Figuring It Out

Re: Occupy Movement

2011-11-26T12:26:00.000-08:00

The trouble with any regulation is that when it's working, the good that is done is unnoticeable. And, it's within human nature to assume that when there is no apparent good, there is no good being done. Finally, it's common to believe in the good intentions of others within our social sphere─ really that's the underlying assumption which allows society to function at all─ so when a friend / lobbyist comes in and pleads for some (de)regulation or other, it's natural to accept their requests and act on their behalf.

Meanwhile, all of animal life has evolved to do what is expedient for survival. In humans, this base instinct is applied not only to personal survival, but to group preservation; which means in almost all aspects of our life, we seek to do what is cheap and easy.

However, we also have an understanding of quality, and in times of abundance we willingly expend more energy | time | money in order to attain higher quality goods | foods | services especially for those within our inner circles.

The trouble is, the corporate system necessarily divorces producers from end-consumers and in a global economy from workers─ as the corporate goal is to make a product | service appealing to either the desire for quality or the more basic desire to conserve energy | time | money. The American-capitalist system and even corporations are not inherently evil, but are fundamentally flawed by virtue of being a human invention divorced from the individuals they service and employ. This leads to the need for regulation, as corporations seek to minimize expense and maximize profit, without regard to the human cost.

We need to realize, we as Americans, are free people─ we can speak of revolution─ but I think the solution lies in personal choices. Buy local. Choose public or alternative means of transportation. Live closer to where you work. Participate in politics: vote or run for office. And yes, work for corporate America: infiltrate the system to instigate change.

@ 3 AM

2010-12-18T12:00:00.000-08:00

my hand ─ in this moment ─

is a reptilian-thing,

foreign.

holding a pen.

Seeking Altered States

2010-12-11T12:00:00.000-08:00

I've been nursing a beer,

and longing to feel different,

than I am ─ indescribably other ─

knowing full well: drunk ain't what I'm after.

Contemplating the highs I've known,

and longing for a sympathetic ear,

or the simpatico warmth of breasts,

upon which my head could rest.

This song's too slow, it's making me itch ─

I don't if it was the haircut,

or the change in weather,

that landed me in this existential ditch.

Roles Played

2010-12-04T12:00:00.000-08:00

[...] upon a time i've been,
a zero or the hero─

[...] upon who tells my tale,
a victim or the villain─

this story, even if honest,
is neither true, nor yet truest,
as perspective ain't prescriptive.

Insomniatic Love Sickness

2010-11-27T12:00:00.000-08:00

I'm sitting outside, the sky is overcast,
reflecting the orange-glow of the street lights,
trapping the days warmth and humidity ─
intensely aware, that the waning crescent moon
is setting on the eastern horizon, over your house,
worrying at the metaphor this presents, while
drinking and giving myself over to the random play of
music on my mp3 player ─ disconcertingly poignant,
love songs and life songs ─ and all I'm thinking
is that I want to kiss you and not stop here...

Twisted Clichés and Misunderstanding

2010-11-20T12:00:00.000-08:00

In the story ─ I didn't write ─

there's a clearing ─ a campfire ─

occupying the cardinals ─ four figures sit ─

Beauty at the North ─ Age at the South ─

Reason at the East ─ and here my analogy breaks ─

for love and every emotion ─ is born in reason ─

seemingly obtuse ─ seemingly irrational ─

ultimately utilitarian ─ perfectly practical ─

in scientific jargon ─ I've captured my moral ─

punctuated equilibrium ─ wave–particle duality ─

nothing mystical ─ no pretense to high artistry ─

tszzzzzzzz tic tic

2010-11-13T12:00:00.000-08:00

All these electronics,

buzzing / humming / droning,

plus the tick and the tock

of an antique clock,

aggravates my brain,

so I long for the rain

and an electric storm ─

which might take out a transformer,

or drop a power line ─

then I'd have, a day's reprieve

from this technologic din,

and I might succeed

in a full night's sleep,

or something creative.

Consider Humanism Ad Campaign

2010-11-10T15:00:00.000-08:00

The American Humanist Association has released a series of ads, and they're relying on donations in order bring them to air [link]. So, donate if you can ─ else spread them on the web. Any populist movement deserves a lot more cred, if they can take their message viral.

Carl Coon

Consider Humanism - Ambassador Carl Coon from American Humanist Association on Vimeo.

Robert Ingersol [wiki]

Consider Humanism - Robert Ingersoll from American Humanist Association on Vimeo.

Richard Dawkins [wiki]

Consider Humanism - Richard Dawkins from American Humanist Association on Vimeo.

Pass This By

2010-11-10T12:00:00.000-08:00

This is my life.

Johnny Cash

Johnny Cash - Hurt from kakofoni on Vimeo.

I don't know what to write that isn't whiny BS. I know I got it good, there is no struggle for survival. So, I get to have opinions and vege out in front of the TV, my stomach will always be full and the house warm, just so long as I'm good little worker drone. Yet, suicide seems like such a good release, in it's permanence.

In reality, my mind if focussed on escape & release ─ I want freedom and respect. Escape to the jungle, escape to the streets. Or, throw myself headfirst into the machinery, hoping it breaks in my favor, in the realization of a new, egalitarian American Dream.

I should pack up, walk out the door, and keep walking.

Maybe, in time.

That Mithchell and Webb Look

2010-11-08T12:00:00.000-08:00

Despite my intentions when I started this blog, I've only written one movie review thus far, nothing on books or TV shows. Really, this speaks to my habit of only sharing things that I think are worthy and possibly a bit overlooked. Why would I set myself up on a soap box, just to echo pop-trends and group-think? With that in mind, I present this clip from That Mitchell and Webb Look, which is both thematically relevant and representative of the better aspects of British Comedy.

Search Amazon.com for Mitchell and Webb

Search Amazon.com for That Mitchell and Webb Look

Religious satire of this sort, is generally lacking from US television, a victim of political correctness. Not that there's a real dearth of such content, but the reality is that, religion and irreligion are both marginalized in throughout the mainstream pop-culture, altho there remains a pro-Christian bias. Essentially, a sort of secular compromise has been made, which I think undermines the national dialog.

I think we've lost much to political correctness and a lack of intelligence in the media. Yes, the geek & nerd subculture has gone mainstream, but the american mainstream doesn't celebrate critical thought, and intelligence is unfortunately equated with the recitation of trivia. (I think Jon Stewart has been so wildly successful, because he bucks the trend.)

Anyway, my points are ─ That Mitchell and Webb Look is definitely worth a look ─ and we, Americans, need to learn to be tolerant of others exercising their right to speech, with the understanding we can always change the channel, if we want to have some truly world-class television.

Weekly Address: Priorities on Taxes

2010-11-07T12:00:00.000-08:00

Basically, the President's plan for spending was to let the Bush tax cuts expire, for the wealthy, and freeze discretionary spending. Republicans, meanwhile, want to extend the Bush tax cuts for all citizens, and underfund or outright un-fund large portions of government, in order to return discretionary expenditures to 2008 levels ─ as if we weren't running a deficit before Obama took office. Neither plan is good, but Obama's is about $200billion better.

2 things currently not on the table:

Defense Spending
Nationally, we need to acknowledge that while it's unfortunately necessary to maintain a standing military, the defense budget is bloated and certain programs very likely deserve to be on the chopping block, as much as anything else in the budget. Pay and benefits for military personnel and veterans ought not be touched, but anything else can and should be looked at.

Tax Increases
The tax code needs a solid review & simplification ─ loopholes need to be closed, effectively raising taxes ─ after that, taxes may still need to be raised as a second step. The conventional wisdom says, any tax increase is political suicide and conservative ideology states taxes undermine personal liberty or the free market economy. Still, I believe a new tax, with a finite duration of no more than 10 years, dedicated exclusively for the elimination of the national debt and coupled with comprehensive reform of the congressional budgeting process & the Federal Reserve Bank. Deficit spending shouldn't happen.

Since I'm talking about raising taxes, I should address the accusations of class warfare, socialism, and wealth redistribution ─ frankly, by enabling and fostering trade through the railways, interstate highways and airports the federal government has disproportionately benefited the rich, without mentioning corporate welfare in the form of government contracts & subsidies ─ compared to what the poor get from Medicaid or welfare and the middle-class gets from Medicare and Social Security (a traditionally & deliberately self-sustaining program).

Whether it was intended to, the federal government now exists as the only means to fight the oligarchical interests of Wall Street; while maintaining the infrastructures which have enabled modern business to prosper.

It's A Night For Poetry

2010-11-06T12:00:00.000-07:00

It's a night for poetry

─ Gothic and grim ─

for the soul's hunger to sate.

It's a night for poetry

─ by candlelight ─

for the spirit to rejuvenate.

It's a night for poetry

─ Baroque, not prim ─

this mortal coil to escape.

A Blog About My Blog, But Not One of THOSE Blogs About A Blog ─ You Know?

2010-11-05T12:00:00.000-07:00

I've decided to delete the poetry blog, in order to focus my efforts here, for the time being. I'm working out an idea for a website ─ keeping the details on that to myself ─ suffice to say, the website won't be the personal soapbox this blog is. In the meantime, my goal is to continue developing my writing style and research abilities, so this blog will remain active. I want to vary the subject matter a bit, but don't want to throw readers off, so I've developed a rough content schedule, as follows:

Saturday ─ Poetry or Fiction

Sunday ─ Politics, typically using the President's address as a jumping off point

Monday ─ Music, Movie or Book review, anyway, something culture related

Tuesday ─ no post, but that's not a promise

Wednesday ─ Something Interesting

Thursday ─ (a)Theism

Friday ─ Science Feature

Updates will post at 12 Noon, 3 PM at the outside.

Peace & Understanding

Disappointment With The Oregon Electorate

2010-11-04T12:00:00.000-07:00

I'm a bit perturbed with the election results ─ not on the federal level, though I find the punditry's response mildly peeving ─ Oregon Measure 73 passed, while measure 74 failed.

Measure 73 increases minimum sentencing for 2 x Sex Offenders and makes 3 x DUII a felony. I whole-heartedly support harsher sentencing for repeat sex predators, and better education and prevention initiatives, but the latter was missing from measure 73. However, I can't see how turning a DUII into a Class-C felony will benefit the state ─ though the increased spending on prisons seems a clear detriment to Oregon ─ and I also resent that the 2 issues were presented as a single ballot measure, which to me represents a clear manipulation of the electorate. Finally, the measure didn't include funding, and the last thing we, as voters, should have done this election is mandate more state-level spending.

Measure 74 would have created a cost-neutral, state-regulated distribution system for medical marijuana. Currently, medical marijuana users need to either grow their own medicine, locate and rely on a certified grower, or turn to the black market. This measure would have partially undermined the power of gangs and cartels, thereby leading to safer neighborhoods and reduced spending for law enforcement. Although, I do believe full-on legalization is a fiscally sound move for Oregon, partially by reducing crime & gang violence, but especially if a hemp industry were able develop and augment our disappearing logging industry. Ignoring the implications for public safety and the state's financial well being, I believe we are entitled to vices, particularly when they present no harm to others: alcohol provides a strong precedent.

I'm left to wonder why people vote the way they do; it's tempting, but I think fallacious, to assume ignorance or fear. Personally, I consider the implications of a ballot measure in terms of costs and benefits for myself and the state. So, I voted no on 73, because were it in already in effect, it absolutely would have negatively impacted people I care about, who've had DUII convictions ─ plus the cost of enforcing the measure potentially takes away from education and prevention initiatives. I voted yes on 74, because easing access to medical marijuana has no negative impact on me, may in fact (someday) benefit me or someone I know, and potentially reduces crime & therefore government spending. I realize, part of the opposition to measure 74 came from a desire for a more comprehensive system, but the first challenge for legislation is getting something on the books, then comes refinement: all law represents social experimentation.

On The National Results For The 2010 Midterm

2010-11-04T01:05:00.000-07:00

The primary metaphor, expounded by the Republicans and the Punditry, to describe the election results was that of a "Red Wave," washing over America. If the left had an equivalent to Beck, Limbaugh or Fox News, the imagery of the "Red Wave" would have been associated with the threat a new Communism. The parallels between the current iteration of conservative methods & ideology, especially as espoused by the Tea Party strain, with the populist movements which led to communism revolution, are easily laid bare. I'm not advocating that liberals use the equivocal rhetoric embraced by conservative media outlets: I'm simply establishing that the liberal bias does not exist in the same way as the conservative media bias.

Meanwhile, the failure of Democrats to retain the House and Senate, was almost universally attributed to a failure of President Obama to communicate with the electorate. However, Conservative news outlets, attribute the Democrat's failure to public disdain for Obama's policy and Democratic ideology. I agree with both, to an extent: I believe that the last 2 years of policy changes weren't accurately communicated to the majority of the electorate and many votes were cast in a certain ignorance. But, that's speculation on my part.

I think, what actually occurred was that the legislative progress of the last 2 years, was typically reported with a negative spin. To those on the Left, it was never comprehensive enough and to those on the Right it was just evidence of the over-reaching power of government. To the pragmatic and the independent, the view is that whatever the hell is happening, just isn't working.

The Obama administration, at all levels, has been exceedingly accessible to the press, so I don't think we can accurately attribute the loss to a failure to communicate. The problem is, the supposed media-cabal, that some claimed led to his election, doesn't and never did exist ─ decidedly pro-Obama stories probably get bad ratings at the moment, and thus don't carry traction in the news cycle ─ the Administration and therefore the Democrats as a whole, lack prominent media advocates of the Republican and especially the Tea Party strain of Conservativism do.

One final perturbance, Oregon, and other states which stand against the "Red Wave" metaphor of this election cycle, have thus far has been largely unacknowledged by the punditry. This is an ongoing frustration of mine, as the media unscientifically glosses over seeming outliers and counter-examples to their narrative. Meanwhile, it's common to hyper-focus on alternative scenarios and prognostications, which truly add nothing to the dialog.

Further Development of a New Progressive Rhetoric, In Response to an Ill-reasoned Chain Message

2010-11-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

I was forwarded a chain email ─ I'm fairly certain I've received it before ─ a cursory search shows the cited figures date back to 2005 and the email made the digital rounds following Obama's inauguration in 2009. The version below has been updated to indict the current Congress and President Obama over the Health Care Reform Act.

The message is interesting for it's inconsistent logic per an argument that government is too expansive and taxes are too oppressive, but that government ought be run by the people operating the most expansive business in the nation and for profit.

The email begins by listing a series of impressive figures relating to Wal-Mart, which is an undeniably successful business ─ controlling a pseudo-monopoly, but not of any particular good or service, instead dominating the shopping experience of a certain financial class.

The message then points to various governmental agencies, indicating how long they've been in operation, then states "you had [so long] to get it right, and it is broke," mostly devoid of other facts. The USPS is mentioned, although that was cut off from tax-support in 1983. A false statistic is presented: $1 Trillion (which is roughly half the federal budget and which) is supposedly misappropriated for "The War On Poverty." The only way to arrive at those figures, is to include SS and Medicare/Medicaid, while ignoring almost 30 years of legislation which reduced and fundamentally changed how "Welfare" type/related entitlements function in the US.

Social Security is explicitly mentioned on it's own, unconnected to the $1 Trillion figure attributed to entitlements, to my mind this is structurally dubious for the argument. The reality of Social Security is that it has been a pay-go program, since it's inception, and has run a budget surplus equal to between 1/2 and 1/3 of collected SS taxes. The ongoing problem with SS funding is that the federal government has annually borrowed against the surplus revenue, in order to pay for other programs: Al Gore's infamous notion of creating a federal "Lock Box" for the SS surplus addressed this issue.

The only strong statistics presented, relate to the Department of Energy ─ the 2009 budget was $24.6 Billion ─ the DoE does employ approximately 16,000 ─ the DoE was created in response to the Oil Crisis with a goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and perhaps eliminating our use of oil as fuel source ─ however, it was effective in the goal of reducing oil imports and consumption, under the Carter the administration.

Lacking is criticism of Defense Spending: $782 Billion in 2009, possibly more, depending how you break the budget down. Department of Energy spending, for instance, includes maintenance of nuclear arms. The interstate and rail systems exist, in large part, to support the military. I fully support defense spending, but I don't support American wars for resources, for nation building, or to combat broad & shifting concepts like "terror."

The assertion that government service and regulatory agencies have been "shoved down our throats," is false. Sometimes, social reforms are sourced in populist movements e.g. the Abolitionist, Prohibitionist, Suffragists or Civil Rights movements. Just as often, they are the result of duly elected officials following through on their campaign promises (see health care reform), reaction to some crisis (Department of Energy, The New Deal programs) or reaction to systemic problems within some aspect of society (FDA, EPA and DEA). The reality is, legislation is rarely enacted without good cause and never on a whim.

Still, I'd concede that government is broken and the existence of a federal deficit is strong evidence for that. But, the need for regulation, social programs, and consequent bureaucracies remain; particularly for cases in which common-practice violates the common-interest or at times to enforce a best-practice that isn't the easy or cheap option. Perhaps the solution is indeed a new type of politician one who would ─ push for a reasoned and measured government ─ perpetuate strong but rational regulation ─ advocate true pay-go policy making ─ someone who believes government can work ─ but importantly, isn't another corporate shill.

I think history has shown that no good comes of electing people who simply want to gut government, because they will find a way to make the existing bureaucratic structure ineffectual, typically by simple reapportioning resources.

The full text of the inspirational message follows:

Wal-Mart vs. Morons (Very Interesting)

(1) Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

(2) This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

(3) Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

(4) Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

(5) Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

(6) Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

(7) Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

(8) During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

(9) Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

(10) Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

(11) This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

(12) 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy. This should be read and understood by all Americans Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!! To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature, It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

(a) The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

(b) Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

(c) Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

(d)War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

(e) Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

(f) Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

(g) The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM ?? MAYBE WE OUGHT TO KICK YOUR EGG-HEAD BUDDY BUMS OUT OF OFFICE AND HIRE WAL MART TO RUN THE GOVERNMENT ??? WAL MART SEEMS TO KNOW HOW TO RUN A BUSINESS.......WHY DON'T YOU GUYS JUST ADMIT IT'S WAY BEYOND YOUR PAY GRADE, AND QUIT?

Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our "duly elected' (they never read anything) and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel

Weekly Address: Working Together on the Economy

2010-10-31T09:00:00.000-07:00

Obama's rhetoric switched back toward an advocation of bipartisanship, something he'd seemed to abandon early in Aught-Nine. He's also rocking a violet tie and deep-purple suit, while the video itself has slightly purple cast to it ─ I don't want to call it subliminal messaging ─ but, the tie and suit definitely offer a subtle and deliberate statement, combining the Republican Red and Democratic Blue, whereas the skewed colour in the video may be incidental or just my eyes. I'm genuinely impressed and optimistic after this weeks address, something Obama hasn't inspired in me for a while.

The President's rhetorical shift itself, is coloured by his Wednesday interview with Jon Stewart, and perhaps Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity. But, the looming contextual punctuation is the 2010 Midterm Election results ─ common wisdom is that Republicans will regain the House and the Democrats will lose their super-majority but maintain control of the Senate ─ the overall message is, therefore, conciliatory.

What I like, is that this address seems to pick up on the tone which national politics have been taking on at the local level. There seems to be discordant harmony among conservatives and heavy dejection among the liberals, both of which play into an apathetic malaise afflicting the non-affiliated and centrists. It feels like it doesn't matter who you vote for ─ not because there's no substantive difference between the parties ─ not because there are fascist cabals controlling the government ─ but because the House and more especially the Senate, follow arcane & defunct rules of procedure.

If the President finally gets it, and if the Democratic party follows his lead, and if the Republicans understand that their victories represent a referendum on the state of politics and government (not on their Democratic opposition), maybe we will see some cooperation, leading to long-overdue institutional reforms in the Congress.

Vote.

Happy Halloween

2010-10-30T20:47:00.000-07:00

This is no time for politics...

A little bit of hypocrisy never hurt a political movement

2010-10-30T07:22:00.000-07:00

Some months ago, Dr. Laura Schlessinger decided not to renew the contract for her syndicated radio show, after backlash to her use of a particular racial epithet in response to a Black caller's query. At the time, I defended her, and specifically the notion that we, as citizens, shouldn't take actions (e.g. boycotts or lawsuits) in order to impinge the First Amendment Rights of others. I do believe that deliberately and continually undermining the right of others, diminishes our own, personal liberty.

I didn't realize at the time, that from then on, some on the right would call foul whenever some pundit lost their soapbox ─ as happened with Juan Williams, formerly of NPR, now of Fox ─ more recently to Dan Fagan, an Alaskan radio commentator, currently suspended for allegedly advocating some potentially illegal electioneering scheme. Sarah Palin commented via a note on facebook, redacted below, full text here:

Yesterday [10/28/2010], Lisa Murkowski’s hired guns threatened radio host Dan Fagan, and more importantly, the station that airs Fagan’s show, with legal action for allegedly illegal “electioneering.” The station, unlike Murkowski, who is flush with millions of dollars from vested corporate interests, does not have a budget for a legal defense. So it did what any small market station would do when threatened by Beltway lawyers charging $500 to $1000 an hour – they pulled Dan Fagan off the air.

Does all this sound heavy handed? It is. It is an interference with Dan Fagan’s constitutional right to free speech. [...]

[...]

Individuals like Dan Fagan have a fundamental right to speak their minds without threats from the incumbent Senator from Alaska. [...]

[...]

- Sarah Palin

Fagan, had suggested that people register to be write-in candidates, and apparently offered some sort of prize for those who did so and whose name was similar to Incumbant Senator and write-in candidate Lisa Murkowski ─ voters were allowed, upon request, to view a list of write-in candidates, the flood of late registrants was a strategy to muddy the waters ─ Legally: questionable ─ Ethically: darkest-gray.

John Tracy, a media buyer for Murkowski's campaign, contacted the local radio station and suggested that what Fagan had been saying on air was of questionable legality. It's not clear that an explicit threat of personal lawsuit was made by Tracy, but if what Fagan was advocating on air was illegal, the potential ramifications for the station go beyond any legal threat the Murkowski camp may have made: Alaska's Attorney General and Election Agencies would have reason to investigate such allegations.

As to Juan Williams, according to Vivian Schiller, he lost his job because "he had several times in the past violated our news code of ethics with things that he had said on other people’s air." He wasn't fired in a vacuum or in some vain attempt to rid him of his right to speech. Yet, Fox News and several prominent Republicans used the incident to grandstand by calling for a cessation of federal funding to NPR: seems the unbiased reporting of facts, shows a strong liberal bent.

Most Americans work as "at will" employees, some are fortunate to work under union or contract protection, but the right to employment is not constitutionally guaranteed nor does the First Amendment secure the right to a permanent venue for speech. For the conservatives to apparently argue constitutional protection, in opposition to a firing or suspension, while simultaneously advocating the notion of Originalism ─ as the best and truest way of interpreting the Constitution ─ is innately hypocritical. Arguing that business doesn't have the right to voluntarily halt production on something, based on adverse public reaction or any other grounds, is nonsensical, but doing so while otherwise advocating against government regulations of business, is another sign of hypocrisy.

Answering Charges of Elitism

2010-10-27T03:03:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

I'd intended to let the parody video in this post stand on it's own, but then I read this article on Politico: essentially arguing, democrats are condescending elitists and therefore will lose control of congress, this election cycle, and deservedly so. The article points to all the likely culprits ─ Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow, President Obama, etc. ─ as the voices of condescension.

Elitism is the belief in the superiority of some class of people, and their consequent entitlement to privilege: I don't see this from the democrats, so I have no choice but to call shenanigans.

The essential message of modern liberalism is that cooperation leads to shared prosperity and government is a legitimate tool for building consensus. American Conservatism, conversely, argues that government essentially inhibits liberty and destroys individual prosperity, while gripping firmly to protectionism, a political theory itself necessitating government of considerable size and complexity.

The sort of pragmatic assessment typical of swing-voters concludes ─ both political ideologies have some degree of validity ─ but offers little, except a motive to vote congressional power to the opposite party of the sitting president. Progressivism holds all of the above in balance, under the belief that rational and measured governance maximizes prosperity at all levels and this is the view typically held by “Obama Democrats.”

This sheds light on a major irony of our age ─ the Democratic party is the bastion of republicanism in the US ─ while the Republican party effectively enforces a plutocracy, under a guise of “common sense” and moralistic politicking, by manipulating a predominately male, Caucasian, Christian and middle-class electoral base, in order to win elections.

Returning to the charge of elitism infecting the democratic party, if we conflate the progressive ideals of rational and measured governance with a belief that only people belonging to a certain “class” are worthy of office, then yes, the charge stands. However, that class of people isn't necessarily democrats, nor wealthy, nor educated, nor of any particular race, nor gender, nor religion: they are only those people who are demonstrably qualified.

Christine O'donnell is a perfect case study in a demonstrably unqualified candidate. She is running, as conservatives always do, on a return to “traditional values.” What's different about her, and her Tea Party ilk, is that they've re-branded those essential values (traditionally Christian) as the American Values laid out by our Founding Fathers, in order to fortify the Republican base and sway independent voters. However, she has demonstrated that she lacks (potentially) any understanding of the constitution, let alone even a rote knowledge of the text:

To base your campaign on the notion that we have strayed from, and even betrayed, our principles as laid out in our constitution, while lacking even the ability to quote the original text or enumerate the amendments, ought to be sufficient cause for any rational person to deny you their vote. Even the dissatisfied & disaffected ─ who would vote simply against the powers-that-be or for the ideologically sympathetic ─ should have adequate reason to seriously reconsider voting for the candidate, after such a gaff.

As to the other charge, condescension, there's a degree of guilt throughout the party but it's part and parcel of politicking in America and, I think, of any honest debate in which the principals have an emotional or vested investment. If President Obama believes he is right, any argument he makes can (by definition) be interpreted as being condescending, it's an easy term to lob around and surprisingly effective.

The power of the term to defame, reveals the utter irrationality of politics in the US and hints at pervasive persecution and inferiority complexes amongst the political right. To truly be condescending, President Obama must believe he is not only right, but that he is fundamentally superior to his audience, he must, essentially, be a megalomaniac. To be perceived as condescending requires either the fear that he is in fact fundamentally superior, or the belief that he thinks himself so ─ in both cases his intent, tone, message, and supporting evidence likely don't matter, because the underlying problem is the personal insecurities and irrationalities of such an individual are beyond his control ─ Obama could try to attenuate his message, but unless he unequivocally acquiesces, such a person is lost to him.

Meanwhile, Jon Stewart is a comedian, who hosts a show that essentially lays plain the hypocrisy of the powers-that-be, both in Washington DC and the news media, while making cock jokes. Stephen Colbert has made career of being a caricature of a (conservative) pundit, often stretched thin for a joke. They both, admittedly, pick on the Political Right more-so-than the Left, but because there's more to pick on, than because of political leaning: there is no liberal equivalent to the conservative Fox News. Stewart and Colbert both demonstrate such high degrees self-awareness and their humor is so often self-deprecating, that elitism and condescension seems total non sequitur.

Image via Wikipedia

As to Rachel Maddow, she's a pundit, her job is to have an opinion and to talk about it in an entertaining manner, while maintaining an air of journalistic integrity. She may, at times, be condescending toward a guest, or pick up a clip of a right-leaning politician to just poke fun, but it's bad for her career to be condescending toward her audience: such is the nature of punditry on the political left. By definition, to be liberal is to be both tolerant and open to persuasion.

In a twist (applying most especially to Obama) the terms “aloof” or “out of touch” are also frequently used to describe liberals. I can't see how aloofness follows from condescension, altho the reverse seems plausible: the implication being liberal ideology and the resulting policies are fundamentally flawed and inherently bad for the nation.

Those trying for relatively unbiased assessment use the terms “cerebral” or “professorial” instead, but the implications remain. In essence, acknowledging a rational and a measured approach to policy, while dismissing the it, for what ought to be it's strongest merits. I don't understand how people can vehemently oppose reason, in favor of emotional and visceral responses. Emotion, instinct, and intuition are vital to all aspects of life, even political life, but they're best used barometrically ─ to indicate when action is needed, not what action to take.

Of course, a rational analysis of Obama's ability to connect with the common-man, would concede that he is more than capable of doing so; he won the presidential election with the popular vote. Still, he did not, does not, and perhaps cannot connect with all voters, it's the nature of American politics, it may be human nature. Barack Obama is to some, an other, one of them, the opposition, the enemy ─ he is black, he is male, he is (now) an entrenched politician, he is a democrat, he's not liberal enough, and et cetera ─ but he is the legitimate voice of a majority and this point point must be recognized in a democracy.

That majority consists of Progressive-Democrats; a political class which fears plutocracy, or rule by the financial elite. The apparent opposition, The Tea Party-Republican, is inspired by fear of oligarchy, which is a more generic political elite ─ underscoring another irony of this election cycle, this has caused conservatives to apparently rebel against the status quo ─ embracing an anti-incumbency movement.

Recognizing the similarity in fears, provides the real framework for understanding the 2008 Democratic victories, the ensuing Tea Party movement and the apparent Republican shift in the 2010 midterms.

President's Weekly Address: Letting Wall Street Run Wild Again

2010-10-24T04:41:00.000-07:00

An integral part of candidate Barack Obama's presidential platform, was a promise to maintain a transparent administration; with the predictable caveats (for national security & etc) in place. Undoubtedly, this President and his Cabinet, have been more readily accessible to the news media, than his predecessor was. Meanwhile Organizing for America ─ the grassroots organization behind Obama's election campaign ─ has been leveraged to trumpet his message across the landscape of new media.
[Facebook Likes: 15,172,983 | Twitter Followers: 711,666 | YouTube Views: 154,149,236]

His efforts at transparency have included ─ a televised summit with Republican leaders, in an effort to publicly bridge the political divide surrounding Healthcare Reform ─ the production of weekly addresses to the public, available online, and reminiscent of Roosevelt's Fireside Chats ─ production of other videos by members of the Cabinet such as the White House White Board and West Wing Week ─ and, in a novel move for a sitting president, upcoming appearances on MythBusters and The Daily Show.

All of that, of course, has been shrugged off by detractors, as mere political theater or sinisterly as propagandizing for the liberal agenda. In March 2010, the AP broke a story indicating that the Obama administration hadn't lived up to his campaign promise, of open governance, apparently despite an executive memo dictating that federal agencies should err on the side of disclosure. The story was treated as a back-page news item by the pop-media and didn't get a lot of play, I'd guess because of the White House's response and because, when you look past the apparent hypocrisy suggested by the numbers ─ which showed a moderate drop in FOIA requests, contrasted with a sharp increase in denials for information ─ FOIA requests were being acknowledged and dealt with (if slowly), instead of hanging in bureaucratic limbo such requests were met with during the Bush years.

Still, transparent government transcends accessibility to either officials or requested information. True transparency requires a different political vernacular, than we get from politicians: a rhetoric that acknowledges, if not embraces, the realities and jargon of policy making, rather than the reductionist and banal tripe fed us.

In this weeks presidential address, Obama mentions a Wall Street reform bill ─ in the video, he plays off the Republican threats to "repeal this important legislation," it's an election year, so the politicking is somewhat forgivable ─ but is this address effective? It plays on the fear that the Republican party will gain enough congressional power to undo legislation, which the Democratic base (hypothetically) supports, enough to turn out the vote in a midterm.

If the only goal is an appeal to the base, it may be effective campaign propaganda. But it's an opaque 3-minute 30-second speech, with weak emotional appeal and little informative value, on legislation that was signed into law 4 months ago.

To add some transparency to this weeks address:
The bill in question was H.R. 4173, [full text] titled the: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It was signed into law July 21, 2010. House Republicans voted as a block against the bill, tho 4 Republicans broke rank in the Senate to support it's passing ─ Congressional Democrats don't adhere so strongly to the party line ─ this makes the threat of legislative repeal of H.R. 4173 far more plausible. Still, considering the nature of the legislation, I doubt a blanket repeal would happen: it just wouldn't make good political sense.

In essence, what the bill does, is to unify the various financial agencies of the government, under a new Financial Board, chaired by the Treasury Secretary, in a way that not so much consolidates power, as builds a framework for sharing knowledge and generating unified action. Agencies were also created to collate and report financial data to congress. Powers of the FDIC and sister agencies were expanded to cover more of the major corporations, in a way that allows action before financial giants begin to topple, thereby removing the need for future bailouts. Several types of trading that led to the current financial crisis are outlawed or restricted. Provisions were put in place to phaseout the current system of bailouts and restrict the governments ability to issue bailouts. More strident regulations and rules for what and how financial institution must report to the federal government were enacted. A multitude of amendments to consumer & credit law were made, which benefit the working classes.

The Democrats passed a bill which benefits; us, meaning the vast majority of Americans, the 97% to whom they point, time and again ─ as well as regulation which protect the US economy from future recession. Yet, the Republicans seem to be in the stronger position this election cycle, by virtue of having served 2 years acting, effectively, as a roadblock to legislation and playing off the fallacy that all government regulation is bad government regulation. The reality is, we are the government, it is in our interest to regulate unscrupulous and predatory business practices, in every industry, in order to protect the environment, the quality of our lives and our individual sovereignty.

Personally, I don't vote along party lines and despite broadly endorsing and defending the Democratic agenda, the important thing to me is that we all vote, keep informed and participate in the dialog. With that in mind, please share this post and feel free to comment.

Rape is a societal issue

2010-10-22T17:13:00.000-07:00

I was reading Politico's Daily 10 Winners, this item impacted me viscerally

3. COLORADO — Democrats moved swiftly to extend the legs of the Ken Buck “global warming hoax” story, with the League of Conservation Voters holding a press conference call to “correct his denials.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee piled on with a new ad tailored to women that capitalizes on his decision to pass on prosecuting the case of an alleged rape victim. Sen. Michael Bennet’s campaign feels like they’ve won the week by keeping all the attention on Buck.

Who Won Friday: Bennet

Latest Poll: Buck 48%, Bennet 45% (Reuters/Ipsos 10/15-10/17, 405 likely voters)
Recent Rasmussen polling shows similar results to what Politico reported. It's revolting that Buck is the favorite in polling and it's sickening that he's even in serious contention for a US Senate seat. It's possible that the rape case indeed wasn't prosecutable ─ but, the essence of the issue isn't simply his refusal to prosecute ─ his statement that the alleged victim had "buyer's remorse" and expressed opinions on other "women's" issues, indicate a lack of empathy and, at worst, exemplifies the crypto-misogynistic fascism which seems endemic to the American Right ─ typically disguised as "Christian Morality" or "Family Values". We, Moderates and Liberals, need to understand rape, domestic violence, birth control, et cetera, and the whole of feminism as societal issues with broad implications, not uniquely affecting women: just as Conservatives do.

Here, Ken Buck addresses the subject on Meet The Press:

Here is the DSCC ad, mentioned by Politico:

President Obama: It Gets Better

2010-10-22T15:41:00.000-07:00

I've nothing to add to this, myself, but here is Rachel Maddow's response.

Yeah, this is happening...

2010-10-21T12:00:00.000-07:00

This is Tina Fey does Sarah Palin good.

White House White Board #2

2010-10-21T09:00:00.000-07:00

At present, the flow of the "mainstream media" has shifted to the right. Conservative voices tend to dictate the daily news narrative, with unabashed bias. The liberal punditry ─ possibly in an effort retain some air of neutrality ─ is critical of both the President and democrat-led congress, with the unfortunate consequence that the liberal/progressive agenda is weakened.

What's lost in the din of republican rage and democratic dismay, is that President Obama has been successful on several levels and multiple fronts, despite numerous Republican roadblocks and Democratic defections. The fact is we, liberals and progressives, should be jubilant and ready to double-down in support of our party and president: there ought not be an "enthusiasm gap" in this election.

Please share this post, if you agree at all.