My cohort, Deb, over at Turn Left wrote this about Joe Lieberman:
http://turn-left.hypocrisy.com/2009/11/02/the-return-of-the-3-million-man/
Not to be outdone, I wrote this:
Until not long ago, as I watched the Lieberman antics, I was locked into the pseudo-Christian dilemma of trying to decide if what he is doing (or pretending to do) was moral or immoral.I was convinced I could think of it all in terms of right and wrong. Eventually I came to realize that I was barking up the wrong tree.
The problem is that this tree has NO ROOTS. Lieberman is neither moral nor immoral: he is simply AMORAL. His thoughts and actions have no substance. He is an over-paid entertainer, a showman, who plays for money, grins and giggles…mostly for his own amusement. Sadly, beneath the garish mirth is untold misery because he is a hollow man. He is masquerading as public servant, when in truth of fact, he is a parasite. In leech-like fashion, he has attached himself to the artery of the public employment roles and sucks it drier and drier every day.
Public life for Lieberman is a sordid circus. He loves the center ring, the brass band and the elephant parade, loves to play the clown and sell nutritionless popcorn, but wants no one to know the animals in the cages out back are starving and diseased.
Lieberman is a morbid and dangerous monument to the moribund face of what the crumbling edifice of what democracy is becoming. He is a harbinger of terrible times to come. I guess everyone needs someone to look down to.
If Lieberman is allowed to proceed and continue unchecked, then we deserve whatever we get. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
Any moment now, I expect to see the Connecticuit Israeli Police coming to arrest both of us.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Current events
I read this article (you might do so, as well),
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/kaufmann
Then I wrote this:
In a word? "Yes." Just as in the discussion (?) concerning healthcare reform, our elected officials have develpoed a deaf ear and are acting instead as the "chosen few." Instead of listening with any sensitivity to the opinions, desires and wishes of the consitutuents who elected them, with the exception of Barney Frank and handful of others, they have chosen to become aloof and unresponsive.
With respect to both healthcare and this credit regulation legislation, the "representatives" are failing to represent and choosing to ignore the will of the very people who entrusted them with this critical responsibility of oversight and shepherding.
The word that comes to mind is "arrogant," and if one takes a quick trip through the dictionary, you find that this word comes from the Latin, meaning "to claim." In these cases it would seem to mean to lay claim to a superiority of wisdom and intellect that they have conferred upon themselves. The definition also mentions "haughtiness," thereby implying (again) a self-imbued sense of a heightened ability to make value/judgement calls on behalf of others they seem to deem incapable of doing for themselves (us).
The sadness of this conundrum is that we seem to be facing the need to legislate fiscal morality, and the task has fallen to those who have no moral compass to guide them in their task.
To be regarded as a schmuck is to be regarded as inferior and stupid, and I am sorely offended. You should be, as well.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091019/kaufmann
Then I wrote this:
In a word? "Yes." Just as in the discussion (?) concerning healthcare reform, our elected officials have develpoed a deaf ear and are acting instead as the "chosen few." Instead of listening with any sensitivity to the opinions, desires and wishes of the consitutuents who elected them, with the exception of Barney Frank and handful of others, they have chosen to become aloof and unresponsive.
With respect to both healthcare and this credit regulation legislation, the "representatives" are failing to represent and choosing to ignore the will of the very people who entrusted them with this critical responsibility of oversight and shepherding.
The word that comes to mind is "arrogant," and if one takes a quick trip through the dictionary, you find that this word comes from the Latin, meaning "to claim." In these cases it would seem to mean to lay claim to a superiority of wisdom and intellect that they have conferred upon themselves. The definition also mentions "haughtiness," thereby implying (again) a self-imbued sense of a heightened ability to make value/judgement calls on behalf of others they seem to deem incapable of doing for themselves (us).
The sadness of this conundrum is that we seem to be facing the need to legislate fiscal morality, and the task has fallen to those who have no moral compass to guide them in their task.
To be regarded as a schmuck is to be regarded as inferior and stupid, and I am sorely offended. You should be, as well.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Relative Values
Yesterday, on ABC's "This Week", hosted by George Stepenopulence, the first guest was the venerable, beady- eyed, ex fed-chairholder/warmer, Alan Greenspan. (NOTE: he is not in anyway green, but has spanned much too much time in the pubic domain). Each time George pressed Mr. Not-Green-Spanned-too-long for an answer about the economy, the stimilus packages, the unemployment, the recession or the Fed's possible actions, he responded with either, " We don't know yet", "We will have to wait and see", "It is hard to project these things", "We will have to wait for the report from the GAO/CBO", "These things are hard to predict", or "We have never had a sustained period of unemployment/recession/imbalance of debt/etc. like this with which to compare it to" (that is, historcally speaking, by the way, a completel bald-faced lie...and very bad grammar).
It would seem that Mr. Greenspan would serve us all much better if he were to return to the relative obsurity of retirement, rather than muddy the airwaves and prove , once again, that he doesn't know anything. Since I am one now, I can excusably and with impunity therefore decry old, staid and stale men, with granite in their ass and noodles in their brains, who have moved way past their prime and should stay home and watch re-runs of "The Flintstones".
Last week, as I trudged down a rainy street in Austin, and pondered the weather forecast with my son, he reminded me of a quote from a wilderness book writer, who said that " weather forecasters were invented to make economists look good." Yesterday, on this same TV program, Cokie Roberts (NPR) reminded us that "economists were invented to make astrologers look good". I am guessing that Paul Krugman might somehow (at last partially) agree. I have also just become more trusting as regards my horoscope.
And my other guess (and I'm not waiting on a report from the CBO on this) is that the longer the President and Congress listen to the malarky we get from the likes of Alan Greenspan, the longer we will continue to drift towards becoming a third world country, economically.
It would seem that Mr. Greenspan would serve us all much better if he were to return to the relative obsurity of retirement, rather than muddy the airwaves and prove , once again, that he doesn't know anything. Since I am one now, I can excusably and with impunity therefore decry old, staid and stale men, with granite in their ass and noodles in their brains, who have moved way past their prime and should stay home and watch re-runs of "The Flintstones".
Last week, as I trudged down a rainy street in Austin, and pondered the weather forecast with my son, he reminded me of a quote from a wilderness book writer, who said that " weather forecasters were invented to make economists look good." Yesterday, on this same TV program, Cokie Roberts (NPR) reminded us that "economists were invented to make astrologers look good". I am guessing that Paul Krugman might somehow (at last partially) agree. I have also just become more trusting as regards my horoscope.
And my other guess (and I'm not waiting on a report from the CBO on this) is that the longer the President and Congress listen to the malarky we get from the likes of Alan Greenspan, the longer we will continue to drift towards becoming a third world country, economically.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
"How do we remedy the Situation?"
Or, As Shara said later, this about "the paucity of langauge".
From: shara_thome@hotmail.com
To: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:46 AM
Subject: shara_thome@hotmail.com has shared: Theodore Dalrymple on the Gift of Language
....but how to remedy the situation? Dumbfounded here.
Theodore Dalrymple on the Gift of Language Source: austrolabe.com
For starters, let me say that I am "dumbfounded" by discovering there were so many Muslims living amongst the Aussies. But I suppose I shouldn't be, because Muslims can now threaten Danish cartoonists and cause ghetto riots in Paris. Be that as it may, that there is so much sudden concern for how to deal with the "Muslim problem" and the Muslim language(s), in places like down under and elsewhere, is perplexing. I say this because in Australia, where the concern for the Muslim invasion gets front page coverage while they slaughter, ignore and denigrate the aborigine; in the U.S. , where we sought to obliterate the native Americans and today force them into encampments, while still not dealing with our history of slavery and contemporary racism ( and the language obstacles involved there, bro); in Scandanavia the Nordic past is being ameliorated and watered down to appease the Muslim outsiders; in France they are busier worrying about headscarve etiquette than they are the quality of education and have almost foresworn the problems with the Moroccan and Algerian populations in favor of the Arab refugees; in England the disparities over Scots and the Irish have been put aside to worry about the employment and education requirements of the Muslim Indian refugees, and in Germany, the concern with Turks has displaced recognition of Jewish issues ...Nearly overnight, it seems, the world is obsessed with acclimating to, absorbing, yielding to and incorporting the culture and language of a people we regarded as ignorant, backward, infidel in nature,bloodthirsty and heathen, not so long ago.
Would that we were so afraid of the perils of rampant Christianity.
Note: In earlier centuries,the Spaniards (in particular), always solved the problem of cultural and linguistic assimilation by simply trying to make everyone Catholic. That insidious and predatory (and arrogant) practice, coupled with the Inquisition, has not worked out so well, except to make Mexico City a safe place for the Pope to visit. And I dare say that catechism classes for the masses of Muslims will not get very far.
As for your query, "but how to remedy the situtation?" , I am stubbornly and narrow-mindedly in the camp of Robert Frost, on this one. Disregarding for a moment the question of which tongue do you speak when you are in which land, "When in Rome" rings a bell. If you are visiting, simple attempts at the mother tongue are acceptable and errors easily overlooked, since everyone knows you are going home soon. But if you reside, more less permanently, in a land where the mother tongue is other than your own, it would behoove you to learn it and speak it as best you can ( and my bias is that Hispanics in America are not excepted). Anything less is a gesture of disrespect. But back to Frost:
Frost said (approximately) that "to teach a person to write is to teach a person to think". And thinking, real thinking (I think), is encumbent upon all of us. And if you think, you arrive at ideas. And if you have ideas you must find a way to express them. And for that you need words, and often new words. The current mood that has been identified in the U.S. as "anti-intellectualism"reveals how not thinking precludes new ideas: recent town halls are regurgitations of old thinking and old ideas and old words.
If our educational systems, world-wide, (to mimick Ms. Scheslinger) were to focus upon teaching and enabling children to think and to ask "why", to be inquisitive and become logical searchers and researchers of meaning, they would learn to use the proper, appropriate and substantive words required to promote better understanding. (I might suggest, at this point, that immersion in the Bible or the Quoran does not lead to this lofty end. Thinking requires a working knowledge of cause and effect, and neither of these includes a clue as to either.)
Hedges (as in the piece I sent you), Safire (too bad), Carlin (way too bad), Chomsky, Maher, Reich, Buckley and Vonnegut are all some examples of linguists (my broken record is playing, again) who took (and take) the time to find the words to express their ideas. To them, I say, "Right on!", and "Awesome!" (Think about those two expressions as they relate to cause and effect)
And there are enough people down under who speak that almost-South Carolina garble the Aussies call "English" that any self-respecting Muslim ought to be able to pick it up. Blimey. I'll have a Foster's.
From: shara_thome@hotmail.com
To: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 6:46 AM
Subject: shara_thome@hotmail.com has shared: Theodore Dalrymple on the Gift of Language
....but how to remedy the situation? Dumbfounded here.
Theodore Dalrymple on the Gift of Language Source: austrolabe.com
For starters, let me say that I am "dumbfounded" by discovering there were so many Muslims living amongst the Aussies. But I suppose I shouldn't be, because Muslims can now threaten Danish cartoonists and cause ghetto riots in Paris. Be that as it may, that there is so much sudden concern for how to deal with the "Muslim problem" and the Muslim language(s), in places like down under and elsewhere, is perplexing. I say this because in Australia, where the concern for the Muslim invasion gets front page coverage while they slaughter, ignore and denigrate the aborigine; in the U.S. , where we sought to obliterate the native Americans and today force them into encampments, while still not dealing with our history of slavery and contemporary racism ( and the language obstacles involved there, bro); in Scandanavia the Nordic past is being ameliorated and watered down to appease the Muslim outsiders; in France they are busier worrying about headscarve etiquette than they are the quality of education and have almost foresworn the problems with the Moroccan and Algerian populations in favor of the Arab refugees; in England the disparities over Scots and the Irish have been put aside to worry about the employment and education requirements of the Muslim Indian refugees, and in Germany, the concern with Turks has displaced recognition of Jewish issues ...Nearly overnight, it seems, the world is obsessed with acclimating to, absorbing, yielding to and incorporting the culture and language of a people we regarded as ignorant, backward, infidel in nature,bloodthirsty and heathen, not so long ago.
Would that we were so afraid of the perils of rampant Christianity.
Note: In earlier centuries,the Spaniards (in particular), always solved the problem of cultural and linguistic assimilation by simply trying to make everyone Catholic. That insidious and predatory (and arrogant) practice, coupled with the Inquisition, has not worked out so well, except to make Mexico City a safe place for the Pope to visit. And I dare say that catechism classes for the masses of Muslims will not get very far.
As for your query, "but how to remedy the situtation?" , I am stubbornly and narrow-mindedly in the camp of Robert Frost, on this one. Disregarding for a moment the question of which tongue do you speak when you are in which land, "When in Rome" rings a bell. If you are visiting, simple attempts at the mother tongue are acceptable and errors easily overlooked, since everyone knows you are going home soon. But if you reside, more less permanently, in a land where the mother tongue is other than your own, it would behoove you to learn it and speak it as best you can ( and my bias is that Hispanics in America are not excepted). Anything less is a gesture of disrespect. But back to Frost:
Frost said (approximately) that "to teach a person to write is to teach a person to think". And thinking, real thinking (I think), is encumbent upon all of us. And if you think, you arrive at ideas. And if you have ideas you must find a way to express them. And for that you need words, and often new words. The current mood that has been identified in the U.S. as "anti-intellectualism"reveals how not thinking precludes new ideas: recent town halls are regurgitations of old thinking and old ideas and old words.
If our educational systems, world-wide, (to mimick Ms. Scheslinger) were to focus upon teaching and enabling children to think and to ask "why", to be inquisitive and become logical searchers and researchers of meaning, they would learn to use the proper, appropriate and substantive words required to promote better understanding. (I might suggest, at this point, that immersion in the Bible or the Quoran does not lead to this lofty end. Thinking requires a working knowledge of cause and effect, and neither of these includes a clue as to either.)
Hedges (as in the piece I sent you), Safire (too bad), Carlin (way too bad), Chomsky, Maher, Reich, Buckley and Vonnegut are all some examples of linguists (my broken record is playing, again) who took (and take) the time to find the words to express their ideas. To them, I say, "Right on!", and "Awesome!" (Think about those two expressions as they relate to cause and effect)
And there are enough people down under who speak that almost-South Carolina garble the Aussies call "English" that any self-respecting Muslim ought to be able to pick it up. Blimey. I'll have a Foster's.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Not NecessarilyThe News
And people wonder why newspapers are dying....I saw this headline
Defense Bill, Lauded by White House, Contains Billions in Earmarks(article below)in the WaPo this morning, and when I saw "billions" in earmarks, I thought, "Holy Shit!", stopped and read the story. It turns out that the "billions" is $2.65B out of $636B. If you have a calculator, you will see that that the earmark amount (still obscene in the manner in which it is being proposed) amounts to something like .04184% of the total defense budget bill under consideration. The Post has ponied up an eye-popping headline which misleads and agitates but largely misses the point, while stirring up, no doubt, false conservative ire over big government and waste.
The "obscene" number really is the $636B, which is nearly as much as the two TARP bills that were passed. Those were done with great fanfare and furor and debate, that this gets nary a notice. In fact, the headline says that it is "Lauded by White House". Well jolly good. Why? It never comments about that.
Let's see: that $636B for one year of "defense" (which is offensive to most) is only 80% of $800B for ten years of national health care would cost (or only 71% if you use the $900B estimate from the GAO), or only $80B or $90B per year to fund and yet we cannot even get a reasonable bill passed to enable, enact and accomplish that, in any reasonable form that does not throw billions in profits back at the insurance companies. Good work, WaPo. You make your industry proud.
And speaking of health care and insurance reform, there was only one (1) article that I could find concerning those issues. Here is the byline: In Delivering Care, More Isn't Always Better, Experts Say, by By Ceci ConnollyWashington Post Staff Writer . The thrust (if there is one)is this:
Medical professionals say the fundamental problem in the nation's health-care system is the widespread misuse and overuse of tests, treatments and drugs that drive up prices, have little value to patients, and can pose serious risks. The question, they say, is not whether there will be rationing, but rather what will be rationed, and when and how.
To begin with, just out of curiousity, who is Ceci Connolly and what qualifies he/she to pontificate on health care? May I see some credentials, please? Or perhaps a birth certificate? Is Ceci even an American name? Is this journalism or idle time gossip?
Secondly, this story an as old as a 60 Minutes program on the subject from two years ago. We have heard this old saw 1,000 times before, and it has not changed, one iota. And there is no substantive discussion in the article about either single-payer or the public option or how much money Max Baucus has in his pocket from insurance companies. The WaPo is making damn certain that we stay as wholly unfocused as possible. Journalism should help us define what is wrong in such a way that a corrective can be envisioned. This article merely reheats already overcooked leftovers. It is a half-eaten Big Mac, retrieved from a dumpster. This makes this newspaper (I use the term loosely)the Washington Posthumous, publishing obits instead of birth announcements.
Both stories provide unspectacular reporting about unspectacular non-news. They are misleading and erroneously fanciful and take up space, while wasting energy. And while so many bemoan the death of the newspaper media, and Obama speaks lately (and glibly)of bailing out the industry, the WaPo is not doing much to further its' cause when it publishes tripe like this. Maybe we should put an earmark in the defense bill for that bailout. A story about that would surely make the front page..on Saturday.
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel149@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:43 AM
Message from sender: really?
Defense Bill, Lauded by White House, Contains Billions in Earmarks
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Sen. Thad Cochran's most recent reelection campaign collected more than $10,000 from University of Southern Mississippi professors and staff members, including three who work at the school's center for research on polymers. To a defense spending bill slated to be on the Senate floor Tuesday, the...
Do you love D.C.? Get the insider's guide to where to stay, what to do and where to eat. Go to www.washingtonpost.com/gog for your guide to D.C. now.
© 2009 The Washington Post Company Privacy Policy
Defense Bill, Lauded by White House, Contains Billions in Earmarks(article below)in the WaPo this morning, and when I saw "billions" in earmarks, I thought, "Holy Shit!", stopped and read the story. It turns out that the "billions" is $2.65B out of $636B. If you have a calculator, you will see that that the earmark amount (still obscene in the manner in which it is being proposed) amounts to something like .04184% of the total defense budget bill under consideration. The Post has ponied up an eye-popping headline which misleads and agitates but largely misses the point, while stirring up, no doubt, false conservative ire over big government and waste.
The "obscene" number really is the $636B, which is nearly as much as the two TARP bills that were passed. Those were done with great fanfare and furor and debate, that this gets nary a notice. In fact, the headline says that it is "Lauded by White House". Well jolly good. Why? It never comments about that.
Let's see: that $636B for one year of "defense" (which is offensive to most) is only 80% of $800B for ten years of national health care would cost (or only 71% if you use the $900B estimate from the GAO), or only $80B or $90B per year to fund and yet we cannot even get a reasonable bill passed to enable, enact and accomplish that, in any reasonable form that does not throw billions in profits back at the insurance companies. Good work, WaPo. You make your industry proud.
And speaking of health care and insurance reform, there was only one (1) article that I could find concerning those issues. Here is the byline: In Delivering Care, More Isn't Always Better, Experts Say, by By Ceci ConnollyWashington Post Staff Writer . The thrust (if there is one)is this:
Medical professionals say the fundamental problem in the nation's health-care system is the widespread misuse and overuse of tests, treatments and drugs that drive up prices, have little value to patients, and can pose serious risks. The question, they say, is not whether there will be rationing, but rather what will be rationed, and when and how.
To begin with, just out of curiousity, who is Ceci Connolly and what qualifies he/she to pontificate on health care? May I see some credentials, please? Or perhaps a birth certificate? Is Ceci even an American name? Is this journalism or idle time gossip?
Secondly, this story an as old as a 60 Minutes program on the subject from two years ago. We have heard this old saw 1,000 times before, and it has not changed, one iota. And there is no substantive discussion in the article about either single-payer or the public option or how much money Max Baucus has in his pocket from insurance companies. The WaPo is making damn certain that we stay as wholly unfocused as possible. Journalism should help us define what is wrong in such a way that a corrective can be envisioned. This article merely reheats already overcooked leftovers. It is a half-eaten Big Mac, retrieved from a dumpster. This makes this newspaper (I use the term loosely)the Washington Posthumous, publishing obits instead of birth announcements.
Both stories provide unspectacular reporting about unspectacular non-news. They are misleading and erroneously fanciful and take up space, while wasting energy. And while so many bemoan the death of the newspaper media, and Obama speaks lately (and glibly)of bailing out the industry, the WaPo is not doing much to further its' cause when it publishes tripe like this. Maybe we should put an earmark in the defense bill for that bailout. A story about that would surely make the front page..on Saturday.
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel149@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:43 AM
Message from sender: really?
Defense Bill, Lauded by White House, Contains Billions in Earmarks
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Sen. Thad Cochran's most recent reelection campaign collected more than $10,000 from University of Southern Mississippi professors and staff members, including three who work at the school's center for research on polymers. To a defense spending bill slated to be on the Senate floor Tuesday, the...
Do you love D.C.? Get the insider's guide to where to stay, what to do and where to eat. Go to www.washingtonpost.com/gog for your guide to D.C. now.
© 2009 The Washington Post Company Privacy Policy
Monday, September 28, 2009
Wisdom borrowed from Bageant
Nice to know I am not alone in my musings. Noam Chomsky has been telling us, for years, that we have a one party system, called the "corporatocracy" and nobody listens. If , like myself and many others I know, are on SS, SSDI and/or Medicare, this should not be a pleasant read.
When "capitalism" ceases to be entrepreurship, but instead morphs into greedy, limitless and shortsighted, quick gain expansionist enterprise, we have lost our way.
We found out much too late that "compassionate conservatism" and "trickle down economics" and cheerful Clintonite free trade agendas were a bunch of bunk, that, altogether led us into our economic disaster and it is time to consider some alternatives. One would be what I have come to call "humanitarian, community based capitalism", where we are able to say to the profiteers, "OK. Thanks. Enough is enough", and we level the playing field and give everyone a chance. But, as I seem to recall, that is called socialism, Marxism or communism, and then people want to hang me from a light pole for even mentioning the possibilities.
I think that the much ballyooed "free market economy" is intent on making certain that some people are "more freeer" than others...sorta like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm who were more equal than others. And then current day conservatives, Libertarians and other ideologues warn us that we should be afraid of Obama and socialism? It is precisely that inverse, obtuse logic that drives Wall St., General Electric and CocaCola.
And let's see: by my latest reckoning, the U.S. goverment owns most of Genral Motors. And the largest auto company in Russia is state owned as well. And then there is China....But I must stop here: I must run down to Home Despot and buy the plastic plumbing fixture I can no longer buy from the local hardware store that is no longer here.
Subject: AlterNet: There Was Nice Talk About 'Change' and 'Hope' But the Money Party There Was Nice Talk About 'Change' and 'Hope' But the Money Party Won Again> http://www.alternet.org/politics/142840>
When "capitalism" ceases to be entrepreurship, but instead morphs into greedy, limitless and shortsighted, quick gain expansionist enterprise, we have lost our way.
We found out much too late that "compassionate conservatism" and "trickle down economics" and cheerful Clintonite free trade agendas were a bunch of bunk, that, altogether led us into our economic disaster and it is time to consider some alternatives. One would be what I have come to call "humanitarian, community based capitalism", where we are able to say to the profiteers, "OK. Thanks. Enough is enough", and we level the playing field and give everyone a chance. But, as I seem to recall, that is called socialism, Marxism or communism, and then people want to hang me from a light pole for even mentioning the possibilities.
I think that the much ballyooed "free market economy" is intent on making certain that some people are "more freeer" than others...sorta like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm who were more equal than others. And then current day conservatives, Libertarians and other ideologues warn us that we should be afraid of Obama and socialism? It is precisely that inverse, obtuse logic that drives Wall St., General Electric and CocaCola.
And let's see: by my latest reckoning, the U.S. goverment owns most of Genral Motors. And the largest auto company in Russia is state owned as well. And then there is China....But I must stop here: I must run down to Home Despot and buy the plastic plumbing fixture I can no longer buy from the local hardware store that is no longer here.
Subject: AlterNet: There Was Nice Talk About 'Change' and 'Hope' But the Money Party There Was Nice Talk About 'Change' and 'Hope' But the Money Party Won Again> http://www.alternet.org/politics/142840>
Friday, September 18, 2009
Got up on the left side of the bed
Deb Dellapiana wrote an opinion piece at a blog site we shrae (sort of) this morning( you can read it here: http://turn-left.hypocrisy.com/2009/09/18/the-bait-and-switch-presidency/#comment-455), and I had to say a few words (Oh no! Not again!). Here goes:
You have correctly identified the largely presidential symptom of a deeper causality. Obama did not bait and switch, he just baited and did nothing. In a classic case of lousy customer service (and we are the customer), he "over-promised and under-delivered". One obvious result is that nearly the entire country has now decided to "Bitch and wait". They bitch about Wall St., a lack of jobs, foreclosures, too many immigrants, high taxes,expensive education, credit card rates, a lack of adequate (or any) health care, indifferent legislators and, under it all, having a black man as president. There are several ways to look at this. The first (spoken clearly by Maureen Dowd (NYT), Jimmy Carter (town hall), Eugene Roninson (WaPo) et. al.), is that the unrest over everything else has unearthed our nation's long-hidden dirty little secret: we are bigoted (we don't care much for women) and hugely racist( www.alternet.org/story/142630/). Nearly all of the other bitching and complaining is driven by the ugly truth that caucasian white America is overhelmingly terrified of having someone of color be the POTUS. So they irrationally yell and scream (and bitch) about everything else, most of which has been wrong for a very long time and was ignored, looked-over and glossed-over by an America, content to let Bush and Cheney shred the Constitution and pile up the national debt via the military. And the obfuscation is so insidious that when Jimmy Carter call us out on it, the WH soft-peddles it, the moderate democrats deny it and Rush Limbaugh calls Carter a rectal anatomical disorder on the radio (among other embarrassments).
The two-facted reason for this is that the citizenry of the US, just like the government and Obama, THINK TOO SMALL. The libertarians and the conservatives have it largely wrong about the size of government and our taxing structure: it is not too big, our thinking about it is too small and so we make the same old decisions about problem solving we always have and the problems remain. We think too small when we re-elect the same people over and over, who behave the same way,over and over because they/we think too small. And Obama is in over his head,unable to coerce a government of any size to work at all, because he thinks "too small" (using the internet to get elected is not big thinking: it is opportunism)and he is powerless to move a congress which wallows in thinking too small (which we elected by thinking too small), because (and here is the second facet):
As Noam Chomsky puts it (and writers like Naomi Klein confirm), we do not have a two-party system, we have a CORPORATOCRACY, driven by the money and influence of the greed-oriented big businesses and the shareholder corporations of America. And they pay the congressman (like Max Baucus) to contiue to think small and maintain the status quo. Tiny, old, repetitive thinking does not give birth to big, new bold ideas (which we desperately need). And politicians (including the newly elected Obama) and are more concerned with becoming re-elected than they are with performing the tasks for which they elected in the first place.
So we bitch and wait. We are victims of our own complacency, old habits, small thinking, and lack of courage to challenge the status quo, as long as have enough to get by. We are content to let our rights get taken away and/or abused, to allow the conservative mentality to say, "I've got mone, screw you", and happy to get through the day living on Fox News, instant consumer gratification and lousy non-nutritional fast food. And we let the government pacify us with programs like "Cash For Clunkers" (which turns out to be an anti-economic recovery program to benefit Detroit auto makers and finance companies). We are numb from shock and awe (Naomi Klein, again) and live in a perpetual fear of losing even more than we have already. And we are angry and unhappy. We can rant and rave, we can yell and scream , but we cannot innovate. We cannot "think big" or elect anyone who can, either, from all appearances.
The citizenry of America is, at the moment, anti-intellectual, non- analytical, anti-investigative, racially biased, narrow-minded, complacent and unwilling to upset the status quo apple cart because it might be a little difficult or cause some short-term (or long-term) hardships in order to prevent the ship from sinking (which it is).
So we bitch and wait. We paint ugly signs and march about the wrong issues, paint Hitler faces on the president, listen to Glenn Beck and O'Reilly and McConnel and Enzi and let Baucus screw us and keep thinking small and prolonging the misery of doing nothing new. We allow the fear of possible poverty and of any non-white, non-Christian movement to keep us inert: it makes self delusional bitching easier. has anyone simply come out openly and conjectred that Glenn Beck is just plain crazy? I mean,"nuts" as in mentally ill?
Sadly, perhaps Obama has realized that the conundrum and behemoth of old/small political thinking in America is much bigger than he is. So right now, he is doing what every American institution has always done to stay alive and prosper: he is conducting a very aggressive marketing campaign, by being on the television and making speeches every five minutes,in an attempt to prevent us from seeing the real problems of big money and ignore the real manipulations of our corporatocracy. He is pulling an empty delivery wagon down main street. But he is a parade of one and the emporer has no clothes.
As long as we bitch and wait, Obama, Boehner, Pelosi,Wall St., big insurance, big pharma, big energy and the off-shore banks are safe and secure. But we are fooling ourselves: we are really bitching that the system does not work and is failing quickly, and have unkowingly discovered that we can try to blame the failure on a black man (again). And beneath all of that we wait. We wait for a savior or an economic/cultural messiah to save us from everything we brought upon ourselves through our innattention to detail, small thinking and repeated social episodes of uncritical observation. And all we know is that we don't want that savior to be anything other than white, male, protestant and from Iowa.
You have correctly identified the largely presidential symptom of a deeper causality. Obama did not bait and switch, he just baited and did nothing. In a classic case of lousy customer service (and we are the customer), he "over-promised and under-delivered". One obvious result is that nearly the entire country has now decided to "Bitch and wait". They bitch about Wall St., a lack of jobs, foreclosures, too many immigrants, high taxes,expensive education, credit card rates, a lack of adequate (or any) health care, indifferent legislators and, under it all, having a black man as president. There are several ways to look at this. The first (spoken clearly by Maureen Dowd (NYT), Jimmy Carter (town hall), Eugene Roninson (WaPo) et. al.), is that the unrest over everything else has unearthed our nation's long-hidden dirty little secret: we are bigoted (we don't care much for women) and hugely racist( www.alternet.org/story/142630/). Nearly all of the other bitching and complaining is driven by the ugly truth that caucasian white America is overhelmingly terrified of having someone of color be the POTUS. So they irrationally yell and scream (and bitch) about everything else, most of which has been wrong for a very long time and was ignored, looked-over and glossed-over by an America, content to let Bush and Cheney shred the Constitution and pile up the national debt via the military. And the obfuscation is so insidious that when Jimmy Carter call us out on it, the WH soft-peddles it, the moderate democrats deny it and Rush Limbaugh calls Carter a rectal anatomical disorder on the radio (among other embarrassments).
The two-facted reason for this is that the citizenry of the US, just like the government and Obama, THINK TOO SMALL. The libertarians and the conservatives have it largely wrong about the size of government and our taxing structure: it is not too big, our thinking about it is too small and so we make the same old decisions about problem solving we always have and the problems remain. We think too small when we re-elect the same people over and over, who behave the same way,over and over because they/we think too small. And Obama is in over his head,unable to coerce a government of any size to work at all, because he thinks "too small" (using the internet to get elected is not big thinking: it is opportunism)and he is powerless to move a congress which wallows in thinking too small (which we elected by thinking too small), because (and here is the second facet):
As Noam Chomsky puts it (and writers like Naomi Klein confirm), we do not have a two-party system, we have a CORPORATOCRACY, driven by the money and influence of the greed-oriented big businesses and the shareholder corporations of America. And they pay the congressman (like Max Baucus) to contiue to think small and maintain the status quo. Tiny, old, repetitive thinking does not give birth to big, new bold ideas (which we desperately need). And politicians (including the newly elected Obama) and are more concerned with becoming re-elected than they are with performing the tasks for which they elected in the first place.
So we bitch and wait. We are victims of our own complacency, old habits, small thinking, and lack of courage to challenge the status quo, as long as have enough to get by. We are content to let our rights get taken away and/or abused, to allow the conservative mentality to say, "I've got mone, screw you", and happy to get through the day living on Fox News, instant consumer gratification and lousy non-nutritional fast food. And we let the government pacify us with programs like "Cash For Clunkers" (which turns out to be an anti-economic recovery program to benefit Detroit auto makers and finance companies). We are numb from shock and awe (Naomi Klein, again) and live in a perpetual fear of losing even more than we have already. And we are angry and unhappy. We can rant and rave, we can yell and scream , but we cannot innovate. We cannot "think big" or elect anyone who can, either, from all appearances.
The citizenry of America is, at the moment, anti-intellectual, non- analytical, anti-investigative, racially biased, narrow-minded, complacent and unwilling to upset the status quo apple cart because it might be a little difficult or cause some short-term (or long-term) hardships in order to prevent the ship from sinking (which it is).
So we bitch and wait. We paint ugly signs and march about the wrong issues, paint Hitler faces on the president, listen to Glenn Beck and O'Reilly and McConnel and Enzi and let Baucus screw us and keep thinking small and prolonging the misery of doing nothing new. We allow the fear of possible poverty and of any non-white, non-Christian movement to keep us inert: it makes self delusional bitching easier. has anyone simply come out openly and conjectred that Glenn Beck is just plain crazy? I mean,"nuts" as in mentally ill?
Sadly, perhaps Obama has realized that the conundrum and behemoth of old/small political thinking in America is much bigger than he is. So right now, he is doing what every American institution has always done to stay alive and prosper: he is conducting a very aggressive marketing campaign, by being on the television and making speeches every five minutes,in an attempt to prevent us from seeing the real problems of big money and ignore the real manipulations of our corporatocracy. He is pulling an empty delivery wagon down main street. But he is a parade of one and the emporer has no clothes.
As long as we bitch and wait, Obama, Boehner, Pelosi,Wall St., big insurance, big pharma, big energy and the off-shore banks are safe and secure. But we are fooling ourselves: we are really bitching that the system does not work and is failing quickly, and have unkowingly discovered that we can try to blame the failure on a black man (again). And beneath all of that we wait. We wait for a savior or an economic/cultural messiah to save us from everything we brought upon ourselves through our innattention to detail, small thinking and repeated social episodes of uncritical observation. And all we know is that we don't want that savior to be anything other than white, male, protestant and from Iowa.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Proselytizing By Accident
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-05/inside-sarahs-church/?cid=bsa:mostpopular1
The various religious fundamentalists, deranged self-proclaimed luminaries, ritual sectarians and cultists who comprise groups like "Sarah's Church", Rev. Wright's isolated enclave-types, the ultra-conservative Jewish groups, primitive baptist snake-handlers, pseudo-oriental acseticists and miltant radical Islamists (to name but a few),
many of whom adhere to, promulgate and blindly wallow in strict misinterpretations of curiously arcane and out-moded ideological tenets and mythologies, thereby disabling their cognitive faculties and their awareness of reality,
therefore insisting to pretend to live in another, older, by-gone, anti-intellectual and unenlightened era...
are people practicing "religious pornography": they take what were in infancy good, purposeful and positive notions, and transform them into mental smut and emotional disingenuousness.
And those "other" people (like the author of the article above), who lend to these movements some degree of credibility and plausbility, by writing about them (with much of the same zealous bigotry they themselves decry)are literary voyeurs, using editorial gossip to describe the "oral" mental masturbatory rituals being performed. They proselytize by accident, by pouring gasoline on the fire and increasing the acrid nature of the smoke.
We would learn more about humanity by reading back issues of Playboy or Hustler. This sort of commentary is merely a lurid and arrogantly disdainful version of People magazine.
The various religious fundamentalists, deranged self-proclaimed luminaries, ritual sectarians and cultists who comprise groups like "Sarah's Church", Rev. Wright's isolated enclave-types, the ultra-conservative Jewish groups, primitive baptist snake-handlers, pseudo-oriental acseticists and miltant radical Islamists (to name but a few),
many of whom adhere to, promulgate and blindly wallow in strict misinterpretations of curiously arcane and out-moded ideological tenets and mythologies, thereby disabling their cognitive faculties and their awareness of reality,
therefore insisting to pretend to live in another, older, by-gone, anti-intellectual and unenlightened era...
are people practicing "religious pornography": they take what were in infancy good, purposeful and positive notions, and transform them into mental smut and emotional disingenuousness.
And those "other" people (like the author of the article above), who lend to these movements some degree of credibility and plausbility, by writing about them (with much of the same zealous bigotry they themselves decry)are literary voyeurs, using editorial gossip to describe the "oral" mental masturbatory rituals being performed. They proselytize by accident, by pouring gasoline on the fire and increasing the acrid nature of the smoke.
We would learn more about humanity by reading back issues of Playboy or Hustler. This sort of commentary is merely a lurid and arrogantly disdainful version of People magazine.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Responding to a Naderite
Thanks, Clint. While the "right" may be the worst abusers in this category, methinks the left is often just as guilty. And I think the "langage as symbols" you are referring to is really more a matter as "language as a weapon"...however...
The dance partner, whom I have brought along to the masquerade brawl of human understanding, for quite some time now, is the one that leads me to "linguists" for answers, insight and authenticity. I no longer rely upon politicians or their spokespersons, ideological promoters, "advocates", commentators (who twist what is already twisted to make their own point: Fox Noise?), pundits (Buchanan?), moderators (who don't really moderate: think Presidential debates) , faux observers, "columnists", or orators and rhetoriticians to help me understand what I have just been smilingly "told". They are a uniformly unreliable group.
My chosen "linguists", our generation's "straight talkers", range from Bill Moyers, to Bill Maher and Noam Chomsky, to Robert Reich, John Stewart, Jane Hamsher,George Carlin and even Paul Krugman, UT Professor Galbraith and William Grieder... even though some are thought of more as economists or comedians. But they deliver understandable language and word constructs that reveal the real meaning and import behind the endless facade' of multi-syllabic stew delivered by wordy alchemists of confusion like Frank Luntz.
NOTE: Luntz, by the way, is no "word wizard", as Nader would have us believe. He is a malevolent manipulator of simple truths, the worst of a bad breed, who clouds and obfuscates for evil purposes, and does so with glee and gusto. (I cannot think of an exact Luntzian counterpart on the left, but if you listen to Harry Reid, Keith Olberman or Gov. Dean, any of the progressive bloggers or to any of the carefully crafted Obamaspeaks, the same admixture of obscure implications and insinuations exists in all those as well).
Mr. Nader is right,of course, as usual, but a little late to the party. The founding fathers knew, over 200 years ago, how bumblingly wrong this democracy could all go through psycho-babble (and it has: look at the complete non-separation of church and state?) and worked tirelessly against the possibilities. Even Dwight Eisenhower warned that "something evil" was afoot with the military industrial complex, and today we spend SEVEN times more on defense and weaponry than any other nation in the world. I think "Blackwater"is a pretty lame euphemism for "security". And of course, we cannot wait to "give" democacy to the Iraqis and the Afghans.
What Nader should be railing against the loudest is the resultant cultural-behavorial outgrowth of this vocabularistic nightmare: nobody trusts anything anybody says. And when this mistrust erupts into non-sensical shouting matches and causes people to behave irrationally enough to bring AR-15 assault weapons to public gatherings and town hall meetings, the cumulative effect is civic chaos and nearly irreparable polarity and division. The state of our communal mental health comes into question and we live on the edge of violence. Blind understanding, caused by such far reaching deception, leads to blind rage. Everybody thinks everybody else is full of shit. Plain enough?
The three authors that Nader lauds for their recent efforts are not so much practicing "semantic discipline" (What the hell THAT, exactly,anyway , Mr. Nader? How many times have we heard someone dismiss a remark, by saying, "Well,it's all just semantics, anyway"?), as they are demonstrating appropriate applicability and some much overdue linguistic precision and clarity. (Let's see: I think the word transparency comes to mind: whatever happened to that famous campiagn buzzword, Barack?) Moreover, these writers, along with many other capable linguists, are the communicators that we can count on to come through "in the pinch", and tell us what we need to know, when we are forced, finally, to ask our "leadership" to "Tell us, please, what you really mean?"
Mr. Nader could have just easily said that we need to stop being thoroughly "euphemized" before we become completely mentally "euthanized". I wonder if these language abusers that Mr. Nader bemoans are the "Death Panels" of our public awareness?
And I used as many $10.00 words in this response as I could manage, so that everyone could blame me for being just as guilty of obfscation as everyone else I am complaining about.
END.
----- Original Message -----
From: Clint Ritter
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Words Matter - Nader
Great column, if you're interested in language as symbols, and how they have been manipulated by the right.............CR
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Ralph Nader <info@nader.org>Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:56 PMSubject: Words MatterTo: alerts@lists.nader.orgEver wonder what’s happening to words once they fall into the hands of corporate and government propagandists? Too often reporters and editors don’t wonder enough. They ditto the words even when the result is deception or doubletalk.Here are some examples. Day in and day out we read about “detainees” imprisoned for months or years by the federal government in the U.S., Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn’t the media know that the correct word is “prisoners,” regardless of what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld disseminated?The raging debate and controversy over health insurance and the $2.5 trillion spent this year on health care involves consumers and “providers.” How touching to describe sellers or vendors, often gouging, denying benefits, manipulating fine print contracts, cheating Medicare and Medicaid in the tens of billions as “providers.”I always thought “providers” were persons taking care of their families or engaging in charitable service. Somehow, the dictionary definition does not fit the frequently avaricious profiles of Aetna, United Healthcare, Pfizer and Merck.“Privatization” and the “private sector” are widespread euphemisms that the press falls for daily. Moving government owned assets or functions into corporate hands, as with Blackwater, Halliburton, and the conglomerates now controlling public highways, prisons, and drinking water systems is “corporatization,” not the soft imagery of going “private” or into the “private sector.” It is the corporate sector!“Medical malpractice reform” is another misnomer. It used to mean restricting the legal rights of wrongfully injured people by hospitals and doctors, or limiting the liability of these corporate vendors when their negligence harms innocent patients. Well, to anybody interested in straight talk, “medical malpractice reform” or the “medical malpractice crisis” should apply to bad or negligent practices by medical professionals. After all, about 100,000 people die every year from physician/hospital malpractice, according to a Harvard School of Public Health report. Hundreds of thousands are rendered sick or injured, not to mention even larger tolls from hospital-induced infections. Proposed “reforms” are sticking it to the wrong people—the patients—not the sellers.“Free trade” is a widely used euphemism. It is corporate managed trade as evidenced in hundreds of pages of rules favoring corporations in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. “Free trade” lowers barriers between countries so that cartels, unjustified patent monopolies, counterfeiting, contraband, and other harmful practices and products can move around the world unhindered.What is remarkable about the constant use of these words is that they permeate the language even if those who stand against the policies of those who first coin these euphemisms. You’ll read about “detainees” and “providers” and “privatization” and “private sector” and “free trade” in the pages of the Nation and Progressive magazines, at progressive conferences with progressive leaders, and during media interviews. After people point out these boomeranging words to them, still nothing changes. Their habit is chronic.A lot of who we are, of what we do and think is expressed through the language we choose. The word tends to become the thing in our mind as Stuart Chase pointed out seventy years ago in his classic work The Tyranny of Words. Let us stop disrespecting the dictionary! Let’s stop succumbing to the propagandists and the public relations tricksters!Frank Luntz—the word wizard for the Republicans who invented the term “death tax” to replace “estate tax” is so contemptuous of the Democratic Party’s verbal ineptitude (such as using “public option” instead of “public choice” and regularly using the above-noted misnomers) that he dares them by offering free advice to the Democrats. He suggests they could counteract his “death tax” with their own term “the billionaires’ tax.” There were no Democratic takers. Remember, words matter.Using words that are accurate and at face value is one of the characteristics of a good book. Three new books stand out for their straight talk. In Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-party Tyranny, Theresa Amato, my former campaign manager, exposes the obstructions that deny voter choice by the two major parties for third party and independent candidates. Just out is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Pulitzer Prize winner, Chris Hedges. Lastly, the boisterous, mischievous short autobiography of that free spirit, Jerry Lee Wilson , The Soloflex Story: An American Parable.Not withstanding their different styles, these authors exercise semantic discipline.End.
The dance partner, whom I have brought along to the masquerade brawl of human understanding, for quite some time now, is the one that leads me to "linguists" for answers, insight and authenticity. I no longer rely upon politicians or their spokespersons, ideological promoters, "advocates", commentators (who twist what is already twisted to make their own point: Fox Noise?), pundits (Buchanan?), moderators (who don't really moderate: think Presidential debates) , faux observers, "columnists", or orators and rhetoriticians to help me understand what I have just been smilingly "told". They are a uniformly unreliable group.
My chosen "linguists", our generation's "straight talkers", range from Bill Moyers, to Bill Maher and Noam Chomsky, to Robert Reich, John Stewart, Jane Hamsher,George Carlin and even Paul Krugman, UT Professor Galbraith and William Grieder... even though some are thought of more as economists or comedians. But they deliver understandable language and word constructs that reveal the real meaning and import behind the endless facade' of multi-syllabic stew delivered by wordy alchemists of confusion like Frank Luntz.
NOTE: Luntz, by the way, is no "word wizard", as Nader would have us believe. He is a malevolent manipulator of simple truths, the worst of a bad breed, who clouds and obfuscates for evil purposes, and does so with glee and gusto. (I cannot think of an exact Luntzian counterpart on the left, but if you listen to Harry Reid, Keith Olberman or Gov. Dean, any of the progressive bloggers or to any of the carefully crafted Obamaspeaks, the same admixture of obscure implications and insinuations exists in all those as well).
Mr. Nader is right,of course, as usual, but a little late to the party. The founding fathers knew, over 200 years ago, how bumblingly wrong this democracy could all go through psycho-babble (and it has: look at the complete non-separation of church and state?) and worked tirelessly against the possibilities. Even Dwight Eisenhower warned that "something evil" was afoot with the military industrial complex, and today we spend SEVEN times more on defense and weaponry than any other nation in the world. I think "Blackwater"is a pretty lame euphemism for "security". And of course, we cannot wait to "give" democacy to the Iraqis and the Afghans.
What Nader should be railing against the loudest is the resultant cultural-behavorial outgrowth of this vocabularistic nightmare: nobody trusts anything anybody says. And when this mistrust erupts into non-sensical shouting matches and causes people to behave irrationally enough to bring AR-15 assault weapons to public gatherings and town hall meetings, the cumulative effect is civic chaos and nearly irreparable polarity and division. The state of our communal mental health comes into question and we live on the edge of violence. Blind understanding, caused by such far reaching deception, leads to blind rage. Everybody thinks everybody else is full of shit. Plain enough?
The three authors that Nader lauds for their recent efforts are not so much practicing "semantic discipline" (What the hell THAT, exactly,anyway , Mr. Nader? How many times have we heard someone dismiss a remark, by saying, "Well,it's all just semantics, anyway"?), as they are demonstrating appropriate applicability and some much overdue linguistic precision and clarity. (Let's see: I think the word transparency comes to mind: whatever happened to that famous campiagn buzzword, Barack?) Moreover, these writers, along with many other capable linguists, are the communicators that we can count on to come through "in the pinch", and tell us what we need to know, when we are forced, finally, to ask our "leadership" to "Tell us, please, what you really mean?"
Mr. Nader could have just easily said that we need to stop being thoroughly "euphemized" before we become completely mentally "euthanized". I wonder if these language abusers that Mr. Nader bemoans are the "Death Panels" of our public awareness?
And I used as many $10.00 words in this response as I could manage, so that everyone could blame me for being just as guilty of obfscation as everyone else I am complaining about.
END.
----- Original Message -----
From: Clint Ritter
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 6:07 PM
Subject: Fwd: Words Matter - Nader
Great column, if you're interested in language as symbols, and how they have been manipulated by the right.............CR
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Ralph Nader <info@nader.org>Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:56 PMSubject: Words MatterTo: alerts@lists.nader.orgEver wonder what’s happening to words once they fall into the hands of corporate and government propagandists? Too often reporters and editors don’t wonder enough. They ditto the words even when the result is deception or doubletalk.Here are some examples. Day in and day out we read about “detainees” imprisoned for months or years by the federal government in the U.S., Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn’t the media know that the correct word is “prisoners,” regardless of what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld disseminated?The raging debate and controversy over health insurance and the $2.5 trillion spent this year on health care involves consumers and “providers.” How touching to describe sellers or vendors, often gouging, denying benefits, manipulating fine print contracts, cheating Medicare and Medicaid in the tens of billions as “providers.”I always thought “providers” were persons taking care of their families or engaging in charitable service. Somehow, the dictionary definition does not fit the frequently avaricious profiles of Aetna, United Healthcare, Pfizer and Merck.“Privatization” and the “private sector” are widespread euphemisms that the press falls for daily. Moving government owned assets or functions into corporate hands, as with Blackwater, Halliburton, and the conglomerates now controlling public highways, prisons, and drinking water systems is “corporatization,” not the soft imagery of going “private” or into the “private sector.” It is the corporate sector!“Medical malpractice reform” is another misnomer. It used to mean restricting the legal rights of wrongfully injured people by hospitals and doctors, or limiting the liability of these corporate vendors when their negligence harms innocent patients. Well, to anybody interested in straight talk, “medical malpractice reform” or the “medical malpractice crisis” should apply to bad or negligent practices by medical professionals. After all, about 100,000 people die every year from physician/hospital malpractice, according to a Harvard School of Public Health report. Hundreds of thousands are rendered sick or injured, not to mention even larger tolls from hospital-induced infections. Proposed “reforms” are sticking it to the wrong people—the patients—not the sellers.“Free trade” is a widely used euphemism. It is corporate managed trade as evidenced in hundreds of pages of rules favoring corporations in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. “Free trade” lowers barriers between countries so that cartels, unjustified patent monopolies, counterfeiting, contraband, and other harmful practices and products can move around the world unhindered.What is remarkable about the constant use of these words is that they permeate the language even if those who stand against the policies of those who first coin these euphemisms. You’ll read about “detainees” and “providers” and “privatization” and “private sector” and “free trade” in the pages of the Nation and Progressive magazines, at progressive conferences with progressive leaders, and during media interviews. After people point out these boomeranging words to them, still nothing changes. Their habit is chronic.A lot of who we are, of what we do and think is expressed through the language we choose. The word tends to become the thing in our mind as Stuart Chase pointed out seventy years ago in his classic work The Tyranny of Words. Let us stop disrespecting the dictionary! Let’s stop succumbing to the propagandists and the public relations tricksters!Frank Luntz—the word wizard for the Republicans who invented the term “death tax” to replace “estate tax” is so contemptuous of the Democratic Party’s verbal ineptitude (such as using “public option” instead of “public choice” and regularly using the above-noted misnomers) that he dares them by offering free advice to the Democrats. He suggests they could counteract his “death tax” with their own term “the billionaires’ tax.” There were no Democratic takers. Remember, words matter.Using words that are accurate and at face value is one of the characteristics of a good book. Three new books stand out for their straight talk. In Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-party Tyranny, Theresa Amato, my former campaign manager, exposes the obstructions that deny voter choice by the two major parties for third party and independent candidates. Just out is Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Pulitzer Prize winner, Chris Hedges. Lastly, the boisterous, mischievous short autobiography of that free spirit, Jerry Lee Wilson , The Soloflex Story: An American Parable.Not withstanding their different styles, these authors exercise semantic discipline.End.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Addendum to "Send More"
This came unsolicited. You might like the video. I did.
Hi Ivan,I read your post about Afghanistan where you compare the military effortto that of Viet Nam. In your post, you point out that military operativeshave an incentive to wage war. I think the following video will fit wellin your post:http://www.newsy.com/videos/afghanistan_strategy_more_troops_or_new_tacticsThe video uses multiple news sources to examine how the media are framingthe implications of the recently released Mc Chrystal report calling forincreased troop levels in Afghanistan. It compares these sources toquestion alternatives to increased military commitment in the region. Ihope you will consider embedding the video in The Way I See Things.Newsy.com videos analyze news coverage of important issues from multiplesources. Its unique method of presenting how different media outlets arecovering a story gives context to complex policy issues.Please let me know if you have any questions,Rosa Sowrosa@newsy.com
Hi Ivan,I read your post about Afghanistan where you compare the military effortto that of Viet Nam. In your post, you point out that military operativeshave an incentive to wage war. I think the following video will fit wellin your post:http://www.newsy.com/videos/afghanistan_strategy_more_troops_or_new_tacticsThe video uses multiple news sources to examine how the media are framingthe implications of the recently released Mc Chrystal report calling forincreased troop levels in Afghanistan. It compares these sources toquestion alternatives to increased military commitment in the region. Ihope you will consider embedding the video in The Way I See Things.Newsy.com videos analyze news coverage of important issues from multiplesources. Its unique method of presenting how different media outlets arecovering a story gives context to complex policy issues.Please let me know if you have any questions,Rosa Sowrosa@newsy.com
Send more!
Yesterday I blogged the report (from Politico), that the famed conservative columnist and pundit George Will had said that it is time to pull troops back from a seemingly un-winnable situation in Afghani-whats-its-place. The narrative noted that this surprising recommendation was coming, not only from a most unlikely source, but also just ahead of what would probably be a request from the General in Charge (that is a GIC, which is military lingo for geek) to raise the current troop level there by 21,000...which it just did (see below) This is after, you may recall, that even the SecDef (Deaf Sec?), Mr. Gates, a warmed over never-was-a-real-GIC from G.W. Bush... whom the benificient Obama allowed to keep his "over-all-the -other GICs " desk job... gave a "lukewarm" assessment of the situation and does not sound like he is very hot to up the ante in the anti-Taliban sand dune and poppy conflict: all this while Karzai practices US style-politics and steals the national election: perhaps Karzai thinks Afghanistan is Florida? If you hang enough chads you can be President? That whole process gores me.
At any rate, during the Bill Moyers interview by Bill Maher (which I so gleefully and enthusiastically forwarded to everyone on my blog list, as well), Moyers told the symbolic tale of a President standing before a large group of advisors, some of whom were military, asking what should be done to address a current conflict. After the suggestion was made to "send more troops, the President asks, "Are 20,000 enough?", and a military man says, "Send more". So the POTUS asks, "Are 40,000 enough?", and a miliary man says, "Send more". And when the President asks if 60,000 will do the trick, the military again responds, "Send more".
The job of the military is to make war, not achieve peace, and they will never be happy unless conflicts can be non-resolved and escalated and we spend more on troop deployments, bigger and more powerful weapons and maintain a devil-may-care attitude about how much collateral damage to the civilian population will be incurred. Hence, the answer will always be, "Send more". Lyndon Johnson kept following that advice concerning Viet Nam until Walter Cronkite exercised his influence on the American evening news audience and the citizenry of the U.S. said, "Enough!" and we took to the streets.
Inasmuch as there is no collateral damage occuring in this country, and the returning body bags and flag draped coffins are kept largely out of view (only George Stephanopolous tells us every week who and how many died), the majority of the American people are not either well enough informed or sufficiently outraged to tell Obama, "Enough!". This insulation from the reality of war in the middle East, and the passivity, prolonged ignorance about the horrors of the war and collective public indifference will continue to produce a deafening silence, about not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also about the current (and much obscured) debate about Cheney, the CIA, Blackwater and torture. Sadly, it seems as if the Geneva Convetion is thought by most Americans to be a rock band you can view on YouTube.
But the issue of the morning, the moment and of the week is Afghanistan. And in the face of an almost certainly untenable situation, where it is highly doubtful that US forces can "win" anything, in a country that does not want us, democracy or any other form of interference, the decision to "send more" looks suspiciously like the urging of idiots. Fools rush in, and later many are dead. Several other "empires" figured that one out, about Afghanistan, long ago. For a nation of smart people,we are pretty dumb.
A military escalation at this juncture will not even be as dubiously productive and worthwhile as the "Cash for Clunkers" ("Spend more!") elixir that was poured down the economic throats of the US public and Detroit ...and the benefits of that adventure are yet to be determned, to be sure. But many people are very happy with their new 18 MPG Cadillac hybrid Escalade that gets 4 MPG better than their "old" gas-guzzler version. Go figure. We sure know how to take THOSE to the streets!
Obama needs to say no and deny this both looney and lame-brained request to achieve a "conflict resolution" by "sending more troops" and broadening the nature of the conflict through troop escalation...because it doe not resolve anything. Although many are sick of hearing it , because everyone quotes it but does nothing to heed it, the fabled definition of insanity (from Albert Einstein) is "continuing to do the same old things you've always done and expecting to get different results" is still quite true. And the reality of this "send more" mentality is far more than merely disheartening. "Inane" comes to mind. Does anyone know the difference betwen an escalation and an Escalade?
We keep kicking this big fence post, over and over again, and getting a very sore toe. Are we just stupid and numb, or numb and stupid? Or are we just dumb and dumber? But let's"send more!". "Kick it again!" "Keep beating that dead horse until it comes back to life!" I think I am hearing Stephen Colbert in the distance.
----- Original Message -----
From: Clint Ritter
To: Ivan H
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:04 AM
Subject: ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083101100.html
It may be time to replace General McChrystal with General George Will...........CR
At any rate, during the Bill Moyers interview by Bill Maher (which I so gleefully and enthusiastically forwarded to everyone on my blog list, as well), Moyers told the symbolic tale of a President standing before a large group of advisors, some of whom were military, asking what should be done to address a current conflict. After the suggestion was made to "send more troops, the President asks, "Are 20,000 enough?", and a military man says, "Send more". So the POTUS asks, "Are 40,000 enough?", and a miliary man says, "Send more". And when the President asks if 60,000 will do the trick, the military again responds, "Send more".
The job of the military is to make war, not achieve peace, and they will never be happy unless conflicts can be non-resolved and escalated and we spend more on troop deployments, bigger and more powerful weapons and maintain a devil-may-care attitude about how much collateral damage to the civilian population will be incurred. Hence, the answer will always be, "Send more". Lyndon Johnson kept following that advice concerning Viet Nam until Walter Cronkite exercised his influence on the American evening news audience and the citizenry of the U.S. said, "Enough!" and we took to the streets.
Inasmuch as there is no collateral damage occuring in this country, and the returning body bags and flag draped coffins are kept largely out of view (only George Stephanopolous tells us every week who and how many died), the majority of the American people are not either well enough informed or sufficiently outraged to tell Obama, "Enough!". This insulation from the reality of war in the middle East, and the passivity, prolonged ignorance about the horrors of the war and collective public indifference will continue to produce a deafening silence, about not only the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also about the current (and much obscured) debate about Cheney, the CIA, Blackwater and torture. Sadly, it seems as if the Geneva Convetion is thought by most Americans to be a rock band you can view on YouTube.
But the issue of the morning, the moment and of the week is Afghanistan. And in the face of an almost certainly untenable situation, where it is highly doubtful that US forces can "win" anything, in a country that does not want us, democracy or any other form of interference, the decision to "send more" looks suspiciously like the urging of idiots. Fools rush in, and later many are dead. Several other "empires" figured that one out, about Afghanistan, long ago. For a nation of smart people,we are pretty dumb.
A military escalation at this juncture will not even be as dubiously productive and worthwhile as the "Cash for Clunkers" ("Spend more!") elixir that was poured down the economic throats of the US public and Detroit ...and the benefits of that adventure are yet to be determned, to be sure. But many people are very happy with their new 18 MPG Cadillac hybrid Escalade that gets 4 MPG better than their "old" gas-guzzler version. Go figure. We sure know how to take THOSE to the streets!
Obama needs to say no and deny this both looney and lame-brained request to achieve a "conflict resolution" by "sending more troops" and broadening the nature of the conflict through troop escalation...because it doe not resolve anything. Although many are sick of hearing it , because everyone quotes it but does nothing to heed it, the fabled definition of insanity (from Albert Einstein) is "continuing to do the same old things you've always done and expecting to get different results" is still quite true. And the reality of this "send more" mentality is far more than merely disheartening. "Inane" comes to mind. Does anyone know the difference betwen an escalation and an Escalade?
We keep kicking this big fence post, over and over again, and getting a very sore toe. Are we just stupid and numb, or numb and stupid? Or are we just dumb and dumber? But let's"send more!". "Kick it again!" "Keep beating that dead horse until it comes back to life!" I think I am hearing Stephen Colbert in the distance.
----- Original Message -----
From: Clint Ritter
To: Ivan H
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 5:04 AM
Subject: ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083101100.html
It may be time to replace General McChrystal with General George Will...........CR
Friday, August 7, 2009
Cash For Clunkers
This program spends a small amount of taxpayer money (relative to the size of bail-out packages) on a paliative program which puts perfectly serviceable used cars, that "regular"people could buy and drive, into junk heaps, money in the pockets of new car dealers ( who are too many and too rich), does nothing to put money in the pockets of those much ballyhooed "small businesses" like auto parts dealers and local auto repair shops (who cannot afford health insurance coverage for their employees), forces people to "feel good", gives swine flu shots to dead car companies like Chrysler (extended life support), does nothing to encourge plastic recycling, wastes dirty coal-fired electrical energy to grind up old cars that needn't be, lies to people about energy savings and makes them "feel good", will create mountains of used tires, make some people "feel good" and give those people with enough money to afford a new car one helluva deal (and feel good) on a new car/truck which may not be much more fuel efficient than the "clunker" which wasn't that they just let the dealer "kill". And it will sell lots of registration stickers and new license plates, fool people into "feeling good", give insurance companies a "reason" to up the ante on insurance rates for new, more expensive-to-repair autos and no doubt put money in the pockets of the auto industry leeches that sell extended warranties. But people with jobs will feel good by believing they are helping the economy by saving (?) $4500.00 of the money that we borrowed from China to let them give to a local dealer to give to a banker who got the money from Goldman Sachs...money which we will have to pay back later in taxes. But they will feel good. The program is too little too late, treats symptoms instead of causes (we should have challenged the auto companies to build cars with much better EPA standards decades ago) and puts a clown face on a social and environmental calamity. But is makes people feel good and creates another distraction. And the program does nothing to promote new technology: aside from a Prius or Insight or forty, most of the new, non-clunkers are still only oil and gas burning technological antiques. But buying anything new ( think flat-panel HDTV) makes people "feel good".
And Joe the Plumber can buy a new truck to drive to the town hall meeting where he speaks out against government programs and socialized health care, after he used his Medicare coverage to pay for his doctor visit after he hurt his back, reaching through the drive-through window (with engine idling) at the bank, cashing his Social Security check. So he can feel good. Note: he will feel even better after he stops at the drive-through window (with new engine idling) at the pharmacy to pick up his pain pills from the big drug company that opposes reduced drug costs and single-payer health coverage and homeopathic research.
The economy is badly in need of very serious surgery and a complete engine/drivetrain overhaul. Instead the government is handing out small $4500.00 boxes of band-aids and bottles of cod liver oil. The Cash for Clunkers program is simply another version of "take two aspirin and call me in the morning". It treats an ulcer with whiskey. The government is taking away the bread and having a "let them eat cake" sale. This is another example of a government sponsored program which recommends abstinence only while promoting unprotected sex or passes a bill to build football stadiums while health care clinics go un-staffed and underfunded and bridges fall down on the interstate. This is economic late-term abortion: kill the small child to give birth (birther?) to another mouth to feed that we hope will be more "perfect". But did I mention that it makes people feel good? Funny the right doesn't mention or object to all of this when they disrupt a town hall meeting. They don't hang in effigy the congressman who voted for THIS. Maybe they just feel too good
And Joe the Plumber can buy a new truck to drive to the town hall meeting where he speaks out against government programs and socialized health care, after he used his Medicare coverage to pay for his doctor visit after he hurt his back, reaching through the drive-through window (with engine idling) at the bank, cashing his Social Security check. So he can feel good. Note: he will feel even better after he stops at the drive-through window (with new engine idling) at the pharmacy to pick up his pain pills from the big drug company that opposes reduced drug costs and single-payer health coverage and homeopathic research.
The economy is badly in need of very serious surgery and a complete engine/drivetrain overhaul. Instead the government is handing out small $4500.00 boxes of band-aids and bottles of cod liver oil. The Cash for Clunkers program is simply another version of "take two aspirin and call me in the morning". It treats an ulcer with whiskey. The government is taking away the bread and having a "let them eat cake" sale. This is another example of a government sponsored program which recommends abstinence only while promoting unprotected sex or passes a bill to build football stadiums while health care clinics go un-staffed and underfunded and bridges fall down on the interstate. This is economic late-term abortion: kill the small child to give birth (birther?) to another mouth to feed that we hope will be more "perfect". But did I mention that it makes people feel good? Funny the right doesn't mention or object to all of this when they disrupt a town hall meeting. They don't hang in effigy the congressman who voted for THIS. Maybe they just feel too good
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Potpourri...Say what?
While waiting to watch The Daily Show yesterday, I watched this clip on The Comedy Channel:
A youngish, neatly dressed woman appears on stage and announces that she has “Roving Kidney Disease”. Since she does not know what it is, or what to do about it, she has asked her Dr. to speak.
A short, plump and bespectacled man in a white smock appears, chart in hand, and confirms her diagnosis. He points out that she currently has one kidney on her left thigh and another on the back of her neck. She asks, “What causes this?” He does not know, but asks if she has any bad falls lately?
At this point, as they talk (and she denies falling), we see short out-takes of comedic pratfalls: women being tackled unexpectedly by football players; women falling from kitchen counters; women walking into walls; women being knocked to the floor by clumsy oafs. Following these Dick Van Dyke-like routines, the DR. tells the woman that there is a cure: If she will bounce repeatedly on a small floor-mounted trampoline (shown), she will recover. She thanks him and he leaves.
The woman then begins casually jumping up and down on the trampoline, and talking about how grateful she is for her cure. After a few moments, she missteps and falls off, backwards into the (fake) wall behind her. The wall crumbles and she crashes onto the floor and out of sight. She quickly jumps up and reassures the audience: “It’s OK! I’m alright! Just a little set back!”
This is, I think, a metaphor for health care reform. We are treating the symptoms and not the cause, with antiquated technology after hasty prognoses. Then whatever meager steps are made toward wellness are then derailed by the un-health insurance companies and big pharma, and we fall off through a (fake) wall of recovery. And we get up say we are OK. Say what?
And then there is this quote, from the new book, The Death of Why, The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy, by Andrea Batista Schlesinger: “When was the last time you changed your mind on something important? I’ve changed my mind a few times. One thing I can say for sure is that I’ve never changed it while surrounded by people who agree with me.” Wow. I think this explains why so much of the “news” and “newsy” info we get is not news at all, but merely gossip. That is why I don’t read it or watch it much, anymore. We exist and subsist on newsfluff.
Faced with decisions about health care, gay and lesbian issues, the auto industry bail-out and the re-election of obviously corrupt politicians, we choose not to change our mind, and seek comfort and confirmation from those around us who will willingly and readily agree with us (read the book: the author does a much better job with this concept than I do).
With war raging in multiple countries, Goldman Sachs raping the country and foreclosures and unemployment at all time highs, why do we hear most of all about Michael Vick re-entering football for millions, what performance enhancing swimsuit will win the most contests and who is protesting it, and whether o r not Brittany has on underwear? Does it matter how much cash Ruth Madoff has stashed or that half of Michael Jackson’s brain is unaccounted for? Or that a man bit a dog? Say what?
And while I am at it, bringing together a cop and a college professor for beers (and the press speculating on who will drink which brand of beer) on a picnic table, outside the Oval Office, in order to quell racial tensions, is acting “stupidly”. Yet many of us (and the MSM) are fixated on the gesture. Say what?
We resist changing our minds; essentially we resist thinking. We listen to and tune in to what is easiest to accept without question or using the word “Why?” We accept half-truths or nonsense blindly and blithely. This is why Glenn beck has an audience that nods in agreement when he (stupidly) calls Obama a racist or Limbaugh says the same about Sotomoyor. Or how”birthers” gain an audience on a topic that is without substance or merit or grounding. Or Lou Dobbs calls Rachel Maddow a “tea-bagger queen” and gets away with the total absurdity of it all. Say what?
Having said all of this (so far), I am looking for a book, called, Idiot America, How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. It should fit in nicely with the talk about “anti-intellectualism” that is flying around, these days. “Look! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s anti-intellectualism!”
And speaking of half-truths and nonsense, I heard a local minister, on the radio this morning, say this (with regard to the role of churches and religion in hard economic times): “We need to teach and embody hope because that is the realization that God intends”. Say what?
Which brings me back to “Why?”, and Schlesinger’s book. She reminds us that we don’t ask why often enough because we have settled for easy “answers” (you can find out anything from Google) and instant gratification. We think we can keep the world afloat by buying more stuff, when the simpler fact is that nothing which breaks which is not essential to life does not need to be replaced immediately. Wal-Mart is not the savior of the world. There are things and stuff and items in life we can and should learn to live without, despite what the TV commercials tell us. Did I just hear someone ask, “Say what?”
Let me leave you with one remarkably realistic conclusion (about life) and one unbiased and very realistic appraisal (about what we are facing in life right now ). One is more sobering than the other, but both may help you ask “Why?”
The first is by Derrick Jensen, in Endgame:
The truth is that I am going to die someday, whether or not I stock up on pills. That’s life. And if I die in the population reduction that takes place as a corrective to our having overshot carrying capacity, well, that’s life, too. Finally, if my death comes as part of something that serves the larger community, that helps stabilize and enrich the landbase of which I’m part, so much the better. [quoted via Carolyn Baker: Sacred Demise]
The second is from the economist, Paul Krugman, in the NYT:
Medicare versus insurers
“I notice from comments that a fair number of readers think that Medicare has had runaway costs. What you need to ask is, runaway compared to what?
Here’s the raw fact, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% — but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.
We don’t have a Medicare problem — we have a health care problem.”
Now, after both of these, you may be saying, “Say what?”...which I must remind you is dangerously close to saying “Why?” But whatever you do, do not say, “So what?”
A youngish, neatly dressed woman appears on stage and announces that she has “Roving Kidney Disease”. Since she does not know what it is, or what to do about it, she has asked her Dr. to speak.
A short, plump and bespectacled man in a white smock appears, chart in hand, and confirms her diagnosis. He points out that she currently has one kidney on her left thigh and another on the back of her neck. She asks, “What causes this?” He does not know, but asks if she has any bad falls lately?
At this point, as they talk (and she denies falling), we see short out-takes of comedic pratfalls: women being tackled unexpectedly by football players; women falling from kitchen counters; women walking into walls; women being knocked to the floor by clumsy oafs. Following these Dick Van Dyke-like routines, the DR. tells the woman that there is a cure: If she will bounce repeatedly on a small floor-mounted trampoline (shown), she will recover. She thanks him and he leaves.
The woman then begins casually jumping up and down on the trampoline, and talking about how grateful she is for her cure. After a few moments, she missteps and falls off, backwards into the (fake) wall behind her. The wall crumbles and she crashes onto the floor and out of sight. She quickly jumps up and reassures the audience: “It’s OK! I’m alright! Just a little set back!”
This is, I think, a metaphor for health care reform. We are treating the symptoms and not the cause, with antiquated technology after hasty prognoses. Then whatever meager steps are made toward wellness are then derailed by the un-health insurance companies and big pharma, and we fall off through a (fake) wall of recovery. And we get up say we are OK. Say what?
And then there is this quote, from the new book, The Death of Why, The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy, by Andrea Batista Schlesinger: “When was the last time you changed your mind on something important? I’ve changed my mind a few times. One thing I can say for sure is that I’ve never changed it while surrounded by people who agree with me.” Wow. I think this explains why so much of the “news” and “newsy” info we get is not news at all, but merely gossip. That is why I don’t read it or watch it much, anymore. We exist and subsist on newsfluff.
Faced with decisions about health care, gay and lesbian issues, the auto industry bail-out and the re-election of obviously corrupt politicians, we choose not to change our mind, and seek comfort and confirmation from those around us who will willingly and readily agree with us (read the book: the author does a much better job with this concept than I do).
With war raging in multiple countries, Goldman Sachs raping the country and foreclosures and unemployment at all time highs, why do we hear most of all about Michael Vick re-entering football for millions, what performance enhancing swimsuit will win the most contests and who is protesting it, and whether o r not Brittany has on underwear? Does it matter how much cash Ruth Madoff has stashed or that half of Michael Jackson’s brain is unaccounted for? Or that a man bit a dog? Say what?
And while I am at it, bringing together a cop and a college professor for beers (and the press speculating on who will drink which brand of beer) on a picnic table, outside the Oval Office, in order to quell racial tensions, is acting “stupidly”. Yet many of us (and the MSM) are fixated on the gesture. Say what?
We resist changing our minds; essentially we resist thinking. We listen to and tune in to what is easiest to accept without question or using the word “Why?” We accept half-truths or nonsense blindly and blithely. This is why Glenn beck has an audience that nods in agreement when he (stupidly) calls Obama a racist or Limbaugh says the same about Sotomoyor. Or how”birthers” gain an audience on a topic that is without substance or merit or grounding. Or Lou Dobbs calls Rachel Maddow a “tea-bagger queen” and gets away with the total absurdity of it all. Say what?
Having said all of this (so far), I am looking for a book, called, Idiot America, How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free. It should fit in nicely with the talk about “anti-intellectualism” that is flying around, these days. “Look! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s anti-intellectualism!”
And speaking of half-truths and nonsense, I heard a local minister, on the radio this morning, say this (with regard to the role of churches and religion in hard economic times): “We need to teach and embody hope because that is the realization that God intends”. Say what?
Which brings me back to “Why?”, and Schlesinger’s book. She reminds us that we don’t ask why often enough because we have settled for easy “answers” (you can find out anything from Google) and instant gratification. We think we can keep the world afloat by buying more stuff, when the simpler fact is that nothing which breaks which is not essential to life does not need to be replaced immediately. Wal-Mart is not the savior of the world. There are things and stuff and items in life we can and should learn to live without, despite what the TV commercials tell us. Did I just hear someone ask, “Say what?”
Let me leave you with one remarkably realistic conclusion (about life) and one unbiased and very realistic appraisal (about what we are facing in life right now ). One is more sobering than the other, but both may help you ask “Why?”
The first is by Derrick Jensen, in Endgame:
The truth is that I am going to die someday, whether or not I stock up on pills. That’s life. And if I die in the population reduction that takes place as a corrective to our having overshot carrying capacity, well, that’s life, too. Finally, if my death comes as part of something that serves the larger community, that helps stabilize and enrich the landbase of which I’m part, so much the better. [quoted via Carolyn Baker: Sacred Demise]
The second is from the economist, Paul Krugman, in the NYT:
Medicare versus insurers
“I notice from comments that a fair number of readers think that Medicare has had runaway costs. What you need to ask is, runaway compared to what?
Here’s the raw fact, from the National Health Expenditure data: since 1970 Medicare costs per beneficiary have risen at an annual rate of 8.8% — but insurance premiums have risen at an annual rate of 9.9%. The rise in Medicare costs is just part of the overall rise in health care spending. And in fact Medicare spending has lagged private spending: if insurance premiums had risen “only” as much as Medicare spending, they’d be 1/3 lower than they are.
We don’t have a Medicare problem — we have a health care problem.”
Now, after both of these, you may be saying, “Say what?”...which I must remind you is dangerously close to saying “Why?” But whatever you do, do not say, “So what?”
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
RushBeckDobbsLimbaughism
Is it any wonder that matters are amiss with the House and its' attempted health care reform legislation? They have given it over to the Energy and Commerce Committee. This is a group undoubtedly well-qualified to discuss the merits of health care and to remove it from the commodity sphere of commerce. Lovely.
I suppose that over in the Senate, they have given the task over to the committee for Playdough and Tonka Toys.
Meanwhile, FOX NATION is running a narrative that claims that the health reforms urged by Obama are a backdoor plot to offer slavery reparations for blacks, and that the plans ultimately will cause the deaths of white people. If you put this all together, does it spell "birther"?
None of the above should be considered a viable form of "public option".
Not only does this disgusting quagmire indicate that we have forgotten why we got into the health care reform game in the first place, but it clearly shows that we have lost the friggin' football!
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel149@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:11 PM
Subject: NYTimes.com: The Caucus: House Panel Restarts Health Talks
This page was sent to you by: ihentschel@austin.rr.com U.S. July 29, 2009 The Caucus: House Panel Restarts Health Talks By David M. Herszenhorn The House Energy and Commerce Committee will resume work on major health care legislation, after House leaders and a faction of fiscally conservative Democrats who had stalled the bill apparently reached a compromise after days of fitful negotiations.
1. Op-Ed Columnist: 59 Is the New 30 2. Op-Ed Columnist: Sarah Grabs the Grievance Grab Bag From Hillary 3. Film Food, Ready for Its 'Bon Appetit' 4. The Minimalist: 101 Simple Salads for the Season 5. Brain Power: In Battle, Hunches Prove to Be Valuable » Go to Complete List
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy
I suppose that over in the Senate, they have given the task over to the committee for Playdough and Tonka Toys.
Meanwhile, FOX NATION is running a narrative that claims that the health reforms urged by Obama are a backdoor plot to offer slavery reparations for blacks, and that the plans ultimately will cause the deaths of white people. If you put this all together, does it spell "birther"?
None of the above should be considered a viable form of "public option".
Not only does this disgusting quagmire indicate that we have forgotten why we got into the health care reform game in the first place, but it clearly shows that we have lost the friggin' football!
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel149@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 3:11 PM
Subject: NYTimes.com: The Caucus: House Panel Restarts Health Talks
This page was sent to you by: ihentschel@austin.rr.com U.S. July 29, 2009 The Caucus: House Panel Restarts Health Talks By David M. Herszenhorn The House Energy and Commerce Committee will resume work on major health care legislation, after House leaders and a faction of fiscally conservative Democrats who had stalled the bill apparently reached a compromise after days of fitful negotiations.
1. Op-Ed Columnist: 59 Is the New 30 2. Op-Ed Columnist: Sarah Grabs the Grievance Grab Bag From Hillary 3. Film Food, Ready for Its 'Bon Appetit' 4. The Minimalist: 101 Simple Salads for the Season 5. Brain Power: In Battle, Hunches Prove to Be Valuable » Go to Complete List
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy
Monday, July 27, 2009
Unhealthy care
As the "reform process" continues to wither, while all these blue dog guys dither, and the Republicans throw large spitballs, paid for by the health insurance and big pharma companies, I must admire Krugman's patience, calm and rationality. I simply want to strangle all these incoherent bastards. But even if we did that, we won't get single-payer. In fact we will be lucky to get anything at all which i s not a watered down version of the ugly, ineffective, expensive and largely useless programs we have now.
The United States will become a subservient third-world country, run by a coalition of healthy Canadians, Swedes, Brits and Germans (financed by China) because we will all be too sick to protest or offer resistance.
Our inabiity to conceive of, create, and institute real humanitarian,non-profit healthcare will be our own self-imposed disease of consumption, eating us alive, from the inside out.
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel149@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:03 AM
Subject: NYTimes.com: An Incoherent Truth
This page was sent to you by: ihentschel@austin.rr.com OPINION July 27, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist: An Incoherent Truth By PAUL KRUGMAN On health care, the Blue Dogs aren't making sense. The conservative Democrats can't extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project.
1. The Minimalist: 101 Simple Salads for the Season 2. Op-Ed Columnist: Bite Your Tongue 3. Corner Office Carol Smith: No Doubts: Women Are Better Managers 4. Editorial: Health Care Reform and You 5. Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man » Go to Complete List
Advertisement
Adam The story of two strangers, one a little stranger than the other. Starring Hugh Dancy and Rose Byrne. In theaters this summer. Click here to view trailer
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy
The United States will become a subservient third-world country, run by a coalition of healthy Canadians, Swedes, Brits and Germans (financed by China) because we will all be too sick to protest or offer resistance.
Our inabiity to conceive of, create, and institute real humanitarian,non-profit healthcare will be our own self-imposed disease of consumption, eating us alive, from the inside out.
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel149@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 8:03 AM
Subject: NYTimes.com: An Incoherent Truth
This page was sent to you by: ihentschel@austin.rr.com OPINION July 27, 2009 Op-Ed Columnist: An Incoherent Truth By PAUL KRUGMAN On health care, the Blue Dogs aren't making sense. The conservative Democrats can't extract major concessions on the shape of health care reform without dooming the whole project.
1. The Minimalist: 101 Simple Salads for the Season 2. Op-Ed Columnist: Bite Your Tongue 3. Corner Office Carol Smith: No Doubts: Women Are Better Managers 4. Editorial: Health Care Reform and You 5. Scientists Worry Machines May Outsmart Man » Go to Complete List
Advertisement
Adam The story of two strangers, one a little stranger than the other. Starring Hugh Dancy and Rose Byrne. In theaters this summer. Click here to view trailer
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company Privacy Policy
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The New Old is the Old New
OPINION July 23, 2009 Schott's Vocab: Stealth Starbucks By Ben Schott A Starbucks coffee shop in disguise.
http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/stealth-starbucks/
The end of this article raises an interesting question. If, as the James Taylor song reminds us, that "one thing leads to another", and we start to see such 21rst century anomolies as the "local" hardware store re-appear, run By Home Depot, or a "local" neighborhood pharmacy, surreptitiously run by Walgreens or CVS, or a "local neighborhood" anything (how about a five and dime, run by Wal-Mart?), would that signal a re-birth of the neigborhood, the beginning of the end for big box stores and a corporate acknowledgement that neighborhoods and community are actually a good idea? After they have spent the last 25+ years working to destroy them both?
This is a wonderful and tantalizing notion, but my guess is that it is just a case of Starbucks just attempting to spin it's own spin, fighting a culturally induced entropy. This is moreover just the most recent reguritation of greed and avarice, a consumptive old wolf in sheepishly donned used clothing, pretending humility (Not so very long ago, this Schott's column ran a story about Wall St. workers who now wear "blue jeans" to work, and shirts with patched elbows. This is a self-serving and mocking attempt to convince observers to feel sorry for them, after the financial meltdown. In truth, the jeans cost $300./pr. and it is all a ruse: they still drive Porche's to work).
Starbucks is under attack from its own whorish self and finally realizing that it is commiting a kind of suicide by over-extension of sameness, and if nothing else, brought on by virture of its pervasive sterility and utterly humongous character. They are the coffee shop adaptation of Kruschev, pounding his coffee mug on the lectern, yelling, "We will bury you!" (which is, of course,the mantra of Wal-Mart). If the article is accurate, in stating that this "makeover of innocence" is occuring in a retail space of 16,000 sq. ft., then it is very clear as to how out of touch Starbucks really is with itself. How cozy and customer/user friendly can you be in a 16,000 sq.ft. space? And if all else fails, sell alcohol. Perhaps no one is immune to prostitution of some sort.
Like the now nearly-extinct 300 lb. bakery shop owner, perhaps Starbucks has consumed too much of its own product? Downtown Seattle may not be the greatest place for highly caffeinated hallucinating, but we should not forget that, only in America can you take a over-worn, unsaleable piece of anything, re-name, re-badge, re-brand and re-package it and some fool will buy it. It's the economy, stupid.
http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/stealth-starbucks/
The end of this article raises an interesting question. If, as the James Taylor song reminds us, that "one thing leads to another", and we start to see such 21rst century anomolies as the "local" hardware store re-appear, run By Home Depot, or a "local" neighborhood pharmacy, surreptitiously run by Walgreens or CVS, or a "local neighborhood" anything (how about a five and dime, run by Wal-Mart?), would that signal a re-birth of the neigborhood, the beginning of the end for big box stores and a corporate acknowledgement that neighborhoods and community are actually a good idea? After they have spent the last 25+ years working to destroy them both?
This is a wonderful and tantalizing notion, but my guess is that it is just a case of Starbucks just attempting to spin it's own spin, fighting a culturally induced entropy. This is moreover just the most recent reguritation of greed and avarice, a consumptive old wolf in sheepishly donned used clothing, pretending humility (Not so very long ago, this Schott's column ran a story about Wall St. workers who now wear "blue jeans" to work, and shirts with patched elbows. This is a self-serving and mocking attempt to convince observers to feel sorry for them, after the financial meltdown. In truth, the jeans cost $300./pr. and it is all a ruse: they still drive Porche's to work).
Starbucks is under attack from its own whorish self and finally realizing that it is commiting a kind of suicide by over-extension of sameness, and if nothing else, brought on by virture of its pervasive sterility and utterly humongous character. They are the coffee shop adaptation of Kruschev, pounding his coffee mug on the lectern, yelling, "We will bury you!" (which is, of course,the mantra of Wal-Mart). If the article is accurate, in stating that this "makeover of innocence" is occuring in a retail space of 16,000 sq. ft., then it is very clear as to how out of touch Starbucks really is with itself. How cozy and customer/user friendly can you be in a 16,000 sq.ft. space? And if all else fails, sell alcohol. Perhaps no one is immune to prostitution of some sort.
Like the now nearly-extinct 300 lb. bakery shop owner, perhaps Starbucks has consumed too much of its own product? Downtown Seattle may not be the greatest place for highly caffeinated hallucinating, but we should not forget that, only in America can you take a over-worn, unsaleable piece of anything, re-name, re-badge, re-brand and re-package it and some fool will buy it. It's the economy, stupid.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Curious
This past week, my friend and co-conspirator in writing about political and cultural issues, Deb, put up a new post on a web site that she and I a few others contribute to. She was motivated, in this instance, by the dismissal of Lt. Dan Choi, for openly defying the terms of the DADT policy in our military. You can read it here: http://turn-left.hypocrisy.com/2009/07/01/the-injustice-continues-under-obama/.
As you might guess, the article expresses Deb’s displeasure with the military’s decision concerning Lt. Choi, as well as the general direction of affairs relative to the country in general, President Obama’s inactions and the LGBT community. She makes a very good case (as usual) and concludes by saying that the President is a “political coward”, and that “is not what the country needed”.
Now you should know that Deb is a very vociferous member of the LGBT community so it is not difficult to understand her basic position. And I was very much in general agreement with her, but I did not feel her statement went far enough. So I wrote this:
Before this post becomes the source of vitriol that swirls around solely LGBT/homo-angstian rhetoric, and some of the readers here climb all over Deb for per position, I must say that I think she is both right and wrong. Her outrage and indignation over the handling of Dan Choi( and DADT in general) is apt and well placed. But she is wrong in overlooking its' symbolic value, as regards the actions (or inactions) of the Obama administration on the whole.
Injustice is probably not the best word we could use here, and I'll tell you why. The outcome of the Choi hearing, as well as the President's comment to a retired Air Force officer, that this was a "generational issue" smack of the same position of mediocrity, appeasement, glad handing and moral molly-coddling that is evidenced by his stance on every major issue confronting us today: the financial debacle, the economy in general, LGBT rights, foreign policy issues (Israel/Palestine, Honduras), government secrecy and the biggest elephant in the room, health care. And Deb's conclusion that this stance is political cowardice may not be the more appropriate word , either.
What we do have a a betrayal of promised leadership and a strange and curious sudden lack of courage.Five to six months in or no, we were promised change. But, alas the world is of full of promise keepers/breakers: Ensign, Sanford, Pelosi (who lead her legislative body), Reid (who would lead his party), Bush who promised to be a uniter and a decider and was neither.
Obama appears to lack the courage to do the extraordinary so that the ordinary and necessary and morally correct may occur. He is languishing in a sea of mediocrity and half-baked actions.
If you want something worthwhile to occur, the required action must have some spectacular and extraordinary transformations accompanying it so that there will be a valuable and lasting effect. If you want to burn down a building, you have to start a fire and be prepared for the heat.
If you want to bake leavened bread, you must scald then milk befor you add it to the mixture or else the the microbes in the milk will kill the bacteria in the yeast and the bread will not rise. You will still get bread, but if you don't scald the milk first, but the bread will be flat, hard and disappointing. If you use only tepid water to make tea, instead of boiling water, you will still get tea but it will be weak and unappealing.
Obama needs to stop walking down the middle of the road, stop trying to appease and accomodate everyone, stop not trying not ruffle feathers , incorporating every side on every issue, take a firm stand, piss off a few people on the outer edges, stop pretending to be Solomon and make some strong tea and some substatial, chewable bread.
Injustice and cowardice? I think not. But mediocre fence-straddling and a lack of conviction to cause the extraordinary may be more like it, and Dan Choi is only one example of convictional terpitude.
A postscript:
Almost without fail, Deb’s posts get lambasted and attacked by a select group of right-wingnut, conservative, nearly illiterate, unabashed homophobes who attack her comments almost solely because of her sexual orientation. I posted my comments almost immediately and several days have passed. There has been no rhetorical firestorm or rebuttal from any front. I wonder why that is?
As you might guess, the article expresses Deb’s displeasure with the military’s decision concerning Lt. Choi, as well as the general direction of affairs relative to the country in general, President Obama’s inactions and the LGBT community. She makes a very good case (as usual) and concludes by saying that the President is a “political coward”, and that “is not what the country needed”.
Now you should know that Deb is a very vociferous member of the LGBT community so it is not difficult to understand her basic position. And I was very much in general agreement with her, but I did not feel her statement went far enough. So I wrote this:
Before this post becomes the source of vitriol that swirls around solely LGBT/homo-angstian rhetoric, and some of the readers here climb all over Deb for per position, I must say that I think she is both right and wrong. Her outrage and indignation over the handling of Dan Choi( and DADT in general) is apt and well placed. But she is wrong in overlooking its' symbolic value, as regards the actions (or inactions) of the Obama administration on the whole.
Injustice is probably not the best word we could use here, and I'll tell you why. The outcome of the Choi hearing, as well as the President's comment to a retired Air Force officer, that this was a "generational issue" smack of the same position of mediocrity, appeasement, glad handing and moral molly-coddling that is evidenced by his stance on every major issue confronting us today: the financial debacle, the economy in general, LGBT rights, foreign policy issues (Israel/Palestine, Honduras), government secrecy and the biggest elephant in the room, health care. And Deb's conclusion that this stance is political cowardice may not be the more appropriate word , either.
What we do have a a betrayal of promised leadership and a strange and curious sudden lack of courage.Five to six months in or no, we were promised change. But, alas the world is of full of promise keepers/breakers: Ensign, Sanford, Pelosi (who lead her legislative body), Reid (who would lead his party), Bush who promised to be a uniter and a decider and was neither.
Obama appears to lack the courage to do the extraordinary so that the ordinary and necessary and morally correct may occur. He is languishing in a sea of mediocrity and half-baked actions.
If you want something worthwhile to occur, the required action must have some spectacular and extraordinary transformations accompanying it so that there will be a valuable and lasting effect. If you want to burn down a building, you have to start a fire and be prepared for the heat.
If you want to bake leavened bread, you must scald then milk befor you add it to the mixture or else the the microbes in the milk will kill the bacteria in the yeast and the bread will not rise. You will still get bread, but if you don't scald the milk first, but the bread will be flat, hard and disappointing. If you use only tepid water to make tea, instead of boiling water, you will still get tea but it will be weak and unappealing.
Obama needs to stop walking down the middle of the road, stop trying to appease and accomodate everyone, stop not trying not ruffle feathers , incorporating every side on every issue, take a firm stand, piss off a few people on the outer edges, stop pretending to be Solomon and make some strong tea and some substatial, chewable bread.
Injustice and cowardice? I think not. But mediocre fence-straddling and a lack of conviction to cause the extraordinary may be more like it, and Dan Choi is only one example of convictional terpitude.
A postscript:
Almost without fail, Deb’s posts get lambasted and attacked by a select group of right-wingnut, conservative, nearly illiterate, unabashed homophobes who attack her comments almost solely because of her sexual orientation. I posted my comments almost immediately and several days have passed. There has been no rhetorical firestorm or rebuttal from any front. I wonder why that is?
Friday, July 3, 2009
July Fourth Special
Here are some holiday suggestions for ways to utilize the summer’s unfolding events and organize your priorities, so far. As you set off your firecrackers and bottle rockets, and 500 G military artillery shells (like we do here in Texas), and grill your steaks and hot dogs, and munch on watermelon, try a few of these observations on for size.
If you have watched the television at all, lately, you have probably noticed advertising for:
-Independent trade schools urging people to go back to school to learn new skills in law enforcement (municipalities have no money to fund these jobs), electrical/construction trades (the housing construction industry has crashed, nationwide), long-haul truck driving and drafting. There are no jobs to be had in these fields, but we are encouraged to take out student loans and go deeper into debt, anyway. And be sure to eat at McDonald’s every day, between classes. Then you can spend what you have left on an expensive weight-loss program. Google Dan Merino.
-Learning to use tools like PC-based stock trading programs to play the stock market or else run right down to the local office of your friendly neighborhood broker, to discuss re-managing your empty portfolio (on July 3, the DOW closed down about 225+ points…again). All we have to play with is monopoly money: we may as well have fun with it. Paper re-cycling bins are full of shredded 401k statements.
-A rash of new extended warranty companies who want to you pay large amounts of money to protect you from financial ruin if your “older” car breaks down. They know you can’t afford a new car, but want you to believe that a monthly payment to them (about the size of a small car payment) will protect you from the financial ruin roughly equal to not having adequate health insurance. If not that, then run out and take advantage of low-cost 60 month financing on a new vehicle that will no longer be manufactured by Genera l Motors. Or get guaranteed payments on a new car from Korea if you lose your job in the next few weeks or months.
-Immediately changing your auto insurance policy from company A to company B, because company A is surely charging you too much and company B has a much better payment plan. The combined monies that Progressive, Geico, State Farm, et.al. are spending on TV ads could finance the war in Iraq. And their rates go up, daily.
So let’s change gears. Before you get caught up in worrying about Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, un-health care, North Korea, the imminent crises concerning world food supplies and water or the fact that the Obama presidency has the remarkable look of being the mirror opposite of the Obama campaign, kick around a few of these entertaining activities:
Stay mesmerized by the meaning less and irrelevant death of Michael Jackson. He has does nothing but represent the bizarre, financially irresponsible and macabre and molest children for the last decade or so. Maybe we can spend more time talking about it and maybe you can contribute to the already bankrupt city of Los Angeles to help pay for his “memorial service”. Are we that stupid?
Keep your imagination titillated by speculating on the real reasons behind why Sarah Palin is resigning. This is, in all likelihood, a preemptive strike to get her out of the line of fire before some Inuit Eskimo Exxon baby seal scandal erupts or that we find out that her hubby is not Trig’s father. Or John Ensign is. Or that she got an STD from Mark Sanford in Argentina. Which she can see from her front porch. And she has done nothing but produce and intellectually molest children for the last decade or so, either. Are we that bored? Gullible?
And if you are still without enough diversionary fluff to keep you busy, run on down to Wal-Mart and buy a new HD flat-panel TV(on credit) and jump into the fray about whether or not to get Direct TV, Dish Network or Cable( I receive junk mail from all three of these four out of seven days a week. What tye spend on this marketing could pay my mortgage without batting an eye and they want rate increases) Then you can decide at the same time if you should bundle your telephone land line with the charges that you are about to be hit with by TimeWarner to surf the net and buy more stuff from the Home Shopping Network… or sell your old TV at a profit through ebay (after you buy the computer training program from the guy on TV who says he won’t make you rich but wants your money for some CD training disks). It’s fun. Really.
And don’t forget to take your gun to Church when you go the day after the fireworks and be sure to watch Fox News , so that you can ineffectively discuss DADT and DOMA and Officer Choi. And Michael Jackson is still dead. Really.
If you have watched the television at all, lately, you have probably noticed advertising for:
-Independent trade schools urging people to go back to school to learn new skills in law enforcement (municipalities have no money to fund these jobs), electrical/construction trades (the housing construction industry has crashed, nationwide), long-haul truck driving and drafting. There are no jobs to be had in these fields, but we are encouraged to take out student loans and go deeper into debt, anyway. And be sure to eat at McDonald’s every day, between classes. Then you can spend what you have left on an expensive weight-loss program. Google Dan Merino.
-Learning to use tools like PC-based stock trading programs to play the stock market or else run right down to the local office of your friendly neighborhood broker, to discuss re-managing your empty portfolio (on July 3, the DOW closed down about 225+ points…again). All we have to play with is monopoly money: we may as well have fun with it. Paper re-cycling bins are full of shredded 401k statements.
-A rash of new extended warranty companies who want to you pay large amounts of money to protect you from financial ruin if your “older” car breaks down. They know you can’t afford a new car, but want you to believe that a monthly payment to them (about the size of a small car payment) will protect you from the financial ruin roughly equal to not having adequate health insurance. If not that, then run out and take advantage of low-cost 60 month financing on a new vehicle that will no longer be manufactured by Genera l Motors. Or get guaranteed payments on a new car from Korea if you lose your job in the next few weeks or months.
-Immediately changing your auto insurance policy from company A to company B, because company A is surely charging you too much and company B has a much better payment plan. The combined monies that Progressive, Geico, State Farm, et.al. are spending on TV ads could finance the war in Iraq. And their rates go up, daily.
So let’s change gears. Before you get caught up in worrying about Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Honduras, un-health care, North Korea, the imminent crises concerning world food supplies and water or the fact that the Obama presidency has the remarkable look of being the mirror opposite of the Obama campaign, kick around a few of these entertaining activities:
Stay mesmerized by the meaning less and irrelevant death of Michael Jackson. He has does nothing but represent the bizarre, financially irresponsible and macabre and molest children for the last decade or so. Maybe we can spend more time talking about it and maybe you can contribute to the already bankrupt city of Los Angeles to help pay for his “memorial service”. Are we that stupid?
Keep your imagination titillated by speculating on the real reasons behind why Sarah Palin is resigning. This is, in all likelihood, a preemptive strike to get her out of the line of fire before some Inuit Eskimo Exxon baby seal scandal erupts or that we find out that her hubby is not Trig’s father. Or John Ensign is. Or that she got an STD from Mark Sanford in Argentina. Which she can see from her front porch. And she has done nothing but produce and intellectually molest children for the last decade or so, either. Are we that bored? Gullible?
And if you are still without enough diversionary fluff to keep you busy, run on down to Wal-Mart and buy a new HD flat-panel TV(on credit) and jump into the fray about whether or not to get Direct TV, Dish Network or Cable( I receive junk mail from all three of these four out of seven days a week. What tye spend on this marketing could pay my mortgage without batting an eye and they want rate increases) Then you can decide at the same time if you should bundle your telephone land line with the charges that you are about to be hit with by TimeWarner to surf the net and buy more stuff from the Home Shopping Network… or sell your old TV at a profit through ebay (after you buy the computer training program from the guy on TV who says he won’t make you rich but wants your money for some CD training disks). It’s fun. Really.
And don’t forget to take your gun to Church when you go the day after the fireworks and be sure to watch Fox News , so that you can ineffectively discuss DADT and DOMA and Officer Choi. And Michael Jackson is still dead. Really.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Follow up
A few days ago I wrote a blog entry called "Inharmonious". In it, I sent along some remarks from Mssrs. Krugman and Reich about the shortcomings of Obama's response to the financial debacle we have on-going. I said that I wondered what Galbraith and Grieder might have to say. Well, here is Mr Grieder, weighing in.
He says, essentially, if we settle for weak solutions too soon, because the severity of the crisis seems over, it will be a terrible mistake. Seems awfully hard with which to argue. It is time to dig in our heels, not go out for ice cream.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/greider2?rel=emailNation
He says, essentially, if we settle for weak solutions too soon, because the severity of the crisis seems over, it will be a terrible mistake. Seems awfully hard with which to argue. It is time to dig in our heels, not go out for ice cream.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090706/greider2?rel=emailNation
Reverse Psychosis
A few months ago, a new feature, “Schott’s Vocabulary”, appeared as daily insertion on the Op-Ed page of the NYT. You can also access it directly on the web , here: http://www.benschott.com/.
As a “word guy”, I have been getting a lot of enjoyment from this effort on a daily basis. The column works well as social commentary, cultural analysis and very often provides a balanced view of the contrasts in contemporary international behavior. In short, if you can be honest enough with yourself, what Mr. Schott offers can help you see yourself much more clearly, against the backdrop of today’s larger humanitarian canvass( which is increasingly convoluted ,or a “convass”?).
Today’s entry is especially revealing , given the ongoing, cyclical and embarrassing debacle on Wall St., the current discussions about potential bonuses at Goldman Sachs and the state of bailouts for failing giants like General Motors:
http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/poorgeoisie/?emc=eta1.
The “Poorgeoisie” seem to be out latest segment of self-delusionary, narcissistic and neurotic ne’er do wells, fooling only themselves. I first began thinking of these folks as using “reverse psychology”, practicing a mode of appearance designed to deceive the rest of the American public about their imagined “plight”, but then I settled on the word “psychosis” instead: they are practicing on themselves. These titans/giants/worker bees of the our financial system are, frighteningly and given the reins they hold, acting in a fashion which might be best described as mentally ill. They might be thought of as dangerous. They are perhaps psychotic. Thinking inversely.
Spending untold amounts of money in order to appear “poor” and/or “downtrodden” is apparently Wall St.’s version of credit card splurge: ignore reality, re-package absurdity and live in a personal never-never land that avoids the ugliness which constitutes what has become the essence of daily life for most Americans. If you sing, ”Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries” loud enough, while wearing $300.00,pre-frayed jeans, as you exit your sadly two year-old Porsche, perhaps no one will suspect you had caviar for breakfast, on the rooftop patio of your $2M Manhattan condo. Life for them is still a “cabaret,my friends”. Is it any wonder that, given this sort of disparity in the perception of “real life”, we are having trouble getting back on our feet? Or even finding out feet?
I tried to get an appointment to see my therapist about this, but he was booked. He is getting new patches sewn onto the elbows of his linen shirts and getting his Gucci loafers pre-scuffed.
As a “word guy”, I have been getting a lot of enjoyment from this effort on a daily basis. The column works well as social commentary, cultural analysis and very often provides a balanced view of the contrasts in contemporary international behavior. In short, if you can be honest enough with yourself, what Mr. Schott offers can help you see yourself much more clearly, against the backdrop of today’s larger humanitarian canvass( which is increasingly convoluted ,or a “convass”?).
Today’s entry is especially revealing , given the ongoing, cyclical and embarrassing debacle on Wall St., the current discussions about potential bonuses at Goldman Sachs and the state of bailouts for failing giants like General Motors:
http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/poorgeoisie/?emc=eta1.
The “Poorgeoisie” seem to be out latest segment of self-delusionary, narcissistic and neurotic ne’er do wells, fooling only themselves. I first began thinking of these folks as using “reverse psychology”, practicing a mode of appearance designed to deceive the rest of the American public about their imagined “plight”, but then I settled on the word “psychosis” instead: they are practicing on themselves. These titans/giants/worker bees of the our financial system are, frighteningly and given the reins they hold, acting in a fashion which might be best described as mentally ill. They might be thought of as dangerous. They are perhaps psychotic. Thinking inversely.
Spending untold amounts of money in order to appear “poor” and/or “downtrodden” is apparently Wall St.’s version of credit card splurge: ignore reality, re-package absurdity and live in a personal never-never land that avoids the ugliness which constitutes what has become the essence of daily life for most Americans. If you sing, ”Life is Just a Bowl of Cherries” loud enough, while wearing $300.00,pre-frayed jeans, as you exit your sadly two year-old Porsche, perhaps no one will suspect you had caviar for breakfast, on the rooftop patio of your $2M Manhattan condo. Life for them is still a “cabaret,my friends”. Is it any wonder that, given this sort of disparity in the perception of “real life”, we are having trouble getting back on our feet? Or even finding out feet?
I tried to get an appointment to see my therapist about this, but he was booked. He is getting new patches sewn onto the elbows of his linen shirts and getting his Gucci loafers pre-scuffed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
