tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85965999806348223602024-03-13T13:57:52.510-07:00OBL (Odd Bald Liberal)“Conservative: a man with an inborn conviction that he is right,
without being able to prove it.” — Revd. T. James, 1844stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.comBlogger187125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-80533830014944137822016-09-19T11:30:00.000-07:002016-09-19T11:30:42.758-07:00Voting for the (Blood)Sport of it All<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This election is not about the soul of America, it's not about who will "steal" it more effectively, it's not about whether one person is a liar or one person is a crook.<br />
<br />
It's a reality show with no winners and no losers - only conflict. Because conflict is what we live for. We can't get enough of schadenfreude. We watch the Kardashians and Dancing with the Stars and The Voice and NASCAR, because we want to see the biggest wreck we can see. Our lives are mostly about working an 8-5 job, with relatively shabby benefits, we numb ourselves with drugs, because the day's not right without a Valium in our systems, and it's not over till we've had at least one drink. While it's great that marijuana is being decriminalized, I have to wonder if we use it because it's the closest thing we get to seeing the absurdity of it all, while not doing anything about it. And when we get home, we want to see how other people are having a worse time than we are.<br />
<br />
"You're such a bummer". Yeah, I know.<br />
<br />
I've asked people who are refusing to vote for Hillary to give me examples of her corruption, and it's mostly conjecture. While I agree she's a neoliberal nightmare, she's not the end-all, be-all of terrible that some Bernie Sanders supporters (and all of Donald Trump's, Jill Stein's and Gary Johnson's supporters) believe she is. Yes, she's a hawk. Yes, her foreign policy decisions have not, perhaps, been terrific over the years. And yes, I think her ties to the banking system of this country run a little too deep. But you're seriously going to vote for a different candidate because you don't like her? Because you don't trust her? The "don't like, don't trust" crowd have been around since her husband ran for office back in '92. They have grown, mostly feeding off each other, because nothing says confirmation bias like a crowd of people all reinforcing each other's beliefs.<br />
<br />
I blame the internet. Which is why we still get people saying that Al Gore said he invented it.<br />
<br />
Anyway.<br />
<br />
If you think that Hillary is somehow worse than Donald Trump, by all means, vote for him or one of the independents, because Trump is who we will get if you vote for anyone other than Hillary. And if you want Hillary to fall in line with your belief systems as far as foreign policy or women's rights or whatever, then for God's sake, push hard to get the progressives in your district/state in Congress. That's where the rubber meets the road in this country, not the Presidency. Because whoever becomes President this time around may have as many as four judges to appoint to the Supremes. If you like old white men who disapprove of a woman's right to choose, or who think corporations have more rights than people, by all means, vote for someone other than Hillary. But if you want to get Citizen's United overturned, if you want a Public Option for healthcare, the least you can do is make sure your local politician is a progressive. The same goes for mayoral races, state legislatures and governors. As long as we have a base that accurately reflects the will of the people, it will all the more difficult for the folks higher up the food chain to fuck with us. But for you folks who are going to stay home, because you don't like Hillary, but you won't vote for Trump, you're voting for Trump by staying home. You're voting for Trump's policies and his racism if you don't at least vote for Congresscritters and local pols who think like you do. Washington State may be sending our first Socialist to Congress this year.<br />
<br />
If you want to know what the American crater would look like, look at what's happened in Kansas when Republicans got their hands on the tiller for a prolonged period of time.<br />
<br />
If we can't have the Commander in Chief, at least we can have a legislative bulwark to stem the tide of his ideas, and maybe make him a one-term president. But I'm also in favor of Hillary being a one-term President, unless she surprises us all. As a nation, if we don't get our heads together and our act together, the great future for this grand experiment will all be in the past. We will become a conflict-enamored state of chaos, looking to find ways to become famous by having a terrible time, just like everyone who's ever appeared on The Apprentice.</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-25789565724057805512016-05-17T08:31:00.000-07:002016-05-17T08:35:25.911-07:00A Matter of Facts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
or,<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Why Aaron Sorkin Really Pisses Me Off</span><br />
<br />
Never watched The West Wing (couple minutes here and there), never watched The Social Network, and never watched Steve Jobs. LOVE The Newsroom (mostly).<br />
<br />
The West Wing annoyed me partially because it seemed like everyone was so full-on Type-A personalty, I couldn't stand to be in the same room with them for more than about three minutes. Plus, who talks like that?<br />
<br />
The Social Network. An interesting topic, though I couldn't figure out how you'd make a movie about the creation of a really annoying web service that I still use (to my shame). Coders are not generally exciting people, except in the genius of their creations (unless their creation is the Kardashian App). I knew there were many lawsuits generated between the folks who started it, and there were probably lots of interesting dramatic personae involved. Sorkin wasn't happy with that, so he made people meaner and weirder than they were, motivated by things they weren't actually motivated by in real life, and creating and doing things that never happened.<br />
<br />
Steve Jobs. A fascinating, infuriating human being who was the head of arguably one of the most innovative tech companies since the industrial revolution. He was a difficult, cranky man who was one of a team that ushered in an era of computers for everyone (well, everyone with a relatively hefty savings account), allowing people to use their computers to do stuff other than just tell other computers what to do (though you can use them for that, too). His character was reduced to a blank individual whose primary skill is in marketing, not in motivating folks to do better, to create a more innovative product every chance they could. Certainly there were some egregious mis-steps in Apple's product lineups over the years, but it's hard to deny they were at least interesting. But there's a lot of absolute bullshit in this movie. Things that did not happen, people who weren't like their portrayals at all, and meetings and events that are entirely made up. The same can be said for The Social Network.<br />
<br />
And then there's The Newsroom. This is a TV show about a news organization, a completely fictional news organization, that seems to have a gift for getting the "right sources" almost every time. I won't go into too many details for those that haven't seen it, but it has the same rapid-fire patter of The West Wing, and occasionally droops into some very unbelievable dialogue. Sam Waterston is possibly my favorite character who admits to being drunk most of the time, and also offers to punch someone's teeth out one at a time with a big happy smile on his face. I love the guy, and his charm factor is way off the scale in this show. Will McAvoy, played by Jeff Daniels, is a near-genius level newscaster whose newscasts have been centered almost entirely on getting ratings. Pretty much the entire first episode is him sitting front of a teleprompter, doing an entire news hour with the word "VAMP" on the teleprompter screen, about a very big story that is developing, and they, of course, scoop every other network. If that were true, I'd be impressed. The dialog is snappy as hell, occasionally impossible or highly improbable, but often amusing.<br />
<br />
The show itself is generally about the rehabilitation of news on the show, essentially bringing up one of the major points of most liberal media, that there aren't always two sides to an issue (the world IS flat, goddamn it). They are wanting to inform viewers about facts, and ensuring that the facts they're presenting are both relevant and, well, factual, for the education of the voting public.<br />
<br />
You know, like the news used to be.. mostly...<br />
<br />
McAvoy even says at one point that you can't even get Americans to agree on facts.<br />
<br />
There's this big argument then: if facts are so goddamn important, why can't Sorkin stick to them? Both Facebook and Steve Jobs are modern stories with characters who are still alive. He can check. He can talk to them. Mr. Sorkin's extreme concern for the facts has led him to write two movies about real people which involve counter-factual and/or nonexistent events in these famous people's lives, one of whom is still alive. I get dramatic license, but there's a limit. Sure, you can't know every conversation that every person ever has, and of course you're going to have to make some stuff up. But, to espouse such a concern for the facts in one instance, and then to ignore them so completely in another is at least hypocritical.<br />
<br />
I could also go on about the Titanic movie, too, but that's another rant for another day.</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-20806872129836999582016-04-08T12:36:00.000-07:002016-04-08T12:44:17.625-07:00The Masochist Says "Beat Me" and the Sadist Complies<div>
Welcome to the land of the punished, of original sin, of the Calvinist work ethic and supreme self-denial. My father used to tell a joke, that Puritanism was the sad, haunting fear that someone, somewhere, was having a good time. He sourced it back to Oscar Wilde, but as I recently found out, it's a quote from the great journalist and all-around fount of sarcasm, H. L. Mencken. My father used this to illustrate how important it was to enjoy oneself whenever the opportunity was presented. My father, of course, being the strict Calvinist, having been brought up in a Southern Baptist community, where the preacher looked down on dancing, but had no problem with close rollerskating (to the point of dancing on skates with underage girls - yeeuch), my father became an atheist at the ripe old age of thirteen. This did not, however, divorce him from the ideas of sin, of the virtue of very hard labor for its' own sake, and regular conversations about only getting a buck knife and an orange for Christmas. When he did enjoy himself it was generally tainted with guilt. When we couldn't work in the yard because the weather didn't permit, whatever we watched on TV better be either some highfalutin' foreign film or something educational. Vacations were all about backpacking into difficult environments.<br />
<br />
I didn't mind the foreign films, as it happens - lots of Japanese sword fights made them all the more palatable, and they imbued in me a taste for better-made films.<br />
<br />
But I always wondered about my father's attitude toward any kind of pleasure. He liked good food, he appreciated many cuisines of the world, he really loved music (mostly classical, but he was also a big fan of the Beatles, Janis Joplin, Canned Heat, Tom Lehrer and Spike Jones). And then, when it came time to work, labor-saving devices were, apparently, sinful. Nothing was better than doing the job with a pick & shovel, where renting a roto-tiller would have gotten the job done in a tenth of the time, for ten bucks.<br />
<br />
When my father passed in 2005, he still had an O-Cedar broom that I remember using in the eighties. It had lost three inches off the bristles. There's "frugal", and then there's "sorta nuts". I digress...<br />
<br />
There is a weird strain running through the American psyche that tells us that unnecessary or very difficult labor is somehow good for us. That it "builds character". This is the lie we've been fed since Plymouth Rock, and I'm hoping that we're figuring it out, finally. I'm hoping that we've finally realized that, while hard work can be fufilling, tedious labor crushes the spirit, and pointless labor kills it completely. Not to sound like a curmudgeon of my father's variety, but I am reminded of the days I'd spend, mowing a half-acre of grass with a very old lawnmower (that I think came with the house), and then edging the lawn with a pair of grass clippers that were not much evolved from a pair of scissors. I understand economizing, but, even as an eight-year-old, I knew better. I knew there were inexpensive tools designed to do this sort of work with less labor, but, as my Dad put it, "it made you soft". That, right there, is America writ large.<br />
<br />
Think about what other countries provide for their citizens. And no, I don't mean, "for free". which is a bullshit argument against useful societal improvements, paid for by taxes. Childcare, healthcare, family leave, college - all low cost or no cost, paid for by everyone's taxes. We are told, have kids! families are the cornerstone of American life. Then, "whaddya mean you want time off to have a kid? I can't afford for you to do THAT!" Childcare costs are often the equivalent of a second mortgage. Affordable housing near where you work is usually a non-sequiturr - just look at San Francisco. And once your kid goes off to college, be prepared for that child to come back home, to pay off one of the biggest debts they'll ever incur next to a mortgage - student loans.<br />
<br />
It's as if we've decided that a life of self-flagellation is a major building block of society. Of course, the advice we get is "if your job really sucks, well, go find a better one". Once you reach a certain age, going out and changing jobs is about as easy as changing a tire without a jack or tire-iron.<br />
<br />
Perhaps a revolution is what we really need. Stay tuned...</div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-75494506086687015132016-02-09T13:50:00.000-08:002016-02-09T13:50:35.663-08:00We've Got The Runs<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Hillary vs Bernie.<br />
<br />
Trump vs. Cruz. vs. Rubio vs. Christie vs. Carson vs. Fiorina vs. Kasich vs. Jeb! vs. .... did I miss anyone? I'm sure I did....<br />
<br />
Whatever.<br />
<br />
So, the TPP has been signed and must be ratified.<br />
<br />
For once, I am not going to talk much about the Repugnicans, for the simple reason that I don't think I have to any more. So here goes: Trump calling Cruz a pussy, Rubio using a canned line three times in a row during a debate (if Chris Christie can call out your bullshit, you really have a problem), Jeb! begging people to clap for him, Fiorina demanding a seat at the adult table, even though she's polling below the margin of statistical error - is it possible for people to unvote for you? Not sure there's much we can say about this troupe of jugglers, clowns and whores that hasn't already been said by better writers than I.<br />
<br />
That leaves the other ticket. According to a couple of older feminists, if you ladies aren't voting for the candidate with the lady parts, you're goin' ta hell. Does anyone else remember the group that called themselves "<a href="http://ladiesagainstwomen.com/" target="_blank">Ladies Against Women</a>"? Used to show up at Phyllis Schlafly rallies and overstate her positions to the extreme: "You're no one til you're Mrs. someone", that sort of thing. Best part was old Phyl didn't get the joke, and never banned them, because they were so enthusiastic. My thoughts on Hillary I've made before, and it's only gotten worse. I'm not interested in electing the same last name to the White House. The Roosevelts were fine it was practically a generational difference between the two. And Bobby would have been a better Kennedy anyway. But Hillary had her shot, and couldn't convince the Democratic party that she was the better candidate against someone we knew nothing about. Here we are again, and unless you're a full-time listener of Thom Hartmann's show, Bernie Sanders wasn't exactly a household name, either. And he didn't get to deliver any address at any convention.<br />
<br />
(can you imagine the fit of vapours that Fox would have had had they let him sell the Democrats during a convention?)<br />
<br />
Clinton has taken in more money than God from various banks and bankers to tell them that what we're all about is commerce, and we must work with the banks, rather than against the banks, to make sure that the American Dream can continue unabated. She doesn't actually mention who it's going to be unabated for, but that's nuance, and Washington, DC doesn't do nuance. And Hillary will absolutely ratify the TPP, even if, right now, she says she won't.<br />
<br />
While Bernie is definitely on a longer road with the whole Socialist thing hanging over him, Hillary has the baggage of having a large number of Repugs who hate her so much it makes them sick. For them, it's not about policy, it's about the murder of Vince Foster, it's about letting Bill treat the Oval Office as his recruiting tool for, well, for his tool. It's about her probably being more criminal than attorney. It's about Whitewater. No matter that most of this is utter bullshit or something for which they've let lots of their own off the hook, they still believe it down to their shoes and beyond. They're convinced she's the Antichrist, and she will drag the country down to hell with her. I don't know if this is the majority of Republicans, but it's certainly the majority of Repugnican pundits, and they will tirelessly beat those drums until every registered R votes for pretty much anyone else. She's a name brand, but for the most part, she's a completely toxic brand on the Right side if the aisle.<br />
<br />
And since I have to vote for someone, I will probably vote for her if she's the nominee. Really hate that kind of "choice".<br />
<br />
Bernie is less well-known, and he does have the socialist taint (I've heard normally reasonable people ask, "you mean, the communist?"). But he's honest, and fearless, and willing to go anywhere to spread his message. The guy spoke at Liberty University for goshsakes, not exactly a hotbed of registered Democrats. I can imagine him going on Bill O'Reilly and just killing it, frankly. I won't go into all his policy ideas, since I'm sure they've been covered <i>ad nauseum</i> on other websites and by other writers, but the stuff he's for (Universal Health Care, a higher minimum wage, reining in and/or breaking up the big banks, etc., etc.) is what I'm for, and I see no reason to vote for people who think we should move slowly and pragmatically, when, as far as I'm concerned, that just means continuing not to do anything. I relish the idea of Lloyd Blankfein being really worried, the idea that Jamie Dimon might not get to make as much money for fucking over the country, I want the bankers who screwed us to go to prison, and I want jobs to come back to this country. We desperately need a revitalized middle class, and the sooner we get started, the better. And we need to be prepared for the next industrial revolution, because it has no relationship to the way things are done now.<br />
<br />
Bloomberg? Of the smaller sodas? Please don't....</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-20051928257281411522015-08-31T13:13:00.003-07:002015-09-01T06:54:58.556-07:00Not Your Grandfather's Racism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
While waiting for the next black male to be, ahem, "shot while resisting arrest", let us turn our eyes to the current Repugnican front-runners, to see which of them is the prettiest in the land.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump, in all his nativist glory, ejected a Univision reporter (one of the most respected journalists in the US Latino community, as well as in his - formerly - native Mexico) from one of his town hall meetings because Jorge Ramos asked him if he thought all this "Mexicans are rapists, murderers, drug dealers and thieves" talk might be misconstrued by some. This would include the moron who suggested Mr. Ramos go back to his own country - apparently unaware that the US IS Mr. Ramos' country. Mr. Ramos was invited back on the condition that he keep his damn mouth shut.<br />
<br />
The Donald, of course, wants to end birthright citizenship, which would impact a whole lot more than a few Latinos in this nation. We're talking every immigrant from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, to name but a few places where we (us, the US, that is) made life such a hellhole, that they came here to escape the oppression that we either supported or made worse by being as culturally insensitive as we possibly could, driving the local rulers insane, or condemning absolutely everything about Western culture, making life untenable for US supporters in those nations. So they came here.<br />
<br />
And he wants to send them back.<br />
<br />
Others have different ideas:<br />
<br />
Pyush "Bobby Brady" Jindal thinks that, so long as someone comes to America and adopts everything that's bad about America, as well as a proper American accent, well, they can stay. If all they're going to do is pick our food, well, fuck them, send 'em back; taking jobs away from Americans, after all (who don't actually want to do those jobs all that much). If you're a Hindu, you should convert to Christianity, change your name to something innocuous and bland (maybe "Gilligan"), and make sure you talk like an angry fifth-grader.<br />
<br />
Mr. Christie has now doubled down on treating legal immigrants the same way that Fed-Ex tracks packages. When Chris "the apple has fallen a bit far from the tree" Wallace mentions that these folks don't have numbers tattooed on their wrists (you know, the ones the Jews in the Holocaust DID have), Mr. Christie reiterates that yes, people aren't packages ("Don't be ridiculous" - really?), but we should still figure out how to track people like Fed-Ex tracks packages. RFID chip, implanted when they pass through customs, Mr. Christie?, or maybe we could hide them in jelly doughnuts as a gift when they arrive (but then, how many chips would YOU have roiling around in your guts, Mr. Christie?)<br />
<br />
Mr. Walker wants to review the possibility of putting up a wall between us and Canada. 5,525 miles of a wall. I think the Canadians might approve of this, since a few of their (already low-count) gun homicides seem to be perpetrated by Americans who cross the border. But the pricetag? Who can say? It will probably have to be sourced to someone like Halliburton, so that Dick Cheney's walking, talking corpse can make another few billion to leave to his daughters when they can finally figure what kind of metal the bullet has to be in order to kill him.<br />
<br />
That these candidates are taken seriously by anyone in the mainstream media is, of course, concerning, but unfortunately we have to take them seriously, since such a large part of the population has polled that they'd vote for 'em. That should always give one pause. To know, not just believe, that a large part of this country (which claims to be "not racist") is this racist. How quantifiable IS racism anyway? If you think that we're NOT a racist country because we elected a black President, understand that when more people vote, the wind almost always swings democratic. After George W Bush, everyone wanted the Dem in office - they didn't care if he/she/it was black or white or green or Satan. We ended up with a very cool cat, to say the least, and my favorite president so far this century.<br />
<br />
What I'm hoping is that we do elect Bernie. He seems to be polling pretty damn well. Clinton is, I'm sorry, so hated by the Right that they will do everything they can to dump mud or blood on her head, until enough people believe it, and then vote for whatever asinine twat finally made it out of the clown car. O'Malley is one of the worst tools for fixing racism in this nation. He invented the whole CrimeStat/ComStat methodology that has proven so disastrous to community policing. And Joe Biden? I'm not sure what he's thinking, and I know he really wants the job, but they're going to nail him for kissing Barack Obama's you-know-what for eight years. They will pile as much filth on him as they would Clinton, simply because he represents the Obama legacy.<br />
<br />
Clinton could still win it if The Donald decides to run as an Independent, thus splitting the Republican vote between the stupid and the self-deluded. I leave it to you to decide who those are.</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-30161872951670060842015-05-11T12:23:00.000-07:002015-11-09T11:03:36.054-08:00A Riotous Spring<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The death of _minority individual_ in the _medium to large urban center_ by the _local law enforcement agency_ is becoming the simplest article to write. Since everything is on the internet these days, they usually include a viral video that generally proves that the story given by the police is at odds with reality.<br />
<br />
When will the police realized that almost everyone is watching, almost all the time?<br />
<br />
In the following days, the article about riots in _medium to large urban center_, sparked by the relative inaction by the DA's office, is also becoming easy to write. Very telegenic to boot - all that lovely fire, the sparkles of splintered glass in the street, the occasional spectacle of the police arresting someone for watching - something for everyone. It's all a big wet dream for CNN, Fox, local news, etc.<br />
<br />
The worst aspect of this is that eventually it all begins to smush together, like roadkill that has been run over by one too many semi trucks. It becomes part of the noise of daily life, and when something becomes noise, it becomes something we can ignore. It no longer looks like a dead deer (which is sad); it more closely resembles reddish oatmeal, and we no longer recognize anything worthy of concern. Just like watching Detroit crumble from afar, the death of innocent minorities is something that (generally) happens far away from the rest of us. It's becoming too late to do anything.<br />
<br />
All of the laudable goals within the Obama administration, such as buying every cop a body camera, are worth doing, but only if they're done everywhere. As a technology geek, I can tell you that technology works only as well as the end-user wants it to work. If they don't want it to work, they will kludge it up so it doesn't. As someone once said, making something idiot proof is difficult, because we're really good at making idiots. You can force them to wear body cameras, you can force the body camera to turn on when certain other pieces of hardware are activated (such as sirens or lights or stepping out of the car), but that can always be overridden by someone determined to do so. Even if the cop on the line doesn't know how to do it, the internet is full of guys who will help them figure out how to disable it, even to the point of making it a one-time glitch (or whatever "easy out" they need it to be). This is not to say we shouldn't do it. I would never argue against preventative measures, because there will be honest cops who might be saved from lynching with body cam footage, as well as the bad cops who will be caught by it. But no one should expect this to work perfectly. And it needs to be deployed in every precinct, on every cop, deputy, statie, etc.<br />
<br />
Black homelessness, joblessness, and hopelessness are the final stages of the initial drive to destroy their culture through slavery, and the institutional racism that followed continues to overburden that part of our society. We have been systematically ripping up the avenues that the lower and middle classes had for gainful employment and/or advancement within society, and the African-American population of this nation is always last in line when things do get fixed. While we might bring back manufacturing and infrastructure jobs to the nation, should the unthinkable happen and Bernie Sanders becomes President, even that won't be enough for permanent, gainful employment for everyone. So many systems are being automated, eventually we will be hard-pressed to employ everyone full time. But instead of primarily hitting minority communities hard, it will hit everyone.<br />
<br />
Everyone who isn't rich, that is.<br />
<br />
Seems these days everyone in the dystopian future is young and attractive. Hunger Games, Divergent, The Seeker, etc., all young people, breaking out of the repressive shell that society has deemed appropriate for them. I suspect they will actually look more like me - middle aged, a bit portly, wandering into the grey haze of afternoon with no job, no money, no prospects, and believing that this wasn't what was meant to happen, that all those votes for the Democrats somehow still didn't manifest a good outcome, because nothing that has to happen in four or even eight years is worth doing well, and nothing that has to last for a hundred years is worth starting. Only science and the arts take the long view, and who takes those longhairs seriously anyway? Sure they can do their multi-decade experiments in outer space, because once it's out of the atmosphere, it hardly costs anything to maintain it or monitor it, and no one down here gets hurt. But something that has to last for a long time on Earth? Costs too much and requires too much maintenance. Who's going to pay for that?<br />
<br />
If middle-class white folks truly had to worry about whether or not their children had a future that wasn't The Hunger Games. would they act? Are we all frogs in the great pot of cold water, waiting for the heat to be turned up under us? The African-American community has started noticing the temperature, and they're not putting up with it, but then they've been shat on forever, they know they're the first frogs in the pot. The real middle class in America has only just begun to notice that we're all in the same pot.</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-30329773628065248872015-05-05T13:20:00.000-07:002015-05-05T13:21:42.063-07:00It's beginning to look a lot like...<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b>ELECTION SEASON (oh..... joy.........)</b><br />
<br />
I do this every four years (for the last four years or so), so it's time, once again, to look at the Republican Presidential hopefuls and a short look at the Democratic Presidential hopefuls, and essentially pass judgement on all of them, since that's what my vote will represent.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">First, the "official" Repugnican candidates:</span></b></div>
<br />
<b>Ted Cruz</b><br />
A Texan born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother, Mr. Cruz is the most condescending asshole in the Senate at the moment, and that's saying something. He's a snob (if you didn't go to Harvard or Princeton, well, fuck you), but he also speaks of his Christian upbringing, which somehow hasn't involved the actual teachings of Christ. His father is a raging anti-communist, Christian dominionist crazy-pants who is constantly making speeches about the next coming of Christ, or the evils of Obama, or commingling the subjects. A major conspiracy theorist who's son is pretty much on board with the conspiracy theories. Ted (right alongside Chuck Norris) is currently warning Texas about the invasion of the military.<br />
<br />
<b>Rand Paul</b><br />
A silver-spoon Libertarian who no longer professes to believe in his own Libertarianism (while publicly proclaiming that he does). Opposed to abortion and gay marriage, for keeping marijuana illegal and invading other countries to let them know who's boss. Also apparently divorced from his own fairly recent past.<br />
<br />
<b>Marco Rubio</b><br />
An Hispanic who has managed to alienate Latinos. In every poll, losing to a rich, old, white lady that everyone claims not to trust. His rebuttal to the President's State of the Union, interrupted as it was by a brief need for fluids, made us miss the eloquence of Bobby Jindal.<br />
<br />
<b>Ben Carson</b><br />
An African-American neurosurgeon with very little understanding of how politics (or the brain) works, and yet believes himself the next coming of Lincoln/MLK. Another candidate who has managed to alienate his own ethnic group by essentially calling them all lazy for being poor. He has also espoused the theory that homosexuality is a choice, and his proof is that people who go to prison often come out having had one or more sexual experiences with the same sex. I guess he's never heard of prison rape, or seen "The Shawshank Redemption".<br />
<br />
<b>Carly Fiorina</b><br />
Former CEO of Hewlett Packard, she took over the company when it was doing badly, laid off quite a few people (who probably won't be voting for her). She oversaw the purchase of Compaq computers when that company was going down the drain (which was not seen as a wise move), and was eventually ousted. Seems to have a nasty chip on her shoulder, and of course uses her faith as both a crutch and cudgel.<br />
<br />
<b>Mike Huckabee</b><br />
Once spoke of rewriting the Constitution to be more in line with the word of God. Sounds relatively reasonable unless he's speaking to his own kind. Then, nuttier'n a fruitcake.<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The unofficial Repugnicans:</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Jeb Bush</b><br />
Former President's brother or son, depending on which president you want to talk about. Jeb doesn't necessarily want to be equated to his younger, dumber sibling, but has hired all of Shrub's buddies as his advisers on important matters such as defense and foreign policy. So, you know, wars everywhere as soon as possible.<br />
<br />
<b>Rick Santorum</b><br />
Still has his own Wikipedia entry that he wishes he didn't have.<br />
<br />
<b>Scott Walker</b><br />
Very publicly butt-fucking his own state and all the people in it in favor of wealthy folks. The kind of Repugnican the Tea Partiers love.<br />
<br />
<b>Bobby Jindal</b><br />
An E. Indian who has embraced Christianity and the Brady Bunch (hence the name), but would have disapproved of Pa Brady had he known what a homo he was. His rebuttal to the President's State of the Union speech made us miss the eloquence of George W. Bush.<br />
<br />
<b>Chris Christie</b><br />
A fat man in a fat suit who isn't jolly at all. Always gets points with the local New Jersey-ites for telling people to go fuck themselves, but then, the GTL crowd has never been that interested in the larger picture. Which he is. Apparently as corrupt as everyone always thought he was, but we're still waiting for absolute proof.<br />
<br />
<b>Rick Perry</b><br />
Made George W. Bush appear intellectual. Occasionally made Michelle Bachmann appear sane.<br />
<br />
<b>George Pataki</b><br />
He's okay with abortions, believes in climate change, and universal health care. Not a snowball's chance in hell of making it through primary season.<br />
<br />
<b>Lindsey Graham</b><br />
Not gay. NOT GAY. not gay... He may be an asshole, but he's not gay. 2nd most condescending non-gay asshole in the Senate.<br />
<br />
<b>John Kasich</b><br />
Apparently, just right-wing enough to satisfy the right wing of the right wing, without appearing to be actually crazy. Keep an eye on this one.<br />
<br />
Waiting for the debates to begin, just as soon as they get that damn clown car to open its doors...<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The "official" Democratic candidates:</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Hillary Clinton</b><br />
Still recovering from the blowjob, Ms. Clinton has too much baggage, and yet fanTAStic name recognition, and polls well ahead of pretty much everyone. Makes nice speeches about how she's for less income inequality, less war, less bad stuff more good stuff. Has weathered more scandals than her husband and still, people like her better than all the other people they haven't actually heard from yet.<br />
<br />
<b>Martin O'Malley</b><br />
Former Mayor of Baltimore, credited by professional Baltimorean David Simon as the guy who managed to make community policing the last thing the police should be doing, instead relying more and more on statistics (and if you can't lower the felony rate, "juke" the stats to fit what you want). A no-nonsense law & order politician who doesn't actually understand how to lower the crime rate. I bow to Mr. Simon's direct experience of this hollow man, and won't vote for him unless he's the only choice.<br />
<br />
<b>Bernie Sanders</b><br />
The one person actually running that I want to vote for. Calls himself an independent, but tends to caucus with the Dems, and wonders why we shouldn't be more like Scandinavia. Wondered that one myself...<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">The unofficial Democratic candidate</span></b><br />
<br />
<b>Elizabeth Warren</b><br />
The one person who isn't running who I'd also rather vote for. If Warren and Sanders were running against each other, I'm not sure what I would do.</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-10249193005397558342014-09-09T14:08:00.000-07:002014-09-09T14:08:03.424-07:00The Future of Work<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I think I've made this point before, but I have to ask whoever still reads this screed for comments on a thought experiment. But first, watch this <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU" target="_blank">video</a>.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
So the question becomes this simple: what do we do with the folks who don't have to work anymore? Do we finally push for a guaranteed minimum income? Or do we start up the meat grinders?<br />
<br />
I don't have an answer for this. I think the concept of what this society might look like is either terribly dystopian (like The Road) or strongly resembles Star Trek's version of the future, where (since everything is easily achievable), no one gets paid for anything, and does whatever they can for the benefit of the society, or just for themselves, because everything is free.<br />
<br />
I'd like to think it won't suck too hard, but then again, we are human beings after all...</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-41182804359279146442014-06-17T12:21:00.002-07:002014-06-17T12:21:25.387-07:00My Only Living Hero<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
New blog listed on the right-hand side of the page, called <a href="http://www.stonekettle.com/" target="_blank">Stonekettle Station</a>, a fellow from Alaska named Jim Wright, retired US Navy Warrant Officer, who's been through a lot of war. I may never again publish on the subject of military behavior or military politics again, just because of this guy, damn him. He gets it right, he's clearly been thinking about all of the stuff he writes about for longer than I have, and he is full of both righteous indignation and resigned sadness about the role of the military in America. I love his writing, and I'm finicky. I'd salute him, but I've heard that civilians saluting the military is considered weird, or perhaps just inappropriate (unless you're a small child - then the soldier/sailor/airman/marine will take it very seriously indeed).<br />
<br />
I consider him my arch-enemy, and that is high praise.*<br />
<br />
This is a guy who profoundly gives a shit, and will take none. Why he's not getting paid handsomely for his writing is a mystery to me. Anyway, you're welcome.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>* to paraphrase Chuck Palahniuk</i></span></div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-27289138435718936492014-05-20T12:30:00.002-07:002014-06-23T10:02:27.239-07:00Political Dynasties, American Style<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As we sidle into the Next Big Election, many things have become "acceptable" to the average American that might not have been so last time around. Gay marriage is one. Gun control is another. Gun control at gay weddings, well, that's a whole different story, especially if you listen to the good folks at the NRA.<br />
<br />
But I'm not here to talk about that. Thanks to gerrymandering, we will probably have a Repugnican Congress and a Democratic Senate again, after 2014. Doubtful that the Senate will go all the way R, but one never knows these things for certain. So, not much will change there. We can also expect a race in the Presidential elections coming in 2016 between Hillary Clinton, and some conservative guy that no one likes, not even conservatives (either because he's too extreme, or not extreme enough, and he'll do that simultaneously - not gonna be a woman candidate this time, sorry folks).<br />
<br />
Benghazi.<br />
<br />
I just thought I'd say that. Meaningless, but it's a fun word to say and to write.<br />
<br />
Unless another candidate comes along who can truly energize the base, we will have another fucking Clinton in the White House in 2017. Bernie Sanders is too leftie, too much of a lecturer to connect with people. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for him, I would. but he gets under people's skin the same way Mister Superior did last time around (you know who you are, Mr. Gore). Sarah Vowell described Al Gore's reaction to a dumb answer by Mr. Bush during one of the debates as "nerd snort". A kind of smug-ass laugh that only smartie people make when confronted by someone obviously less intelligent than themselves. And it really, really alienates people. I don't expect Senator Sanders to do the same thing (waaaaay too serious), but he'll figure out a way to let his nerdiness become his likability's Achilles heel.<br />
<br />
Elizabeth Warren, now, there's a candidate who could give old Hils a run for her money. Schoolmarmish, she looks like the second-grade teacher you liked, because she reminds you of grandma. She's kind, and she has a nice smile. She's also incredibly smart, and very well connected with the folks at home (rather than the fools on the Hill). Hillary is the ultimate Washington insider, playing the game very, very well, and dancing for those that brung her. Elizabeth thinks they're just out for what they can get, and she doesn't trust them any farther than she can throw them, which is exactly the right place to be. And when she rips into them, you can hear the flesh tearing off in great hunks between her teeth.<br />
<br />
I've said it before, what I dislike more than anything is this idea of political dynasties. We've had two Bushes in the White House - why does the left have to respond with a second Clinton? Can't we think of anyone who can express the country's rage in an articulate way? Because I don't think Hillary will be expressing rage, so much as smug self-satisfaction that she can do the job at least as well as her husband, and without getting caught having a nooner with one the interns. Sort of the difference between the two of them - he sees it as kind of a perk of the powerful, she sees it as a character defect.<br />
<br />
Of course, the Right are having a field day with her looks, her brains, and her choices in clothing. Only one of which is relevant. Yep, it's the Pradas. (joking of course)<br />
<br />
No, they say her brain has flaws, because she spent a little time in hospital dealing with a clot. Someone else has tweeted Mr. Rove, asking whether he thought Jack Kemp was qualified, even after the eleven concussions. (which are okay, of course, because football)<br />
<br />
It's not the physical part of her brain that has flaws, it's the ethics, morals and policy part of her brains that has flaws. Anyone who's ever sat on the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1" target="_blank">board of WalMart</a> and not come away needing a three year shower has problems I don't want to elect. That her concept of relaxing after being Sec. of State was to write a book (which is generally thought of as a lead-up to running for Pres) means she hasn't read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Thrive-Redefining-Success-Creating-Well-Being/dp/0804140847/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400613588&sr=1-1&keywords=huffington" target="_blank">Huffington</a>'s new book, either. The one that says over-work and stress shouldn't be some sort of cultural norm.<br />
<br />
No more names we've heard before. There must someone who can win who isn't related to someone who's already been in. Please.</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-61991174927739909202013-10-17T10:59:00.000-07:002013-10-17T10:59:38.586-07:00Politics as Madness as Politics as Usual<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Crisis, crises, Christ Almighty...<br />
<br />
The loathing I have for our politicians and for many, many of our citizens has finally gone beyond any level where I can name it. This "legislate via Mafia tactics" nonsense has gone on long enough. The Dems tend to be spineless (though they seem to have found it this time), and the majority of Republicans are either spineless, or are simply willing to let their own party die for the sake of trying to score a few extra points with their most extreme constituents. And then there are Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert - two ends of the exact same spectrum: one, the Hahvahd-educated son of Americans living in Canada, the other... how does one describe Louie, other than crazy imbecile? Cruz was well-known in college for his effete snobbery (you didn't go to Yale, or Princeton? begone with you, peasant!), while Louie might have only been known for his affinity to farm animals. Yet these two Republican poster-boys sorta worked together to bring the United States to the brink of financial ruin. It's nice to know that Cruz can work with someone whom he would normally consider beneath him. And it's nice to know that Gohmert can work with an Hispanic-American without resorting to calling him an ethnic slur.<br />
<br />
Beyond that, I wish they'd stop working together, since all they seem to want is for the republic to implode.</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-55180946848860237212013-04-22T11:26:00.000-07:002015-11-09T11:06:38.421-08:00The Story Gets Better and Better<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">Let me get this straight: Alex Jones says that the World Trade Center towers were brought down on purpose, so that the US would go to war? Or to negate a bunch of freedoms? Or possibly to destroy the financial infrastructure of the US? Maybe even to initiate some kind of marshal law and/or gun control.<br />
<br />
He's in good company. The Boston Bombers also believe/d that the 9/11 event was created by the US - to fan the flames of hatred against Muslims.<br />
<br />
Alex Jones gets his information from other people on the interwebs, people who are (in most cases) obviously looking for some way to explain their drab, miserable lives by making wild accusations, or spouting off theories that would embarass even the Lone Gunmen. My favorite so far has been a video of a scruffy guy describing a photograph of one of the pressure cookers as "evidence" that it wasn't the actual bomb, the shape of the explosion was wrong, there were no shrapnel holes in the lid, etc., etc. Meanwhile, he's about two inches from his webcam and he acts like he's hiding from his mom.<br />
<br />
And, of course, there are Muslim websites doing the exact same thing, saying stuff like "Israel performs lab experiments on live Palestinian babies to see how well their nerve gas works" or such-like. (disclaimer: I've NEVER EVER READ anything that actually said that, so pshaw)<br />
<br />
This is what makes the Internet such an amazing, wonderful place. Anyone can write anything, without regard to consequence, but then the consequences actually come along and people die. I'm not suggesting censorship, but I am suggesting a better fucking education system.<br />
<br />
But my own relatives are taking this BS seriously, and it is beginning to piss me off. I love them dearly, and they're both very smart, smart people, but this is beyond insane. Alex Jones is propagating the kind of "journalism" that consists of asking zillions of contrarian questions in the hopes that more and more people will climb on his bandwagon, and even pay him money, in order to lend credence to his views. If enough people check into your website on a daily basis, if enough people buy your videos, well, Holy Shiite! Maybe one day Piers Morgan will invite you on his show so that you can yell at him endlessly. Only one problem that I see - what if almost everything you spout is total BS? What public interest are you serving by "asking questions", when it's possible that what every other news report (well... <a href="http://www.cnn.com/" target="_blank">almost</a>) is actually checking facts before they go and release any information at all. Maybe THEY are actually interviewing people who were REALLY THERE. As opposed to the countless whackos who you link to your site in order to fan the flames of inflammatory rhetoric that you spout, so that you get plenty of hits, and yet somehow manage to educate or even inform NO ONE. Because if you're not giving people facts, you're just screaming out GUESSES.<br />
<br />
And I don't believe in guesses any more than I believe in God. Because it's important to remember one thing: while facts are immutable, beliefs are mostly self-sustaining falsehoods that live on and on precisely because there's no evidence to support them. In Alex Jones' case, if the evidence is at odds with what he's saying, that just proves there's a conspiracy to silence him.<br />
<br />
WIN/WIN!!!</span></div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-5865092785271368162013-04-19T13:49:00.003-07:002013-04-19T13:49:39.625-07:00Bombings and Other Extreme Sports<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
While there is a certain temptation to throw various sports metaphors at the criminal attack of the Boston Marathon, now is not the time. As they say, comedy equals tragedy plus time, and there hasn't been enough time yet.<br />
<br />
We have been told that there are two bombers, brothers of Chechen background (sort of), legal immigrants, one of whom recently became a citizen. One of them is now dead, shot during a shootout in which the other brother managed to escape.<br />
<br />
I am not going to say any more on the subject, because I am not convinced of any of the particulars yet.<br />
<br />
What I will say is that I am tired, so VERY, VERY tired of people who claim to be concerned, thinking individuals, yet who are using Alex Jones as their source for all things accurate and truthful in the news. Alex Jones, who is convinced that the twin towers were brought down by a government conspiracy; who is convinced that the Sandy Hook Shooting was arranged by the current President to curtail 2nd Amendment Rights in this country; and who has said that the latest bombing was also arranged by Obama to find another way to take away our precious freedoms somehow.<br />
<br />
Stupidity is SO exhausting, don't you think?</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-33612147337003591232012-10-04T14:47:00.004-07:002012-10-08T08:27:32.956-07:00What Shall We Do with a Drunken Trader?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang=""><br />
In the year of our Lord 2009, a fellow in Britain affected world oil prices during a <a href="http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Broker-Sent-Oil-Prices-to-Eight-Month-High-in-a-Drunken-Stupor.html" target="_blank">drunken blackout</a>. In an attempt to not say things like "I told you so" or "No shit, Sherlock", it is my duty to take severe notice of the, shall we say, flexibility of our commodities trading systems around the world. <br />
<br />
The timeline, as I understand it, is this:<br />
<br />
Steve Perkins, a trader at PVM Oil Futures left work after the end of a long, hard day.<br />
<br />
(everything between now and 1:22 am is sheer speculation)<br />
<br />
He went to his local, the Bung & Beaver, for five or six pints of the best bitter (or, to be exotic, five or six pint cans of Budweiser). He also stopped at a chip shop to get some delightful takeaway fish to go with the other few cans of beer sitting in his fridge at home. He also stopped at the offy to get a bottle of Scotch (unless he was upper class, in which case it was either Vodka or Gin).<br />
<br />
After he arrived home, and haphazardly jammed the key into the lock, he opened the door to find his pet hamster waiting patiently for noms.<br />
<br />
So he sits down at the telly, opens up his very hygenically-wrapped fish & chips (no more newspaper, folks!), cracked another can of beer (this time, some kind of shitty ale), and drank with his fish. More beer. More British Idol. More beer.<br />
<br />
As we reach the late hour of ten o'clock, Steve is off beer and on to Scotch or one of the clear ones. On the rocks. Until getting up to get more rocks becomes too much trouble. He is sitting in front of his computer, surfing porn. Unfortunately, after ten pints of beer and half a pint of hard alcohol, he is no longer able to get it up, so he turns to the other manly thing he knows how to do: buy oil futures.<br />
<br />
So, at 1:22 am (where we rejoin reality), he goes buck wild. And between 1:22 and 3:41 am, he buys up 69% of the world market in oil futures, equaling 7 million barrels of crude oil, valued at $9,763,252. Thanks to the volume and the fact that he kept raising his bids every single time he bid (being a drunken idiot), he raised the price on crude by $1.50 per barrel in a little over two hours. He calls in sick the next day, after an admin clerk calls to ask him why he went and bought 7 million barrels of crude, to which he probably replied, "bollocks."<br />
<br />
Subsequently, an official investigation determined that he had a drinking problem.<br />
<br />
Duh.<br />
<br />
They took away his traders' license, fined him around $116,000, and told him to go to AA or something like it. They say he will get his license back in five years if he can prove he is no longer a danger to the oil futures commodities market, or at least drinking a little less.<br />
<br />
This is up there with the trader who wanted to get his firm in the Guinness book for first-time trading of oil at over $100 per barrel, or the computer-aided high-speed transaction systems sending the market into a tailspin after accidentally dumping stocks so fast the whole market lost a lot of value in a single afternoon. When do we start recognizing that human error and computer error should not have the power to affect the markets that much? It's up there with a mouse being chased by a cat being chased by a dog, etc., causing the fiery destruction of New York City.</span></div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-7620034607392014102012-10-03T13:00:00.000-07:002012-10-03T13:04:29.087-07:00Panera Cares but the Neighbors Don't<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Panera has a small group of outlets called <a href="http://www.paneracares.org/" target="_blank">Panera Cares</a>, essentially a pay-as-much-as-you-can restaurant that aids local homeless, while giving folks with more money a chance to subsidize the homeless and impoverished people in their neighborhood. This has led to an unfortunate side-effect - homeless and impoverished people becoming visible to the folks with money. <br />
<br />
If there's one thing the well-off really hate to see, it's poor people in person. <br />
<br />
Personally, I believe this is why the Occupy movement had such a hard time. A lot of people could simply look at the marginally hippie-esque garb of a lot of the participants, their obvious lack of resources, and think to themselves, "there but for the Grace of God, go I." And then yell "GET A JOB" at the few folks who actually had laptops or iPads or cell phones, because, of course, these were and continued to be people of means, who were just protesting to get a day off work or something. Or maybe, just maybe, they were people who had lost their decent paying jobs right after they bought iPads. Unfortunately, the media had a hard time with this dichotomy as well.<br />
<br />
Don't forget, everything is either black or white.<br />
<br />
Of course, the media latches onto the story and makes sure everyone is concerned about "safety", quoting one gentleman saying that if a sidewalk is blocked, well that's a concern. I dunno - a sidewalk is blocked in a minimall every time they have an outdoor shoe/handbag sale (sorry, ladies, but I'm married to a wonderful woman, and I've seen these things happen). Is safety an issue at that point? Are we afraid of roving bands of women who are blocking the sidewalks, trying to get cut-rate Manolo Blandniks at their favorite Needless Markup or at DSW Shoes (haven't they thought about how that reads? it's "Discount Shoe Warehouse Shoes" - while I realize they may sell other things, do they have any locations named DSW Cars, or DSW Fruit?).<br />
<br />
Anyway.<br />
<br />
This, then, follows the state of relations between the classes in America. Some people have money, and everyone else should just suck it up and, well, stay the fuck out of sight, because you're exacerbating my <a href="http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/ibs/" target="_blank">IBS</a>. Or possibly my <a href="http://www.ubs.com/ch/en.html" target="_blank">UBS</a>. We got our dough, and we dislike the sight of people in <a href="http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/" target="_blank">stretch pants</a> (unless they have a really fantastic personal trainer, plastic surgeon, or both). And we really hate to be reminded what greedy pricks we really are. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to live with such wealth? How much responsibility we have? - to make sure our children never have to lift a finger for as long as they live, and to be certain that they carry on our tradition of really hating the poor, because the poor are just shiftless, lazy bums, who didn't pull themselves up by their bootstraps with their trust funds, stocks, bonds, or college funds. And you know, God wants us to be rich.<br />
<br />
Seems to me something about eyes, needles and camels is in there somewhere, but I forget - didn't someone of importance say that? Oh, right, he was poor - we don't have to listen to him.</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-58036610821714097122012-07-24T09:24:00.000-07:002012-07-24T09:29:50.597-07:00Another Tragedy, Another Loud Yawn<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">Another twelve dead in Colorado, from yet another lunatic with a gun. Sorry, several guns, and many pounds of ammo. All purchased legally, and nowhere do we hear from the "responsible" gun owners a cry for better regulation or better enforcement of our laws. Only a "hang 'em high" attitude that doesn't bring anyone back, and didn't stop this whack job in the first place.<br />
<br />
As a nation, do we care? These were young people, with their whole lives ahead of them. Conversely, they hadn't contributed very much yet, and with their future economic outlook, probably wouldn't have much chance of doing more. So will we miss them? Did we need them to begin with?<br />
<br />
The NRA and their spokespeople (i.e., registered gun owners who defend everyone's right to bear any arms they can get) always bring up automobile deaths, as if driving a car and firing a weapon are the same thing. The thing is, an automobile accident is just that - an accident. And you have to take tests to be allowed to drive an automobile. Guns are test-free, unless you count the background check. And you don't always have to go through one of those, either.<br />
<br />
But because the American way of politics is to ignore whatever happens in the next street, we will have forgotten about this tragedy by next week, or it will be eclipsed by another tragedy of equally horrifying proportions. We'll find a way to rationalize our apathy, since the NRA has so obviously gotten control of pretty much every politician's balls, and we know that no amount of popular outrage can fight against the right-wing money machine.<br />
<br />
And we'll pass more "stand your ground" laws, so that we can have open gunfights in the public square, and more innocent bystanders will be killed by loose rounds, and no one will be to blame, since everyone was simply defending themselves from everyone else.<br />
<br />
And I am numb and angry at the same time.<br />
<br />
But what I'm not is afraid. I'm still not afraid of my fellow man. I refuse to see everyone as a potential criminal, the way that the folks in the conservative wing do. I get that some folks like to hunt for food, and I see nothing wrong with that. But self-defense? If you're a woman, I get it. Get a can of mace (which is often harder to get than a gun), and if some bastard tries to rape or sodomize you, give him the whole can, right into his eyes (or mouth - hurts like hell, still totally incapacitating, even lethal).<br />
<br />
But if I were to live my life assuming everyone was out to get me, or that the government was out to get me, I'd get a house with much smaller, barred windows, better locks, steel doors, security systems and all that. Maybe I'm just naive, but I don't want to live my life in fear of everyone and everything. I was raised to be suspicious, and it never did me any good. Certainly, I've been taken for a ride occasionally, but otherwise, most people are decent.<br />
<br />
And since we apparently won't be able to stop these bastards from getting guns and doing bad things, maybe the best we can hope for is to treat everyone as a friend, until they prove they're an enemy. To turn the other cheek, until they recognize our humanity. Because if we can't see other people as human beings, each worthy of life and happiness, we've failed our potential as a species.<br />
<br />
In which case, dying off won't be such a tragedy after all.</span></div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-82449035822162179102012-05-18T11:31:00.000-07:002012-10-08T08:28:02.115-07:00Eat Like a Caveman, Act Like an Idiot<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">I have taken to the idea of losing weight, and I've begun a process of exercising and eating better, which will hopefully, eventually, turn me into a young buck of thirty. Seeing that I'm starting at age 51 might be a cause for concern but no matter! I can make this happen.<br />
<br />
I've been hearing about yet another fad diet, called the Paleo, or Neaderthin diet (wow, there's a marketing concept). Many of my cow-orkers have taken it up. Several are also on the Kettlebell thing (the old Russian Special Forces, or Spetznaz, exercise involving cannonballs of varying sizes with handles). I can assure you that Spetnaz guys ate plenty of meat, and a lot of grains, and a few of them really, really like vodka. I have begun the hard process of Convict Conditioning, which is a set of bodyweight-only exercises, mixed with running and stairclimbing (real stairs, that is, not the machine version). I continue to eat my usual diet, with a higher level of protein and vegetables, and fewer (but not NO carbs).<br />
<br />
Here's the issue I'm having with all this dieting advice: it's BULLSHIT. The Paleo diet tells us that human beings have only altered .005% in their genetic makeup since Paleolithic times, say, three million years ago. Therefor, we should eat the same kind of diet that they had available to them, high in protein and fat, mixed with non-legume veggies and minimal grain. There's a lot of stuff about keeping coffee and alcohol out of the diet, coffee because it interferes with digestion, and alcohol for the same reason, as well as the sugars in alcoholic drinks. Minimal dairy as well (depending on which version of the diet you read, since between 3 million years ago and 90,000 years ago, humans began tending animals as society moved to a more village-based organization - and hell, even the nomadic tribes dragged goats along with them).<br />
<br />
So, pork rinds good, rice & most fruit bad.<br />
<br />
Tell that to the native peoples of India.<br />
<br />
Here's where this becomes a political subject rather than just a bunch of stupid dieting tips: all of this nonsense about Paleo vs. Atkins vs. Moosewood depends entirely on factory-farmed, commercially fished, already-been-processed or ruined food that you can buy in the supermarket, covered in God-knows-what pesticides or fungicides or herbicides. I had friends who worked in an organic grocery store, who were very careful to wear gloves when handling non-organic celery, lettuces or herbs, because if they didn't, their skin would be burning by the time they'd uncrated the day's take of celery.<br />
The solution: stop eating processed, genetically altered, nitrogen-enhanced foods that don't grow during the time of year near where you live. Local, fresh produce, meat, fish and dairy are all good. I understand the vegetarian/vegan impulse, but I figure if I know where the animal came from, and make sure it really didn't die screaming, I'll be okay with the meat I eat. I also won't eat any farmed fish. Organic whole grains are great, but white rice is a staple all over Asia, and, sure, people get fat on that diet, but mostly because they eat too much of any given thing, not because one specific part of their diet causes them to blow up like a balloon. One of the strictures of the Paleo diet is to not eat anything you couldn't eat raw.<br />
<br />
I dunno about you, but I've never liked raw pork rinds.<br />
<br />
We get fat because we eat a lot of highly-processed, chemically preserved and genetically altered food products that I don't count as "food." Michael Pollan pointed out in his book, "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/In-Defense-Food-Eaters-Manifesto/dp/0143114964/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337289816&sr=1-1" target="_blank">In Defense of Food</a>" that the stuff they call "non-fat sour cream" would have been called "artificial sour cream" back in the seventies. Even Dorothy Sayers pointed out the wonderful faculties within the worlds of advertising where "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Murder-Advertise-Peter-Wimsey-Mystery/dp/045000242X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1337289846&sr=1-1" target="_blank">of, with and from</a>" determined the quantity of apples used to make cider (one had to be made <i>of </i>nothing but apples, one had to made chiefly <i>with </i>apples, and one could be made <i>from </i>a peck of apples and a ton of turnips). So, in our modern times, we find ourselves eating food whose ingredients are not only unpronounceable but wholly unfathomable. We fight like hell to get GMO crops identified within our food supply, but the FDA keeps edging away from labeling things that come from animals fed on GMO crops.<br />
<br />
The Paleo diet speaks of eating more fish, when our earliest ancestors didn't catch fish. They talk about our ancestors spending a lot of time lounging about, waiting for the next hunt or sending the women off to collect roots or berries or nuts (most of which are not allowed in the Paleo diet). The true paleolithic exercise program included (according to Christopher MacDougall in his excellent book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Born-Run-Hidden-Superathletes-Greatest/dp/0307266303" target="_blank">Born to Run</a>") the pleasure of persistence hunting: running after your prey in a concerted effort to keep it running as well, keeping it away from the pack, until the animal's heart gave out - a process that could take hours. Then you have to butcher the damn thing and carry the parts miles back to the village or your encampment. Butchering an animal with stone tools is not the easiest thing to do, even by a skilled hunter.<br />
Paleolithic humans worked hard to eat, worked hard to stay alive, and when food wasn't plentiful, they'd occasionally eat each other. They maybe didn't get ulcers, but life expectancies were very short compared to ours. They didn't have jobs that left them stranded in cubicle land all day, and they didn't have microwaves or blenders or juicers. We cannot possibly reproduce (perfectly) the circumstances of their existence in modern life, but what we can do is stop murdering the nutritional value of our food before it even shows up on market shelves. To quote Mr. Pollan again, "eat food, not too much, mostly plants."<br />
<br />
That sounds primitive enough for me.</span></div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-27494608213442637842012-03-26T11:10:00.000-07:002012-03-26T11:21:57.926-07:00The Death of Stuff<div style="text-align: left;">
I'm in a weird space these days (no, NOT because of the medication). The music industry has decided to <a href="http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=46980_0_2_0_C" target="_blank">end</a> the standard CD format by the end of 2012, except in cases of special editions, box sets, etc. Amazon and iTunes and others will provide us with all the digital downloads we can eat. More and more films are being released in 3D format, and we're being charged extra for the regular ones to offset the cost of showing the 3D ones (even though Walter Murch has essentially <a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html" target="_blank">made fun</a> of us dumb humans for even thinking our brains and eyeballs can properly process 3D movies as the technology currently works). I've even seen "3D-ready" stereo receivers. 3D-ready? It's just an <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Menotek-Advanced-Category-Ethernet-Channel/dp/B0030HQ072/ref=sr_1_23?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1332781796&sr=1-23" target="_blank">HDMI cable</a>, and the other one has the same cables. Different circuitry? Different cable? (actually, yes, but why bother?) Does Monster charge a premium on 3D HDMI cables over regular HDMI cables?
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
(answer: yes, they probably do - it's the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Monster-Cable-Ultimate-Speed-1000/dp/B003ILIFEG/ref=sr_1_8?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1332781796&sr=1-8" target="_blank">Monster Cable</a> way)
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
To add insult to injury, it appears Apple is both allowing Blu-Ray movies to be produced in their new version of Final Cut (the software the Coens and the aforementioned Murch like to edit in), but not incorporating the same functionality that they'd previously had for mastering regular DVDs. Steve Jobs was dead set against physical manifestations of digital creativity in a lot of ways (except in Apple's overpriced hardware*) - he was trying to create a world in which the creator could conveniently distribute his/her creations via the interwebs without the necessity of people buying pieces of stuff, like CDs, or DVDs, etc.
And there's that whole printed page, thing, as well.
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
While I deplore the hyperconsumption of our society, and I realize that resources are finite, does anyone else here really believe that a download of the White Album sounds better than the LP? Or <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDkQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwKiIroiCvZ0&ei=g5dwT478GuTjmAWY7pCbBg&usg=AFQjCNGcal9vwRL9a5lcdUjEemJZ2CwZng" target="_blank">watching a movie on your iPhone</a> is as good as going to the movies? Or that staring into the anemic screen of a Nook is somehow an improvement over the physical appearance of the etchings of Gustave Dore?
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I know, call me a curmudgeon.
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
On top of all that, we have the <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDigital_Millennium_Copyright_Act&ei=vpdwT-n1CI3NmAWN352lBg&usg=AFQjCNFVx2K_COc4WVQdE1poH8LDOlwpng" target="_blank">DMCA</a>, <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAnti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement&ei=0ZdwT6-_EvHMmAXlzuWuBg&usg=AFQjCNGJijexIM1w56mkP_2QZyn0ZBwLUQ" target="_blank">ACTA</a>, <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CE0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStop_Online_Piracy_Act&ei=4ZdwT9z3MMTKmQXI64irBg&usg=AFQjCNEGwABJrdh3xS8Ir01MXescLOJljQ" target="_blank">SOPA</a>, and other Acts that will compromise our ability to use the power of the Internet through corporate fiat. Walt Disney films are now copyrighted out to 75 years after the death of the rights' holder (and when do corporations die anymore).
So, when you can't buy the CD or the DVD anymore, and the rights' holders can turn off your connection if they even so much as suspect you've bootlegged something, where does that leave parody? What if you release something on your own, through your own website, and the big labels or studios have the right to turn off your connection by saying they "suspect" you're doing something with <em>their</em> material, and they don't even have to show cause, or ask a judge?
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I find myself in a quandary. I like the idea of having the physical book or LP or CD or DVD or whatever form of media it is, even if I can't rip it for myself. I'm downloading the content into my brain anyway. And I own too much stuff, like a lot of people my age. I love the idea of kids having their textbooks on iPads, and not having to go to a chiropractor at twelve when their book bag is heavier than they are. A balance is necessary in all of this, and I feel like the tipping point is already past. Sure, I'll be able to get previously owned copies of books for a while. I might even be able to get small press books whenever I get down to <a href="http://www.powells.com/" target="_blank">Powell's</a> in Portland (assuming they're still in business).
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I HAVE TOO MUCH STUFF. Talk about your stuff owning you, we had thirty or more boxes of books when we last moved, and it hasn't gotten better, I can tell you. I've also inherited my parents' record collections, and they began in the 1940s, buying albums when they really were albums of records. (having the original 78 of Charles Trenet's "La Mer" would be awesome, except I can't play 78s on any turntable I own) But I wouldn't give up these things. They're history, my history, my parents' history, my family's history. When my Dad passed away, I think my brother got the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/13/technology/encyclopedia-britannica-books/index.htm" target="_blank">Encyclopedia Britannica</a>. I got the <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CGIQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fculture%2Fbooks%2Fbooknews%2F7970391%2FOxford-English-Dictionary-will-not-be-printed-again.html&ei=VK9wT4CdJNHmmAXr2pGMBg&usg=AFQjCNFxo4ptOBJAfYz-EF2Yc0L87nQOlw" target="_blank">Oxford English Dictionary</a> (Compact Edition) with the supplement and the magnifying glass. In England, they joke about the probability that if all the books were taken away, heating bills would go up by 25%.
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
And how far do we take this removal of reality into the digital world? At what point do we find ourselves in a place where we lose track of the Thirteenth Century, because the computer had a brain fart, or a malicious bastard decided we shouldn't know about this stuff? Buildings burn down, and computers get hacked. No matter what, we lose things to history - it's all a matter of time. But that doesn't mean you can't tell people about such things, and it doesn't mean your children won't ever know the pleasures of listening to Spike Jones on their record players. But if we keep going down the path of digital this and iThat, we're going to lose the physical expressions of human creativity where information is the primary subject - i.e., books, music and movies.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Where am I going with this? I worry about my kid. I waver about whether these gadgets that we've attached ourselves to will become more a part of her life than reality, because they don't represent reality - they mediate it for us. I recall a passage from Neal Stephenson's excellent little book "<a href="http://nealstephenson.com/command/" target="_blank">In the Beginning was the Command Line</a>", regarding a father videotaping his walk down Main Street USA in Disney World, and how the dad was literally having a vicarious experience of the experience he could have been having in person, while being there in person.
(and of course, Dad was vicariously experiencing a false history, but that's a topic for another time)
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Is this how we want our kids to live - one vicarious moment after another, one more thing to experience through the viewfinder of your smart phone to be posted on Facebook so that other people can also have the same vicarious experience of something you could have really enjoyed, had you simply stopped recording, and looked up at the face of the world? Is everyone's life meant to be played out on Reality TV?
How do we want to remember the great moments of our lives - as a perfect digital copy, or as an imperfect human memory?</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
At some point, the digitizing of our history needs to be re-mediated by a collective act of rebellion, of oral traditions that we've nearly lost, of a written historical record that (even with all of its' biases) is better than some multi-media extravaganza written by a corporation for the edification/commodification of our children, seen through a glowing screen that they can't live without. We're losing touch with our humanity with every new gadget that removes the creativity <em>from</em> the physical <em>to</em> the digital.
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<em><span style="font-size: x-small;">*Apple fanboy here, so please, no flames about my so-called hatred of the Mac - it's more love/hate</span></em></div>
</div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com1Seattle, WA, USA47.6062095 -122.332070847.520564 -122.4899993 47.691855 -122.1741423tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-36646558774113959942012-01-31T11:02:00.000-08:002012-01-31T11:02:29.896-08:00Middle Class Retooling<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">This <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">article</a> in the New York Times, published January 21st, talks about how Apple (and other electronics manufacturers) works to make their consumer electronics less expensive, and details the requirements of manufacturing as well as the requirements of American workers versus Chinese workers.<br />
<br />
While I get that globalization and the like make it all the more difficult for such work to be performed by Americans (since the Chinese are willing to live in dorms and work 6 12-hour days a week in order to pay their families back home or not pay anyone but a bank account somewhere), the part that's so depressing about it is that it appears there's no end in sight.<br />
<br />
Workers willing to work long hours for low wages is as old as history. They're always available, there will always be someone who'd prefer 12 hours a day in an air-conditioned building and a warm place to sleep versus starving to death. Well, mostly, anyway.<br />
<br />
What will Americans do now? Foxconn hired 85,000 engineers (so-called) to oversee the 250,000 workers in the plant. These engineers don't need a BS to do their job, something the equivalent of an AA would do. While it might take 6 months for an American manufacturing firm to find this many engineers, in China it took three weeks to ramp up. Why?<br />
<br />
Simple. Infrastructure. Which we don't invest in much anymore.<br />
<br />
Even if you could hire this many employees to work a single building like this in the States, OSHA would disallow it on the basis of safety. Foxconn has had to hire traffic cops to guide employees coming and going from the building during shift change. <br />
<br />
Essentially, what they're telling us is that, in order to make it in the middle class, you really need to rethink the idea of human dignity and worth. We really need to get back to the days when humans were simply interchangeable cogs in a great machine, hired for cheap when young, and discarded as soon as the part wears out or a cheaper, younger, hungrier version becomes available. <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017136/" target="_blank">Metropolis</a> wasn't just a movie, it was the shape of things to come.<br />
<br />
Side note: I wonder if we know what happens to former Foxconn workers? Anyone done that bit of reporting yet? We know that many of them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides#2010" target="_blank">kill themselves</a> (or <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/xbox-assembly-workers-threaten-mass-suicide" target="_blank">threaten to do so</a>)...<br />
<br />
As a consumer in a consumer society (and an Apple fanboy to boot), I know there are things that are expected of any modern person in America: you own a car, a cellphone, maybe a laptop or a pad computer - but some kind of computer and some sort of portable computing device. Many businesses are asking their employees to provide their own devices at work, and are building new wireless networks that are at once more simplified and more complex in order to both facilitate the employee bringing in their own gear, but also protecting company information. In the old days, policemen had to provide their own uniforms, their own nightsticks, even their own guns. (ammo was provided, generally) So it's good to know there's been progress in this regard.<br />
<br />
So, as far as progress is concerned, we've managed to outsource much of our manufacturing, we're underfunding school systems, so fewer and fewer high-caliber people will be entering the workforce (and we won't need them anyway, so long as there's a China), we've built more prisons than anywhere else, and we keep building the armed forces larger and larger. We'll need people to pick crops (and the Hispanics are being scared off by our own draconian immigration laws, as well as the decline of such opportunities), serve food, wash cars, trim lawns, etc., etc.<br />
<br />
Was this what the Founding Fathers had in mind? A great nation, wealthy beyond their wildest dreams, wherein 90% of the population will eventually (if current trends maintain) be living on the margins?</span></div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-90436596554769567712012-01-11T14:08:00.000-08:002012-01-11T14:11:06.684-08:00We Hate Us, and Nothing We Stand For<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">When the GOP runs its convention in the future and they decide who they want to run the country as soon as Obama implodes and vanishes (since that's what they're trying to make happen), we will then discover that Republicans can, after all, vote for someone with a strange religion, even if he's robotic and painful to watch, has no sense of humor, and actually believes that he was (at some point) in real danger of receiving a pink slip. Where's the danger when you're a multi-millionaire, right? If I was a multi-millionaire, losing my job wouldn't really hurt me all that much...<br />
<br />
But what really gets us libs going is the idea that Romney is actually stupid enough to think he can <i>win</i>. Besides his extraordinary number of doofusy misstatements, he epitomizes the old joke about the guy whose stick up his ass has a stick up its ass. Meanwhile, his version of humor is kind of creepy - when he gets close to a woman on stage, he reacts as if she just grabbed his ass, you know, "ha. ha. ha."<br />
<br />
Now that we've lost Hermain Cain as a human comedy punching bag, and Michelle Bachmann has to go back to saying insane things to smaller groups (while still being a congresscritter), we're stuck with Mittens, Newt, Santorum, Huntsman and Paul, all of whom think they can capture the undecided, independent voter.<br />
<br />
Republican strategists haven't forgotten one key fact in their calculations - the independent voter is actually a liberal who hates the term. Kind of like closeted gay Republicans, the "independent voter" is actually a self-loathing liberal who has been trained by years of well-publicized misinformation that liberals and liberal causes are bad for the country, and yet would vote <i>for </i>them if presented individually on a ballot. When asked questions like, "would you prefer a public option in the Health Care Bill", seventy percent of the nation says yes, while half of that group calls the Democrats "Socialists." When asked if taxing the super-wealthy would be a good idea, that same seventy percent says yes, and the same half of that group refers to the Occupy Wall Street protests as "Class Warfare", as if class warfare is a bad thing.<br />
<br />
This is the problem we face, and we still haven't found a way to change their minds. It doesn't help that the only reasonably leftie news source is MSNBC, and I don't get that, since I hate network TV. Most people like network TV, and that may be why so many people are so wildly disinformed. Every time I see someone defending the Iraq war, or indefinite detention, or whatever, in a fictional TV show (like NCIS, or Law And Order: SVU, or Bones), the person with the Liberal/Leftist point of view is always, ALWAYS, portrayed as a screechy conspiracy-monger who alienates everyone around them, or a scientific-type, knowitall weenie (and nerds are invariably annoying). Fair and Balanced doesn't exist in fictional shows, let alone in the newsrooms of America. Even video games have a highly one-sided view of the current states of war and conflict. Americans are always a force for good, even if what they're doing violates Geneva or would cause an even greater rift between us and whoever it is we're supposed to be "protecting." The last time I ever saw a truly thorny political football handled with a reasonable level of balance was Steven Soderbergh's Traffic.<br />
<br />
Unless and until we manage to figure out a way to get people to listen without first having to say "will you just LISTEN TO ME", we are going nowhere as a force for much of anything, let alone good.<br />
<br />
The only way we're winning this year is if the economy continues its snail-like pace towards improvement. If Obama ratchets up the rhetoric, and then actually follows through (the appointment of Cordray to the CFPB was a step in the right direction, though a very, very short step), things may improve. The signing of the NDAA was a sad blip on the radar, and I do hope he does something publicly to denounce the various provisions regarding the rapidly crumbling edifice of habeus corpus. But we are voting for him, right? Probably, anyway? Because we really really don't want Romney or Paul or Sanitorium in the White House, right?<br />
<br />
Right?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>Note: Some of the reason I have gathered enough hope to my bosom in order to write again is because I'm watching the DVD collection of The Wire my wife bought me for Christmas. If the "entertainment industry" is capable of producing this, what else is America capable of?</em></span></span></div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-91480618400795728452011-12-01T09:07:00.001-08:002011-12-01T09:12:18.801-08:00Christians Piss Me off, While God Only Annoys<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span lang="">We begin our sermon today with a message from Kentucky: flaunting your miscegenation will not be tolerated. A church in Pike County, Kentucky has forbidden interracial couples from participating in any church services, except for funerals. "All are welcome", goes the saying. Y'all can come in, but God forbid you do anything that other people can actually, you know, see, because God'll burn the church down if He sees a white girl playin' the piano while her black boyfriend sings of His glory. <br />
<br />
A fellow by the name of Melvin Thompson, the former pastor of Gulnare Freewill Baptist church, told Stella Harville that her services would no longer be required if she insisted on having her black fiancee sing with her in church, because it would decrease church "unity". Stella's fiancee is a man by the name of Ticha Chikuni. He is a native of Zimbabwe. Now, lest you think this is all one's man's doing, remember I said <i>former</i> pastor. Last Sunday, church members voted 9-6 in favor of Thompson's ban on interracial couples performing in church services.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Miscegenation, by the way, is a made-up, purely American word, developed in the middle of the nineteenth century by a couple of Democrats (this was when the Dems were the forerunners of the Klan and the Republicans were people like Abraham Lincoln - the more things change, the more they change a whole heckuva lot) in a pamphlet that espoused the cause of race-mixing as a great thing that would unite the nation, and gave the credit to Republicans for having thought it up in the first place. This was intended as political sabotage, because, of course, everyone knows that blacks and whites shouldn't mix.</span><br />
<br />
Wow. Welcome to the nineteenth century everyone, alive and kicking in good old Pike County, Kentucky.<br />
<br />
As a man in mixed-race relationship, I have experienced first-hand the bigotry of my fellow citizens, especially the ones with the big American flags on the sides of their trailers. I have been told to move along by folks, simply for having a Pacific Island wife, while the all-white couples (with the multiple piercings, tattoos and ripped jeans) are left alone to do as they please. I know racism still exists, though it's usually a little more subtle.<br />
<br />
But the Right-wing still wears a lot of its bigotry on its sleeve (Limbaugh referring to Michelle Obama's "uppityness" should have got him fired). No way that Herman Cain would have ever gotten a nomination, even though the "our blacks are better than your blacks" meme sounded a lot like the Right wing actually believed their own propaganda for a moment, right when Herman Cain was about to collapse in a heap under the weight of his own stupidity and immorality. Because when it comes down to it, the Right wing in this country really, really doesn't like negroes any more than they like orientals or injuns.<br />
<br />
Unless they stay in their place, of course.<br />
<br />
Oh, and God does have a sense of <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/justice/ohio-amish-hate-crimes/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29" target="_blank">humor</a>.</span></div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-88005421941287159162011-11-09T13:09:00.000-08:002011-11-09T13:09:54.391-08:00Alcohol - the Cause & Cure<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
As the Occupy movement grows and grows, it does this old cynic's heart good to see that many progressive outcomes have been won this last voting day. (I'd call it election day, but it was mostly about initiatives and recalls, if I understand the news correctly) Off-year voting days are less than normally populated, but we apparently had a pretty good turnout, if only because a lot of dumb initiatives got shit-canned.<br />
<br />
Here in Washington State, one of our largest retailers paid good money to be allowed to sell liquor, and they got their money's worth - you'll be able to buy booze in places other than state-run liquor stores as of June of next year. Meanwhile, the government-run shops will mostly close down (inventory's too expensive for the current franchisees to be able to buy themselves into the likker biz), and the only place you'll be able to buy booze will be in stores with a footprint larger than 10,000 square feet. This lets out the local gas stations, but it also lets out the kind of places I saw in San Francisco last time I was down there, such as the Beer & Bourbon store between Castro and Noe Valley.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile in Republican politics, you have Herman Cain's campaign flaming out in grand style on various and sundry charges, ranging from being a deadbeat diner to sexual harassment to outright sexual assault. Of course, when the charges are being aired, he plays the race card, while simultaneously negating said card by saying he doesn't have any "hard evidence" to back it up. <br />
<br />
Being an asshole is trans-racial.<br />
<br />
While I abhor his behavior regarding Ms. Bialek, I think stiffing a couple of invited guests for the cost of dinner, after you order the most expensive wine on the menu, seems like the sort of behavior we need in a President right now. How are we going to erase the National Debt? Cain's solution: stiff China for the bill...<br />
<br />
Rick Perry has now had many offers for either a new mixologist, or perhaps less effective drugs. His last speech had all the earmarks of <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fuser%2FBadLipReading&ei=Eum6TqzYGcnKmQW3mYyRCA&usg=AFQjCNE1tzuDffJKRgBxivtNXv907ttHlg">Bad Lip Reading</a>'s work, but it wasn't them; it was really he, Rick "Goodhair" Perry, who couldn't make an English sentence work in his favor for nearly fifteen minutes. Unbelievable that someone didn't hook him off the stage after the first three.<br />
<br />
Newt tried to up his cred by debating Cain and Cain alone the other week. Haven't really heard from him since. Not sure what they talked about.<br />
<br />
Ron Paul has taken to calling Elizabeth Warren a Socialist, because Ms. Warren had the audacity to tell her audience that, without education, roads, bridges, cops and firemen, all this rugged individualism that Republicans espouse would have taken place in a much smaller arena. Yes, they might have succeeded on their own, but they'd be lonely. Very, very lonely.<br />
<br />
Mitt Romney is probably going to be the front runner. Which means he still has a chance to fuck up even worse than he already has. Once he's determined the appropriate stance to take on a subject, he will then discover a better stance to take, and then a different stance to take, until finally, he decides on a final stance to take, just before he takes his stance on that subject. He will then be criticized by a tiny demographic within his larger demographic, after which he will have a new stance on the same subject with a small change in nuance designed to make that stance seem as much like his original stance as possible, while bearing no resemblance to it at all.<br />
<br />
Here in Washington, the change in liquor laws can't come soon enough.</div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-1764323980406206302011-09-01T12:51:00.000-07:002011-09-01T12:57:42.016-07:00Slogan-y T-Shirt Arrives!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
So, I got the right t-shirt in yesterday's mail (that's Monday the 31st of August). And it says:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">fight</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">back</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">2012</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So, here's where I get a little confused, or possibly concerned - I know the package is from the DCCC (I did, at least, finally look a the packaging slip). I know what's happening in the real world of politics, and know that there are many things to fight back against. I'm just not sure anyone looking at this t-shirt would have the least clue as to what it's talking about. There are no logos, no indicators of any sort of specific point of view, again, no particular message on this t-shirt, other than fighting some nameless foe. Perhaps this is the t-shirt of Mr. Furious, who's only super-power is his boundless rage.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
Perhaps others will believe I'm a fan of, say, the WWF. No, they wouldn't, because <b>THEY </b>WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHO THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. A child of three knows more about selling a slogan than these twits. A Tea Party goon could be wearing this t-shirt and it would have as much meaning. The wrong meaning, of course, but who <b>cares </b>if no one gets the intended message?<br />
<br />
Oh, and it's still scratchy as hell.<br />
<br />
I'm only wearing this t-shirt when I'm fighting back weeds or termites. I wouldn't want to confuse the sentient. And I'm making my own t-shirt that says:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">opposed</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">to asparagus</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #999999; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', sans-serif; font-size: x-large;">1997</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
That will convince someone of the rightness of my cause, I am certain.<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-61801087446555057242011-08-23T12:55:00.000-07:002011-08-23T13:09:55.952-07:00...And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">So, I sent a little money to the DNCC or the CREEP or something like that, for the promise of my name on the tablet of fame (or some webwall or other where they post the names of everyone who contributed more than three dollars to the latest Presidential Election Fiasco), and for a cool t-shirt with some sort of I Heart Politics slogan on it.<br />
<br />
I got the t-shirt. It's white. Just a white T. Nothing indicating the affiliation of the wearer or the maker or the provider. In other words, neutral to the point of blandness. And it's scratchy. 100% Cotton with a secret ingredient: sheet rock.<br />
<br />
These guys even had the balls to ask me (via an insert in the package, without which I'd have no idea why I was receiving a plain, white, scratchy T), that, now that I'd gotten my cool T-shirt, how about giving us some <i>more</i> money with NO strings or gifts attached?!?<br />
<br />
Now, I don't contribute to politics to get "stuff" (though I'll take what I can get). It is unfortunate, however, that this event reinforced, yet again, the profound disdain I feel for the electoral system, politicians, and political functionaries of this once-great nation. Here's a simple request: "give us some money, we'll send you a t-shirt with a slogan on it, showing what a proud (or at least not totally upset) Obama supporter you are". And they can't do it. They can't make that simple a promise and follow it through to completion without screwing it up, and screwing it up in a way that says "HI, WE'RE A BIG BUNCH OF SCREW-UPS!"<br />
<br />
Oh, yeah, and "GIVE US MORE MONEY!"<br />
<br />
At this point, I'm more likely to support a <a href="http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/08/23/funny-pictures-i-hate-everything-cat/">Lolcat</a> than give money to a political party ever again.<br />
<br />
If you've noticed, I haven't been posting much lately, and it's due to the fact that, once again, I got tired of writing "Jesus we're a bunch of dumbasses," over and over again. It's depressing and edifies no one. So, to summarize the current crop of people running for President:<br />
<br />
<b>Bachmann: </b>crazy religious zealot who believes that gay can be cured, and who's husband SOUNDS REALLY GAY. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nice corn dog work. Possible alternate career there.<br />
<br />
<b>Cain: </b>The Republican Angry Black Guy. Used to sell awful pizza. Now he has to give it away to get people to listen to him. Wouldn't hire a Muslim (well, probably not). Not electable, because Republicans don't really like black people. Oh, they SAY they do...<br />
<br />
<b>Gingrich: </b>He's still in the race? What the fuck for? And why does his wife smile like that? WHY? Doesn't it hurt? Are her teeth positively charged and her lips negative? Perhaps she's similar to Voldemort - he has no nose, she has no lips? Is there a string, holding the corners of her mouth back? Since we know what Newt's sexual proclivities are, don't those massive teeth kinda hurt? Or maybe they're retractable? Or false? Gross...<br />
<br />
<b>Huntsman: </b>believes in science, but otherwise no redeeming features that I'm aware of. Possibly because when a Republican says Global Warming is Real and Evolution is Real, everyone forgets to ask him how he feels about everything else.<br />
<br />
<b>Obama: </b>First Black President. Must be nice to have a title like that. Or not, since the abuse he's received so far in his Presidency makes what Clinton went through seem kind of mild by comparison, and Clinton GOT a blowjob for his troubles. Passed the most watered-down health care bill anyone ever could have imagined. Closed Gitmo (DOH!). Ended combat operations in Iraq (DOH!). Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Killed Bin Laden. Assisted in the overthrow of Gadhafi and Mubarak (though in the case of Mubarak, we mostly just watched - which was the right thing to do). While I am opposed to everyone else running, I'm not terribly <i>for </i>this guy (see the "T-Shirt incident").<br />
<br />
<b>Paul (the Elder):</b> libertarian, has a few ideas I'm for (legalizing drugs, bringing our troops home from pretty much everywhere), and a few ideas that are really obviously awful (no EPA, no Dept of Ed, not much regulation of much of anything at all, because they'll all behave themselves, right?). The Right hates him for wanting to downsize the military, and the Left hates him for being ideologically wacky.<br />
<br />
<b>Perry:</b> trying to out-crazy Bachmann while out-dumbing Bush. Proud of his record on executing the innocent. Proud of his ability to get more people hired because they moved to Texas and were willing take shitty jobs for shitty pay. The things this guy's proud of, other people would be ashamed of. Just wait, though, he'll go and do something really, really stupid, and then he'll be done.<br />
<br />
<b>Romney:</b> "corporations are people, my friends" oooooh boy. That's done.<br />
<br />
And out on the fringes:<br />
<br />
<b>Palin: </b>again, why is anyone listening to this sorority bobblehead figure? This English-mangler? Who cares?<br />
<br />
So, from the defeated, demoralized Left, I sit here, sniping at the crazies, working for what I consider to be a better tomorrow (I'm learning to brew beer!), and hoping someone comes along who can tell people the truth about this great nation without getting themselves shot in the process.<br />
<br />
Until then, I'm thinking of sending the postage paid envelope back, attached to the plain white T-shirt, wrapped around a cinder block.</div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8596599980634822360.post-87078064861305952582011-08-03T09:46:00.000-07:002011-08-03T09:46:48.150-07:00Eeny, Meeny, Money, MOM!!!!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Back in 2008 (remember 2008 - we were looking at electing the first Black President ever, and the downturn in Wall Street meant we were just demoralized enough to actually do that, kind of a childlike state, hoping the Angry Black Guy would actually take the fight to the Rich White Assholes who'd tanked the country), anyway, back in 2008, weeks, and even days before Lehman and Bear Stears went belly-up, Moody's, Standard & Poors, and Fitch were all giving them AAA ratings, even though they were about to totally implode and disappear up their own orifices forever. So, either the ratings agencies didn't know what was coming, or they were paid to keep their damn mouths shut until it was far too late.<br />
<br />
There were hearings after it was all over. Just so, you know, we'd know what happened. Obviously, there was never any intent to actually prosecute any of these people, otherwise they probably wouldn't have gone up in front of Congress and spoken anything even vaguely resembling the truth in the first place. To a fault, the ratings agencies' representatives all stated that their ratings were simply opinions, and no one should take them seriously. Well.... Ain't that a surprise. Here I thought this shit was supposed to actually mean something.<br />
<br />
Fast forward to the last week or so. Now we hear that Moody's, Standard & Poor's, etc., are threatening the US Treasury bond with a downgrade to AA status, from our current solid state of being Triple-A. The world's reaction (when they aren't yawning) has been that the US Treasury Bond would no longer be the drug of choice for other countries needing to stabilize their own currency. Interest rates will skyrocket, credit will collapse, yadda yadda yadda. So now we have this debt deal that builds in a lot of "triggers" that will force Dems to do something they don't want to do, and/or force Repugnicans to things they don't want to do. All because ratings agencies have an "opinion."<br />
<br />
So, just to follow this logical fallacy, if it's just an opinion, why does anyone give a damn? If it's more than an opinion, why aren't some of these nightmare opinionaters either in pound-me-in-the-ass prison, or at least out on the street, begging for change?<br />
<br />
Have I missed something?</div>stEnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03779624344364534059noreply@blogger.com1