the motives may ultimately be. This belief transcends morality such as "do unto others as they'd do unto you" or belief that helping others is the reward itself rather than motivation for personal acclaim. Objectivists of course deny the fact that human success has always come from common cause and empathy rather than from rational self interest alone.
Leftism is the idea that we're all in this world equally together; we fail or succeed based upon our ability to help and communicate together as a society rather than act in personal sovereignty. Leftists promote the idea that any large task requires at least two people working to be carried out successfully and stresses team-work over individual success and rewards. Leftists realize not everyone was raised with helping others in mind and they realize also that realistically some compulsion toward self-sacrifice is necessary; taxation to feed the worse off and sustain poverty-stricken families through welfare and free (fully subsidized) medical care are some very basic means to alleviate human suffering. Objectivists seem either too self involved or indeed oblivious to the fact that cooperative programs which grant basic needs allow everyone to pursue rational self interests; they instead take such compulsion as acting against their own personal liberty and consider need-based people to be parasites. This viewpoint is extreme and seems to be at the center of the modern right's view of needy people; they cannot do for themselves so they deserve to die.
Back to the act of great courage on Friday, what drove these disparate people to act as a team? A case can surely be made that rational self interest consisting of the desire to not lose their lives was the prime motivation and there may be some evidence to merit to this conclusion abstractly, however, I think such thought misses the deeper, larger issue. Human beings naturally self-sacrifice to help others in need and personal considerations rarely figures in to the equation. In the context of human society we're actually compelled to by our own understanding of each others basic worth as people rather than buffeted by egotistical self aggrandizement. This point alone demonstrates that such self-sacrifice does in fact carry a reward well beyond personal or individual desires; it sustains us as societies and as a species. Rational self-interest by its mere wording implies cold deduction and self centered logic rather than emotional attachment to others; in fact such attachment to objectivism is both weak and immoral.
Mental conditioning in America is becoming predicated ever more toward emphasizing the good of the self alone and "looking out for number 1". It is this conditioning that I think is the real rot in American society; families and communities no longer exist; everyone is an individual commodity to be bought and sold. Fundamentalist capitalism and objectivism fit this perception like a glove and their continued primacy in "Conservative Christian" morality along with social conservatism and consumerism which places a price on what's considered the REAL worth of a human being: wealth. These ideals will continue to diminish this society over time. In fact, it's become so endemic that even the mere suggestion of a compulsion to serving others is greeted by misinterpretation and by reactionary philosophical hard-liners as collectivism.
Of course, if as a people we did abandon such service entirely the question would be: who'll want to serve in the military, the police, nursing or teaching or any other thankless career in which service and taking care of others outweighs pay and personal acclaim? With a constant and ever-dangling carrot of personal rewards (which would render such services TOO expensive and would require tax increases; objectivists wholly oppose such measures) these important service would go cease and our society would crumble; thus the belief of individualists that service should only be voluntary and based upon selfish considerations does in this way expose the major flaw in their philosophy: self-sacrifice and selfless behavior. This also view also harms capitalism itself; capitalism to really function must be tempered by human empathy and the idea that we're all equals who belong to a community. The objectivist notion of each of us embodying a "country of one" can only lead to harm if it is replicated on a mass scale. The collapse of French Feudalism provides a final and lasting testament to the logic that moral principles such as cooperation and community ethically succeed outweigh notions that selfishness and greed can succeed as a pervading ethos
Objectivists (or hard righties) believe all actions and decisions should be left to the individual and to the individuals self-centered desires; there should be no such thing as compulsory charity or government programs such as welfare. Objectivists believe every person is imbued with the right to choose only for themselves and should never feel compelled to act in a group unless it personally suits them to do so. This is what's meant by "voluntary action"; all motivation should all come from a stand point of "self interest"; whatever the motives may ultimately be. This belief transcends morality such as "do unto others as they'd do unto you" or belief that helping others is the reward itself rather than motivation for personal acclaim. Objectivists of course deny the fact that human success has always come from common cause and empathy rather than from rational self interest alone.
Leftism is the idea that we're all in this world equally together; we fail or succeed based upon our ability to help and communicate together as a society rather than act in personal sovereignty. Leftists promote the idea that any large task requires at least two people working to be carried out successfully and stresses team-work over individual success and rewards. Leftists realize not everyone was raised with helping others in mind and they realize also that realistically some compulsion toward self-sacrifice is necessary; taxation to feed the worse off and sustain poverty-stricken families through welfare and free (fully subsidized) medical care are some very basic means to alleviate human suffering. Objectivists seem either too self involved or indeed oblivious to the fact that cooperative programs which grant basic needs allow everyone to pursue rational self interests; they instead take such compulsion as acting against their own personal liberty and consider need-based people to be parasites. This viewpoint is extreme and seems to be at the center of the modern right's view of needy people; they cannot do for themselves so they deserve to die.
Back to the act of great courage on Friday, what drove these disparate people to act as a team? A case can surely be made that rational self interest consisting of the desire to not lose their lives was the prime motivation and there may be some evidence to merit to this conclusion abstractly, however, I think such thought misses the deeper, larger issue. Human beings naturally self-sacrifice to help others in need and personal considerations rarely figures in to the equation. In the context of human society we're actually compelled to by our own understanding of each others basic worth as people rather than buffeted by egotistical self aggrandizement. This point alone demonstrates that such self-sacrifice does in fact carry a reward well beyond personal or individual desires; it sustains us as societies and as a species. Rational self-interest by its mere wording implies cold deduction and self centered logic rather than emotional attachment to others; in fact such attachment to objectivism is both weak and immoral.
Mental conditioning in America is becoming predicated ever more toward emphasizing the good of the self alone and "looking out for number 1". It is this conditioning that I think is the real rot in American society; families and communities no longer exist; everyone is an individual commodity to be bought and sold. Fundamentalist capitalism and objectivism fit this perception like a glove and their continued primacy in "Conservative Christian" morality along with social conservatism and consumerism which places a price on what's considered the REAL worth of a human being: wealth. These ideals will continue to diminish this society over time. In fact, it's become so endemic that even the mere suggestion of a compulsion to serving others is greeted by misinterpretation and by reactionary philosophical hard-liners as collectivism.
Of course, if as a people we did abandon such service entirely the question would be: who'll want to serve in the military, the police, nursing or teaching or any other thankless career in which service and taking care of others outweighs pay and personal acclaim? With a constant and ever-dangling carrot of personal rewards (which would render such services TOO expensive and would require tax increases; objectivists wholly oppose such measures) these important service would go cease and our society would crumble; thus the belief of individualists that service should only be voluntary and based upon selfish considerations does in this way expose the major flaw in their philosophy: self-sacrifice and selfless behavior. This also view also harms capitalism itself; capitalism to really function must be tempered by human empathy and the idea that we're all equals who belong to a community. The objectivist notion of each of us embodying a "country of one" can only lead to harm if it is replicated on a mass scale. The collapse of French Feudalism provides a final and lasting testament to the logic that moral principles such as cooperation and community ethically succeed outweigh notions that selfishness and greed can succeed as a pervading ethos
Security Tightens on World Airports and Dick Cheney is STILL a Douchebag
After a Nigerian man failed to detonate a suspected incendiary device upon an Airbus plane flying over Detroit on Friday, the world decided to ramp up security. This was by no means an irrational decision or wrong, but calling such a terrorist attack so soon before the facts arrive? Some may not know it, or even understand it, but the United States is still politically in trouble with much of the world. Bush's "War on Terror" sapped nearly all of the good will the world felt toward the United States in the wake of September 11th primarily based upon two issues: the highly suspect invasion of Iraq and torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. As a disclaimer I'm not saying this tragically young man didn't have terroristic motives toward this plane, but what I am saying is reactionary action to "look tough" without considering the implications of said action is doomed to failure and loss of face.
Dick (has there ever been a more aprapous name for him?) Cheney a while back accused President Obama of "dithering" with the amount of time he was taking to decide which course to take in Afghanistan and frankly I thought the charge was typical of this slimy "five deferments" barnacle. I guess by his own definition Dick Cheney "dithered" and then "cut and ran" from Vietnam. I think the amount of time taken was appropriate to such a big decision not to be rendered lightly and "from the hip" as occurred with many of Bush's worst decisions. I do disagree strongly with what was decided: after eight years of ignoring Afghanistan suddenly we're going to "fix" the situation. There is no precedent for this kind of action actually working and with our track record in Iraq the rhetoric of us being able to do anything we please even when that choice is outside of practical sense has largely dissipated.
For the sake of full disclosure, I was glad to see a welcome change in Bush in 2006 when he apparently "dithered" (only it wasn't called dithering back then; it was "strong and decisive"; Republicans are too hilarious) with his decision over what the course forward with Iraq should be (even if his decision essentially sucked). The mere fact that he just took time to consider his choice after so many reactionary and bad decisions was a breath of fresh air from a stale administration. Cheney's way of thinking ended for Bush in 2006 with the defeat of the GOP majorities in the House and Senate; why anyone aside from mustachioed John Bolton (who seems to want sexy time with the Dick) would still believe that this guy's opinion carries any weight is beyond me. In fact I’d submit the right decision is the one Dick Cheney opposes; his sycophants won’t admit it but he is at least 70% of the reason why the Bush Administration is so reviled and Republicans were destroyed in 2006 and 2008.
That being said, the US is still in hot water with much of the world and going from deliberation and smart action to reactionary emotionalism has never served us well. Major Hassan wasn't for instance a terrorist by definition; his crime was mass murder and should be treated as such. The tried and true right wing method of labeling every crime anyone with a name like "Mohammed" commits as terrorism only makes the charge lose it's potency. In fact people become intellectually and emotionally detached from real terrorism and thus don't react in a timely manner. The effect is similar to the news media always focusing on violent crime and horrible acts which causes over time the loss of impact those acts have on the "normal populace" to take action.
Again, I'm not saying the labeling of this man as a terrorist is wrong or misguided; I'm only saying the evidence since 2001 suggests a slightly cautious mindset of "look before you leap". Remember, Bush once convinced many Americans to support war with Iraq by exploiting fears of terrorism, death and annihilation after 9/11. This rhetoric was especially galling since the Bush Administration apparently knew beforehand that Iraq had little to nothing to do with what occurred that horrible day. The last eight years are perfectly allegorical of why the US needs to "dither" more and react in anger and fear a lot less.
Dick (has there ever been a more aprapous name for him?) Cheney a while back accused President Obama of "dithering" with the amount of time he was taking to decide which course to take in Afghanistan and frankly I thought the charge was typical of this slimy "five deferments" barnacle. I guess by his own definition Dick Cheney "dithered" and then "cut and ran" from Vietnam. I think the amount of time taken was appropriate to such a big decision not to be rendered lightly and "from the hip" as occurred with many of Bush's worst decisions. I do disagree strongly with what was decided: after eight years of ignoring Afghanistan suddenly we're going to "fix" the situation. There is no precedent for this kind of action actually working and with our track record in Iraq the rhetoric of us being able to do anything we please even when that choice is outside of practical sense has largely dissipated.
For the sake of full disclosure, I was glad to see a welcome change in Bush in 2006 when he apparently "dithered" (only it wasn't called dithering back then; it was "strong and decisive"; Republicans are too hilarious) with his decision over what the course forward with Iraq should be (even if his decision essentially sucked). The mere fact that he just took time to consider his choice after so many reactionary and bad decisions was a breath of fresh air from a stale administration. Cheney's way of thinking ended for Bush in 2006 with the defeat of the GOP majorities in the House and Senate; why anyone aside from mustachioed John Bolton (who seems to want sexy time with the Dick) would still believe that this guy's opinion carries any weight is beyond me. In fact I’d submit the right decision is the one Dick Cheney opposes; his sycophants won’t admit it but he is at least 70% of the reason why the Bush Administration is so reviled and Republicans were destroyed in 2006 and 2008.
That being said, the US is still in hot water with much of the world and going from deliberation and smart action to reactionary emotionalism has never served us well. Major Hassan wasn't for instance a terrorist by definition; his crime was mass murder and should be treated as such. The tried and true right wing method of labeling every crime anyone with a name like "Mohammed" commits as terrorism only makes the charge lose it's potency. In fact people become intellectually and emotionally detached from real terrorism and thus don't react in a timely manner. The effect is similar to the news media always focusing on violent crime and horrible acts which causes over time the loss of impact those acts have on the "normal populace" to take action.
Again, I'm not saying the labeling of this man as a terrorist is wrong or misguided; I'm only saying the evidence since 2001 suggests a slightly cautious mindset of "look before you leap". Remember, Bush once convinced many Americans to support war with Iraq by exploiting fears of terrorism, death and annihilation after 9/11. This rhetoric was especially galling since the Bush Administration apparently knew beforehand that Iraq had little to nothing to do with what occurred that horrible day. The last eight years are perfectly allegorical of why the US needs to "dither" more and react in anger and fear a lot less.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Edward Abbey
To kick off my new section in which I select various authors, books, films, philosophies and music to discuss I'd like to select a personal favorite and hero of mine: Edward Abbey. Ed Abbey was known throughout his life as an extremist; for this he was dually grateful. But what Ed Abbey contributed to literature and environmentalist went well beyond his legendary truculence and cynicism. Ed Abbey in addition was a very talented and original author. From his non-fiction works such as the seminal "Desert Solitaire" to "The Journey Home" Ed Abbey mixed ruminations on politics, religion and of course the environment.
Ed Abbey wasn't the kind of environmentalist seen today: tough, austere, in-your-face and sometimes grating; in fact he was a throwback. Considered by some to be the modern equivalent of Henry David Thoreau, Abbey was a doctorate in psychology and mixed in many humorous quotes on the subject. Ed Abbey also wrote some interesting works of fiction with his most famous work "The Monkey Wrench Gang" landing him into the hearts of many Westerners as well as in the files of the FBI. He was uncompromising in style and principle, Ed even beat the shit out of his own pickup truck to remove the comforts and trappings of the automobile. He really walked the walk; in fact when he died he asked to be placed into his sleeping bag, carted in the back of a truck, burned and sprinkled over the nature he so loved.
So while being labeled a fan of his work and parts of his mission at one point would get one labeled, Abbey resisted being grouped into any "ism"; he disliked them all. So as this, the 20th year anniversary of his death comes to a close I'd like anyone who reads this to remember the man and possibly, read a bit of what he wrote.
Ed Abbey wasn't the kind of environmentalist seen today: tough, austere, in-your-face and sometimes grating; in fact he was a throwback. Considered by some to be the modern equivalent of Henry David Thoreau, Abbey was a doctorate in psychology and mixed in many humorous quotes on the subject. Ed Abbey also wrote some interesting works of fiction with his most famous work "The Monkey Wrench Gang" landing him into the hearts of many Westerners as well as in the files of the FBI. He was uncompromising in style and principle, Ed even beat the shit out of his own pickup truck to remove the comforts and trappings of the automobile. He really walked the walk; in fact when he died he asked to be placed into his sleeping bag, carted in the back of a truck, burned and sprinkled over the nature he so loved.
So while being labeled a fan of his work and parts of his mission at one point would get one labeled, Abbey resisted being grouped into any "ism"; he disliked them all. So as this, the 20th year anniversary of his death comes to a close I'd like anyone who reads this to remember the man and possibly, read a bit of what he wrote.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)