Democracy In Distress

Barack Obama's Gay Blasphemy

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Video Archive

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Endless Suffrage 2012 - States' Rights Edition

Barack Obama vs. North Carolina on Gay Marriage

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Video Archive

from tag Win

from tag Incompetency

from tag Rights

Democracy In Distress: An Occupy Wall Street / Occupy Together / Occupy Portland Grab-bag

Photo of the Day by A. F. Litt: May 1, 2012, Labor creates all wealth

2012-05-01T08:42:00.001-07:00

Cross posted from : Rubble

Occupy Portland - N17: Occupy the Banks! Portland, Oregon. 11:05 AM

May Day – What’s Happening? | Occupy Portland:
Twitter – FOLLOW: #M1PDX @LiberateMayDay
JOIN THE CEL.LY TEXT LOOP: Type @may1pdx in the body of a text and send that text to 23559
20 excuses to get out of work!
Not all of these events have the consented support of the Occupy Portland General Assembly

from tag Unions/Labor

from tag Income

from tag Class

KONY 2012: Gresham, OR

2012-04-27T11:15:00.001-07:00

I was surprised to see a couple signs posted out in my neck of the woods earlier this week…

from tag Oregon

from tag Picture

General Election 2012: It’s on… Right after a nap… Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…….

2012-04-26T07:26:00.001-07:00

This pretty much sums it up for me.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

from tag Campaign

from tag Daily

from tag Mitt

from tag Obama

The war on women & Santorum’s choice

2012-04-23T10:14:00.001-07:00

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

As for this last image, on Facebook I wrote:

There is truth here. Not that these men are necessarily misogynists, they probably are not. But their campaign strategies are geared towards solidifying support of demographic groups who will actually vote for them, and in the general election the majority of women will vote Dem pretty much no matter what these fools do, so pissing them off really doesn't change the game for them at all.

Appealing to Non-College Educated White Males, however, the GOP's most dominant demographic, is a huge part of their game plan. The more heavily they dominate this segment of society, the more they can alienate these fellows from the democrats and Obama, the greater their chances of victory in the primaries and in November.

Being worried about what women think is a losing game for them, there is no reason for them to care what they think at all.

Since then, Romney has wrapped up the nomination. This came a little earlier than I thought it would. I actually suspected that Santorum would not give up until the convention, allowing the GOP as much of a chance as possible to try to get out of nominating Romney.

However, I think Santorum had a real moment of clarity leading to his withdrawal from the race. Brace yourselves, I am actually going to say something nice about this fellow.

I do suspect that staying in the race as long as humanly possible was Santorum's plan. I think, on the Friday before he dropped out, that he had every intention of still being in the race a week later.

I believe there were two factors that made him change his mind.

One, of course, was the fact that he was apparently looking at an embarrassing loss in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Santorum as the GOP’s next frontrunner

At this point in his campaign, politically, I think he should have been looking more towards the future than any real chance of being sworn in as president in 2013. Of course, he still had a long shot at widening the cracks between Romney and the, quite frankly, bigoted far right wing of the Republican Party to create some convention drama and an even longer shot at still derailing Romney’s nomination, either becoming the nominee himself or creating the possibility of another candidate stepping into the role.

But the odds of creating any of these scenarios were shrinking fast. Getting shellacked in Pennsylvania would have lowered the odds even further.

And I don’t think his eye should even have been on the nomination this year, at least for the last couple months. He should have been looking at 2016 or 2020, depending on Romney’s fate this fall. For Santorum, staying in the race as long as possible should have been all about positioning himself for the future. The longer he hung in there, collecting headlines if not delegates, he was building a solid foundation for a future run at the Presidency.

The GOP has a track record of elevating those who make a good showing one year to frontrunner status the next. Santorum’s campaign, for the last month or two, could have been following a John McCain strategy.

In 2000, McCain stayed in the race far past the point where Bush had locked up the nomination and was rewarded with front runner status for almost the entire duration of the 2008 Republican primaries, fairly easily wrapping up the nomination his next time out. Of course, he managed to stay in the race that year without becoming a joke.

In 2008, the McCain role was played not by Romney, but by Huckabee. However, since Huckabee decided, early, to sit this one out, Romney slid into the 2nd place role this year and, like McCain in 2008, has now completed a fairly easy primary season and secured the nomination without too much fuss or muss.

Let’s face it, the GOP primaries this year were not a close thing. Romney owned them. Most of the noise about any real competition this year was just that, noise from the media trying to keep a blowout interesting through the end of the fourth quarter. This is not to say that what competition there was wasn’t interesting, it was, and it revealed a lot about the nature of the GOP and its different demographic elements, but the race itself was not a close one at all.

If Santorum really wants to be president, he has a real chance at becoming the GOP front runner the next time around. Like McCain and Romney, he needs to spend the next four to eight years quietly organizing and he can, pretty much, claim early frontrunner status the next time around. Especially if the far right continues to dominate the party like it has, which is almost inevitable if Obama wins re-election.

However, this future front runner status depends on Santorum maintaining his credibility this year.

By pulling out when he did, the former Senator is ending on a relative high note, while he is still seen as a strong candidate. The story, however, could have changed if he stayed in the race and suffered an embarrassing loss in his home state.

So far, the humiliating 17 point loss of his Senate seat has remained out of the national press, for the most part, and has been forgotten by almost everyone.

After another brutal home state loss, I suspect that his past political failures would enter into the national conversation and the story would change from his relatively successful presidential campaign this year to his repeated failings as a candidate for political office.

In other words, the press about his campaign would turn from being mostly positive to mostly negative. By getting out now, as I said, he ends this year’s run on a high note and 2012 becomes a bright spot on his resume, not a hurdle to be overcome in the future.

Santorum’s Priorities

All of these considerations set aside, I still suspect that Santorum was in the race for the long run this year, until the weekend before he dropped out.

He was still seen as being a factor in this year’s nomination process, his campaign was still receiving decent press, though it was starting to turn a little negative as Pennsylvania approached, and, let’s face it, a part of me really wonders if Candidate Santorum is really savvy enough to consider the arguments I made above in defense of his campaign to this point and how it poses him for a future run for the nomination.

If there was ever a candidate to stay in the race far past the point of respectability, ruining his reputation and future in a blind run towards an unreachable finish line, it would seem to be the former Senator. This would be a move right out of his playbook, blind self-immolation.

Though I am sure his campaign advisors saw what I saw for the last couple of months and have been talking to the former Senator quite a bit about how long to stay in and when to drop out. In fact, I would strongly suspect that these voices in his ears were whispering that, in order to position himself properly for the next campaign, that he should drop out before the Pennsylvania contest.

And I am pretty sure that Santorum was ignoring these voices until his daughter was hospitalized the weekend before he dropped out.

That weekend, I bet, Rick got in touch not only with some big doses of reality but that he also took a long look at his priorities in life.

Whether or not he really believed that he still had a shot at the Presidency this year, I do not know, but even a rock would be having doubts by that point. But I think he was still having fun. I think, whether or not he believed he still had a chance, that he was enjoying the spotlight that was shining not only on himself but also on his (crazy, crazy, terrible, awful, horrible) political beliefs.

And, of course, inspiring national conversations about beliefs that are important to oneself would be a difficult role for anyone to walk away from. I suspect that as long as he was inspiring these conversations that Santorum wasn’t going anywhere, even if staying in the race eventually cost him his own political future.

Until his daughter’s hospitalization, I don’t think Santorum would have dropped out of the race until his campaign faded from the spotlight, until it resembled something like Newt Gingrich’s, and then I think he’d probably stay in the race until the money completely ran out or even longer, until, like Newt, he could sit there with his toe still in the pond while doing very little active campaigning.

But that takes a lot of time and effort and I am sure that even Santorum was beginning to see that his 2012 run was over. It is one thing to be taking time away from one’s family and an ill child when one has a real shot at the White House, it is quite another to take that time for what amounts to little more than political noisemaking and rabblerousing.

I think Santorum made a very healthy choice here for himself and his family. I applaud him for it. Sure, I wanted the man out of the race. Amusing (and infuriating) as he was, any chance he has at ever reaching the Oval Office needs to be shut down as soon as possible. But I also am glad to see him (or anyone) putting his family first like this.

Yet my applause are a little bitter sweet here. By making a great choice as a human and a father he has also, accidently, made a great political move. I would be very surprised if we are not dealing with frontrunner Santorum the next time out, and that is not a good thing for America at all.

I see his exit as coming about through the following process…

My advisors keep telling me that it is getting close to the time where I should walk away, but I am not there yet myself. Wait, I need to be with my family now. Oh, okay guys, let’s schedule a press event. Why are my advisors so happy? I though we were admitting defeat and going home? Why are they so happy about losing? Why are they chanting “2016… 2016… 2016…”? Boy, that volunteer has a cute butt, I wonder if he works out? Holy cow, I’ve got to go pray now!

Okay. I tried to keep those sorts of jabs out of this post. But I couldn’t resist just one.

See you the next time around, Rick. Though I can’t say that I look forward to it.

Facebook, Snip.it, & Pinterest

Yeah, it’s been way too long since I posted here. I’ve been throwing a lot of links up on Facebook, Snip.it, and Pinterest, but I have not had any time at all to write for the last several weeks.

Follow me on those sites for more content between my posts, and from the links I share, you can get a pretty good idea of what is distressing our democracy on an almost daily basis.

from tag Romney

from tag Newt

from tag Republican

from tag Santorum

from tag Health

from tag Rights

A video from Anonymous: We are Humanity - A message to the World

2012-03-14T08:27:00.001-07:00

Amen.

I really needed to see this today. This is why we all keep on keeping on.

from tag Anonymous

Democracy In Distress: What is Anonymous? (It is not the Occupation…)

from tag Democracy

from tag Class

Putin, Clinton, & Bush… Oh my! The current, dynastic period of American history

2012-03-05T12:41:00.001-08:00

Observers Detail Flaws in Russian Election - NYTimes.com:

Mr. Putin, who has already served eight years as president and four years as prime minister, won a new six-year term on Sunday with an official tally of 63.75 percent of the vote. He has already suggested that he might run again in 2018, potentially extending his tenure as Russia’s pre-eminent leader to 24 years, on a par with Brezhnev and Stalin.

Before we get all shocked about Putin and say, "It could never happen here!" think about this:

A likely list of US Presidents in a future text book...

1989 - 2021 or 2025 (32-34 years):
-Bush
-Clinton
-Bush
-Obama (almost Clinton & prominently featuring Clinton family members and former Clinton officials in the cabinet/administration)
-(Clinton or Bush likely)

Hillary and Jeb have to be considered the initial front runners in 2016.

I am starting to think about our current period as the Dynastic Period in American history.

Of course, there have been a few more shenanigans in the Russian elections than the American elections. 2000 not withstanding, though, Americans are clearly choosing their leaders from these prominent families.

Recently, I read an article saying that Jeb may even jump in this year to save the GOP from their circular firing squad. And I think there is little doubt that Hillary will take a shot at 2016. It wouldn’t even be the most shocking event ever if she ends up being on the 2012 ticket as VP.

In 2008, one of the main reasons why I supported Obama in the primaries was because I did not think having a run of 20 plus years with no one without the last name Bush or Clinton residing in the White House was bad for America and bad for our democracy, even if we liked the people in office (or some of them).

I suspect, though, that we may not be done with Presidents named Bush and Clinton. I would be very surprised not to see at least Hillary or Jeb picking up at least a nomination in the future, and 2016 may even end up being Bush v. Clinton in the general.

And they are young enough that both may end up in the White House.

Picture this:

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Bush, Clinton

If everyone gets two terms, that would be 44 years of dynastic presidencies with one, minor exception. Almost half a century.

Age may limit these far reaching possibilities.

Hillary will be 81 in 2028 and 86 in 2033 (end of the latest possible second term in this scenario).

Jeb will be 76 in 2028 and 80 in 2033.

In comparison, Ronald Reagan, our oldest president so far, was almost 70 when he was first inaugurated in 1981 and served until two weeks before his 78th birthday. He lived to age 93, but was crippled by Alzheimer's for, at least, the last 10 years of his life.

This article drifts a little towards the unsteady conspiracy theories from time to time, but it also makes plenty of solid points.

The Jeb Scenario: Can You Say “President Bush” Again? | Snip.it:

The Bushes are nothing if not resilient. George W. Bush, he of so few qualifications but with his own distinctive Bush personality and formidable charisma, came out of the dust of his father’s re-election defeat in 1992, stronger than his father ever was politically. And though W. is now persona non grata to many, his brother would come back as a significantly different brand. He’s widely regarded as more capable, much more focused, much better at delivering points. He’s able to pull off a kind of sober, reasonable persona, more stable than a Santorum or a Gingrich or most of the other contenders. Rich but not entitled. A kind of Romney—without the Romney.
And yet….And yet he is still a Bush. That means a great deal, because, putting aside all the stylistic differences, this is a clan with a mission. It’s a mission they’ll never talk about, beyond vague statements about a sense within the family of Duty to Nation. No, the Bush clan is the ultimate representative of the game plan of the one percent of the one percent. What they stand for in private is much, much more troubling than most Americans know. What I learned in the five years I spent investigating them—as they were going out of power the last time—shook me to my core.

from tag Conspiracy

Democracy In Distress: What do I believe in? The political world according to A. F. Litt

from tag Reagan

Democracy In Distress: Chart: Barack Obama & Ronald Reagan... Separated at birth?

from tag Democracy

from tag Obama

The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capeheart pretty much sums up my thoughts in this clip.

Same-sex marriage is an issue of civil rights

2012-03-05T10:42:00.001-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mostly around here, I do things quickly with little thought, especially when it comes to assigning tags to posts (itself a relatively recent addition to the blog). However, one issue I spent quite a bit of time thinking about was on how to tag LGBT issues.

I decided to just file them under “Civil Rights.”

On a side note, Gov. Christie comes across as a real ass in the brief clip of his appearance on Morning Joe. I thought his charm was supposed to be his selling point.

Oops, I forgot. This is what they call charm in many corners of the far right these days.

Dicks.

Blacks and gays: The shared struggle for civil rights - PostPartisan - The Washington Post:

“It’s an issue of civil rights, as you said. It’s an issue of equality. It’s an issue of equal treatment under the law,” I said. “No one is asking for special rights. No one is asking for any kind of special favors. We’re just looking for the same rights and responsibilities that come with marriage and also the protections that are provided under marriage. In that regard overall we’re talking about a civil rights issue and what African Americans continue to struggle with is exactly what lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are struggling with today.”

Men and women picket the White House on May 29, 1965, in a protest organized by the Mattachine Society of Washington ( File photo - United Press International )

from tag MSNBC

Democracy In Distress: Newt, NASA, & the Moon

from tag Right

from tag Civil

Occupy Portland: F29 – Occupy the Corporations Grab-Bag

2012-03-01T06:48:00.001-08:00

I have many pictures and videos that are currently loading up on my computers for editing. I will be posting these ASAP, not letting them sit forever like the Eviction and N17 photos and videos, which I also want to be done with by the end of the weekend.

Yesterday I had to bug out early, around 2 PM, to take my son to an appointment. Before I left, I saw no incidents with the police, though there might have been a little incident down around the federal courthouse that I did not witness directly, being distracted by taking pictures of the umbrella in the antlers…

Anyway…

Occupy protesters take to the streets, march against corporations | Local & Regional | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon:

Wednesday’s protest was called “F29,” as in February 29. Demonstrations were held in Portland and across the country to draw attention to a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC.

The Occupy movement’s biggest issue is with large corporations that they say use ALEC to craft legislation that favorable to them. The proposed laws are then forwarded to state lawmakers where they’re introduced in individual states.

Occupiers say that gives the appearance of popular support across the nation for any one particular issue. The protesters argue that’s essentially rigging the nation’s political system.

“Our goal today is to draw attention to the companies that are involved in ALEC and to expose that the biggest companies in the world are writing as much as 10 percent of the legislation that passes through our House here in Oregon,” said Brian Sloan with Occupy Portland.

Those behind the Occupy movement say ALEC allows corporations to influence laws without being held directly accountable for what those laws do.

7 arrests in Occupy Portland F29 protest | kgw.com Portland:

Portland Police called the demonstrations well facilitated, generally peaceful and largely non-contentious. Lt. Robert King says F29 organizers designated a police liaison which made for reduced tension and more effective communication between police and protesters.

In all, seven people were arrested throughout the day. At the Wells Fargo Tower, three people were charged with criminal trespassing after they chained themselves to property with bike locks.

Two were arrested along SW Broadway for vandalism after jumping on a Verizon van. At a Bank of America at NE 12th and Broadway, two people were arrested for criminal trespassing after they refused to leave.

While I was there, the only riot police I saw were staying about six blocks away from the march. As the march moved through the city, they would move as well, but keeping their distance unless legitimately needed. This sort of staging plan seemed to work well from what I saw, since closer proximity always seems to provoke people rather than deter people.

This article refers to an event late Tuesday evening or early Wednesday morning…

Anarchists, Occupy split over bank vandalism | kgw.com Portland:

On their twitter account, Occupy fired back Wednesday morning at the vandals. "To the rock tossers: Thank you for not hiding behind Occupy and forcing peaceful marchers to take a beating for you this time."
Earlier this month, Occupy Portland activists called out anarchists who resorted to vandalism during a march on police use of force. Some marchers turned on each other as windows in cars and a restaurant were broken.

An anti-bank march last November called N17 turned ugly, with activists accusing the police of excessive force and police saying they were trying to keep roadways clear. The conflict received national attention because of a dramatic use of pepper spray by police. An image from that protest captured by an Oregonian photographer received worldwide distribution through social networks.

'F29' protesters take aim at corporations during march - KPTV - FOX 12:

The group spoke out specifically against the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, which is comprised of America's largest corporations like ExxonMobil, Wells Fargo and McDonalds.

When the demonstrators approached a building housing one of those corporations, they chanted and waved signs at those inside.

…

A group appearing to be separate from Occupy Portland vandalized two banks and a Starbucks shop overnight, and then emailed a statement to media in which they wished the Occupy movement good luck with its protest.

Just for giggles, I checked Fox News.com… There is nothing on the landing page about any Occupation activities anywhere yesterday.

I suppose if they mentioned the F29 actions, they would have to mention ALEC, which would probably anger their dark overlords. (The local Portland affiliate is much less evil.)

Fox did have room on their home page for this today: “Escorts claim Utah law makes acting sexy illegal.” Insert your own joke about Fox News on-camera “talent.” Nothing from Fox on the politics page, either, though they did have room, again, for the article I mentioned above.

To be fair, I could not find mention of any actions on CNN.com or MSNBC, either. I guess the other actions around the country were not as big of a deal as was hoped.

If the main goal of the protest was 1) to call attention to ALEC, and 2) to remind people that people are still pissed off and that the Occupation is still active, then I think the day, in Portland, at least, was a success.

The next several videos are from someone who seems to be looking for dirt on the occupation. I do respect the fact that he actually went down and took a look at what was going on, but I am not sure that these videos actually accomplish his goals.

Uh oh, dude put on a bandana. The barbarians are at the gates!

I disagree with calling the cops assholes. I, however, agree that the horses and cars are owned by the people. Using the banners to provide a safe barrier between the horses and the crowd was a well-planned part of the action and a great idea.

This appears to show the tensest part of the day. It was after I left, so I am not sure. This is nothing compared to N17, and it looks like the police handled themselves well. (No pepper spray!)

With this next video, I saw this and I am actually on this video in the background (black hood with camera, 1:02), taking a picture from the other side of the horses. There was no incident here.

Ah, shucks. Vandalism!

Hee, hee… I love this next one. The only thing I don’t like is that there were as many photographers in there as there were protesters! McDonalds… Not worth risking jail for?

This person finally caught some real dirt on this last clip.

Yes, the fellow with the umbrella is a moron and you have called him out. My only disappointment with the protesters here is that no one pulled him aside and shut him down. The whole point of actions like this is to bring media attention to issues such as ALEC, and this sort of behavior does nothing to support the cause.

I've seen some idiots get really out of line, much worse than this, with the Fox 12 crews, which is very lame. Fox 12 is very balanced compared to the cable network and many other local Fox affiliates around the country.

I've also witnessed many of its staff expressing a lot of sympathy and support, off camera, for the Occupy movement, at least earlier on. This includes on-air personalities.

If these were the worst incidents of the day, then it was a very good day indeed. Good behavior marks all around, to both the protesters and the police.

My take is that the mood was very different than the November actions. It felt a lot more like the opening rally and march on October 6. Obviously the eviction was going to be a tense and violent time, but I think the feelings from that night and day spilled over to taint the actions of N17, both with the police and with the protesters, more than they would have if the two events had a little more space between them.

from tag Crisis

from tag Economy

from tag Fox

from tag Inequality

from tag Deregulation

from tag Corruption

from tag Corporate

from tag Class

deviantArt: Prints, cards, mugs, mouse pads, magnets, puzzles and other products.

Photo of the Day by A. F. Litt: February 28, 2012, Occupy Portland - F29: Shut Down the Corporations

2012-02-28T12:45:00.001-08:00

Note: Cross posted from Rubble.

Permalink

Occupy Portland - F29: Shut Down the Corporations. Morrison Bridge. Portland, Oregon. February 27, 2012. Photo of the Day, February 28, 2012.

Products featuring photography by A. F. Litt:

Cafe Press: Calendars, etc.

from tag Corporations

from tag Corruption

from tag Corporate

Obama Mail: Tipsheet: Romney's big speech

2012-02-26T11:17:00.001-08:00

Interesting email from the Obama 2012 campaign…

Friend --
Mitt Romney spoke in front of 65,000 empty seats at Ford Field in Detroit today to outline his economic plan. With all eyes on the Michigan primary next week, this is a critical time to spread the truth.

The differences between his plan and President Obama's go much farther than the fact that he would've "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." We've laid out a few in this week's tipsheet.

Take a look, then pass these on right now while the story's still hot:

#1 KEEPING HIS WORD: THE AMERICAN AUTO INDUSTRY
As Romney speaks in Detroit, folks shouldn't forget that he and every other GOP candidate opposed the auto recovery, preferring to let the industry go bankrupt. From Day One, President Obama has stood with the American auto industry, saying, "We cannot, and must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish." He's kept his word: More than 1.4 million American auto industry jobs have been saved, 200,000 created, and more than 150,000 are expected in the next few years. Make sure folks know who's on the right side of this one. Pass it on:

#2 GOP CANDIDATES ANNOUNCE TAX PLANS THAT WOULD EXPLODE DEFICIT
Not a day goes by without hearing Romney and Santorum push for cutting the corporate tax rate. But what you don't hear is how they'll pay for it. President Obama plans to make our businesses more competitive by cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent -- and closing special-interest loopholes and subsidies to cover the difference. Romney and Santorum want to cut it, too, but they're sure not willing to close any special loopholes to do it. They actually offer no plan to make up the difference, meaning these corporate savings add straight to the deficit. Keep these self-proclaimed budget hawks honest:

#3 MITT FIGHTS TO KEEP THE CARRIED INTEREST TAX LOOPHOLE
Carried interest is tax jargon for letting Wall Street private equity and hedge fund managers pay a lower tax rate than most middle-class Americans -- and Mitt Romney is determined to protect it. Why? Maybe because he's earned $13 million from it the past two years, and paid a 15 percent rate when his normal income would be taxed at more than double. President Obama recently announced he'd close this loophole, saving $13 billion in the next 10 years. Folks need to know that when the President's working towards a system where everyone pays their fair share, Mitt Romney's working to protect millionaires and billionaires. Read more on carried interest, and tell others, too:

#4 ROMNEY HEADLINES KOCH BROTHERS EVENT
Tomorrow, Mitt Romney will be speaking at an event sponsored by the Koch brothers. These are the same guys who made their billions by jacking up prices at the pump -- and have already spent millions spreading lies about climate change science. It's good to remember that, while President Obama has outlined a strategy to ease gas prices, Mitt Romney quintupled a tax on gas as governor -- on top of the gas tax Massachusetts motorists were already paying. Get the truth here -- and spread the word:

#5 MITT ROMNEY: THE MOST EXTREME ON IMMIGRATION
In case you missed Wednesday's GOP debate, Mitt Romney reaffirmed his position as the most extreme GOP candidate on immigration. He praised Arizona's radical anti-immigration law, SB 1070, which forces all immigrants to carry "alien registration" documents and allows police to question them at any time, with or without cause. Add this to his support of encouraging "self-deportation" and promise to veto the DREAM Act, and you can see why he wins at being most extreme. Make sure folks know he actually called Arizona's immigration law a model for the nation. Spread the word now:

It takes a lot of time to sort out and fight back on this stuff, but I know that with you on our side, we can get the truth out there.

Thanks for your help,
Stephanie

from tag Mitt

from tag Santorum

from tag Obama

Code Speak: Politics, bigotry, & the problem with Santorum

2012-02-19T15:08:00.001-08:00

Before the Florida primary, I mistakenly believed that Rick Santorum was done.

Can’t we just be done with him? Please?

The Anyone But Romney camp has got them selves into a pickle… They have to decide between the walking contradiction of Newt Gingrich and Santorum, whose issues as a general election candidate may be just as awkward, but in a very different way...

Republicans and the Culture Wars: Why It Won't Work This Year - The Daily Beast:
Then there’s Rick Santorum, who, by all rights, should dominate the values battlefield. He’s got the loving wife, the passel of kids, the goofy-dad vibe. And, let’s face it, the man has never met a policy issue he didn’t see through the prism of family values. Tax reform? Regulatory reform? Deficit spending? As Rick tells it, the first step toward addressing any of these problems is to reinstate the ban on sodomy.

On pure piety points, no one can beat Rick. We’re talking here about a guy who has said he would use the presidential bully pulpit to warn of how contraception tempts even married couples to get busy in ways contrary to God’s will. This, of course, is part of the problem. Opposing abortion is one thing. Opposing contraception even among married folks doesn’t make Rick seem like a paragon of moral virtue so much as a refugee from the 16th century.

This excerpt touches on the real problem with Santorum without actually landing on it. It is not Santorum’s beliefs that are necessarily troubling to the far right, it is the way he communicates them. He either has made a decision at some point in his career to ignore the generally accepted code speak of the conservative social agenda, or he just doesn’t understand it.

If the former, then this is, perhaps, a bold though politically difficult approach to campaigning for him. If the latter, then he may be too stupid to be president. Not that that has stopped voters before.

What do I mean by code speak? Well, on gay rights, instead of calling them “special rights,” he focuses instead on the idea that homosexuality is a sin. Sure, a lot of non-politicians focus on the Biblical rather than the political points of this issue, but usually those are not people running in statewide elections, let alone wanting to run in a national general election.

Likewise, the new contraception debate (really, have we drifted that far to the right?)…

Instead of talking about the economics of health care, or even the questionable argument about religious freedom for faith-based organizations, Santorum, in the past, hit a straight moral line drive with the argument that contraception was bad for families. Of course, this was before the debate raised like an oily sludge to the surface of the election cycle, and at the time he said that he was not in favor of legislating this brand of morality, but times and political climates can and do change…

This sort of right wing code speak becomes very troubling to me when the President is being discussed. I know the issues that most on the right have with Obama have nothing to do with his race, but… All the claims about the President being a Muslim, a non-native citizen, and even a socialist… In a different day and age, how many of the people making so much noise about these non-issues wouldn’t bother? Instead, thirty plus years ago, they would just be making noise about getting the black man out of the White House.

Not everyone, don’t get me wrong. But I am sure that some percentage of those making these sorts of arguments about the President are just using these non-issues as code speak about his race.

While I disagree with Santorum at a fundamental level on just about every issue and take exception to almost every word that comes out of his mouth, at least he is not that kind of slime. I have no doubt that his issues with Obama have a lot more to do with wanting his job than with the color of the President’s skin.

The bigoted, racist kind of slime out there who do have that problem should be worried, though, because Santorum does not play their game and, in the unlikely event that he secures the GOP nomination, his inability to use proper conservative code speak will slay any chances at victory in November.

Only by using code speak to portray religious and moral beliefs as legitimate political issues can one who seems to believe that birth control is a refuge for loose women with low morals succeed in gaining acceptance outside of the far right conservative primaries.

Of course, Santorum’s failure to grasp the necessity of right wing code speak is not his only problem, beyond failing to understand how to discuss social issues, he really doesn’t seem to understand which aspects of these issues really engage people in the first place:

But it’s not just that the senator’s positions are out of touch with the mainstream electorate (a mere 8 percent of Americans think birth control is immoral; 84 percent of U.S. Catholics think you can use it and still be a good Catholic). It’s that the guy is simultaneously too pious and too pathetic.

Take his views on gay rights. Plenty of people object to gay marriage, but Santorum has long come across as a bit of a clown on the entire subject of homosexuality. It’s some combination of his whiny manner and his slightly-too-colorful blatherings about how “sodomy” is kinda like polygamy or incest but not quite so bad as man-on-dog action. With that kind of commentary, small wonder Dan Savage decided to execute his devastating lexical takedown of the senator.

Perhaps saddest of all, when things get uncomfortable, Santorum crumbles. Pressed recently about a section of his 2005 book, It Takes a Family, that laments “radical feminists” undermining the family by pushing women to work outside the home, the senator pleaded ignorance and claimed the bit had been written by his wife.

To be sure, this whole Serious Candidate business is new to Santorum.

Here’s to crumbling and blaming it on your wife. That sells really well in the heartland.

The problem the rest of us will have if Santorum became president should resolve itself any time now. I am just surprised he’s made it this far.

But not really. I still am not convinced that the GOP can bring itself to nominate a Mormon, er… I mean someone who flip flops on all the issues they hold dear while being responsible for the rough draft of the “anti-American” and “Socialist” Obama death panel plan.

Unfortunately, the only other sane choice they had this year was another, lesser known Mormon, er… I mean someone who endorsed the President’s anti-Amercian, Nazi Communist agenda by actually working for the guy. Ambassador to China or closet communist?

Huntsman's failure to launch and the Anyone But Romney crusade, it surely couldn’t have anything to do with faith, could it? I am sure that for most primary voters, the politics do come first. Unfortunately, I am sure that there are a few out there who obscure their true feelings with political code phrases.

A skill Santorum seems to lack.

from tag Newt

Democracy In Distress: Newt, NASA, & the Moon

from tag Conservatives

Democracy In Distress: What do Republicans have against science anyway?

from tag Tea

from tag Health

from tag Santorum

Conservative voters: Poorly informed with low IQs & voting against their own best interests?

2012-02-12T11:23:00.001-08:00

I was just going to throw this link up onto Snip.it & Pinterest, but I really felt some words were necessary here.

First of all, I have known some very intelligent people who have conservative political views. Not only are they smart, but their political views are smart as well. Their arguments are usually well developed, informed, and are very intelligent, based on legitimate facts, figures and historical interpretations.

Quite often I disagree with them, but this is because we subscribe to some different historical and philosophical interpretations. However, when we debate, I hope both of us walk away better informed than when we started.

These debates usually change no minds, but they can actually make each of our arguments stronger, because through a well-informed conversation on an issue, we both learn some new facts and figures, holes are punched in our weaker arguments, and we have to find support for fuzzy truths we may have thrown out in haste or drop those imperfect arguments from our repertoire. In the end, each side can make a better informed decision on the point being discussed and, hopefully, takes away stronger arguments in defense of our views.

But what about right and wrong? What about winning? Well, in intelligent debates, we are usually arguing sane problems and issues that have multiple, legitimate, intelligent solutions. There usually is not a right answer or a wrong answer. Or they are very complex problems that require the best ideas from both the right and the left to be adequately resolved.

Of course, I am not talking about racism, prejudice, discrimination, or science. I usually find that intelligent conservatives and I pretty much share the same views here. Because we are not stupid or ignorant.

Which brings us to this…

Conservatism Thrives on Low Intelligence and Poor Information | | AlterNet:

…Canadian study published last month in the journal Psychological Science, which revealed that people with conservative beliefs are likely to be of low intelligence. Paradoxically it was the Daily Mail that brought it to the attention of British readers last week. It feels crude, illiberal to point out that the other side is, on average, more stupid than our own. But this, the study suggests, is not unfounded generalisation but empirical fact.

It is by no means the first such paper. There is plenty of research showing that low general intelligence in childhood predicts greater prejudice towards people of different ethnicity or sexuality in adulthood. Open-mindedness, flexibility, trust in other people: all these require certain cognitive abilities. Understanding and accepting others – particularly "different" others – requires an enhanced capacity for abstract thinking.

But, drawing on a sample size of several thousand, correcting for both education and socioeconomic status, the new study looks embarrassingly robust. Importantly, it shows that prejudice tends not to arise directly from low intelligence but from the conservative ideologies to which people of low intelligence are drawn. Conservative ideology is the "critical pathway" from low intelligence to racism. Those with low cognitive abilities are attracted to "rightwing ideologies that promote coherence and order" and "emphasise the maintenance of the status quo".

Pausing for a second… I do not equate conservative ideology with intolerance, necessarily. Social conservatism, perhaps, but not conservatism in general.

It seems as if a narrow path is being walked here, almost but not quite defining conservatism as racist and intolerant. That may be problematic. Further, if these sorts are drawn to the conservative ideology, does that mean conservative ideology is intolerant? Or does it become intolerant because of the influx of these intolerant people with low IQs? In the end, does it matter even matter where the causes and effects lay? Or has it become a self-perpetuating cycle with the chickens shitting all over the eggs they are laying, beyond any identification of cause and effect?

Blah. From here the article climbs up onto more solid ground… The problem lies not with a lack of intelligent conservatives, but with the way the intelligent conservatives have been pandering to their side’s “basest, stupidest impulses.”

This is not to suggest that all conservatives are stupid. There are some very clever people in government, advising politicians, running thinktanks and writing for newspapers, who have acquired power and influence by promoting rightwing ideologies.
But what we now see among their parties – however intelligent their guiding spirits may be – is the abandonment of any pretence of high-minded conservatism. On both sides of the Atlantic, conservative strategists have discovered that there is no pool so shallow that several million people won't drown in it. Whether they are promoting the idea that Barack Obama was not born in the US, that man-made climate change is an eco-fascist-communist-anarchist conspiracy, or that the deficit results from the greed of the poor, they now appeal to the basest, stupidest impulses, and find that it does them no harm in the polls.
…
…"the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital centre today". The Republican party, with its "prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science" is appealing to what he calls the "low-information voter", or the "misinformation voter". While most office holders probably don't believe the "reactionary and paranoid claptrap" they peddle, "they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base".

This is troubling in so many ways. But this is why so many poor Americans are fervent Republicans while many of the policies and practices of the GOP act against their own best interests at worst, or have little to do with any issues really effecting the poor at best.

Even more troubling:

In the UK, “the Guardian reported that recipients of disability benefits, scapegoated by the government as scroungers, blamed for the deficit, now find themselves subject to a new level of hostility and threats from other people.”

And even worse, and heading towards my real point here:

These are the perfect conditions for a billionaires' feeding frenzy. Any party elected by misinformed, suggestible voters becomes a vehicle for undisclosed interests. A tax break for the 1% is dressed up as freedom for the 99%. The regulation that prevents big banks and corporations exploiting us becomes an assault on the working man and woman. Those of us who discuss man-made climate change are cast as elitists by people who happily embrace the claims of Lord Monckton, Lord Lawson or thinktanks funded by ExxonMobil or the Koch brothers: now the authentic voices of the working class.

Many of the policies that benefit corporations are acutely harmful to the poor. Tax policy? Maybe, maybe not, but the minimum wage? Expensive workplace safety regulations? Even more costly environmental protection regulations?

The people arguing for deregulation will never live where the water supply has been poisoned by carcinogens, so why should they worry? Guess who gets to live there? The people voting for the conservative candidates who argue that such regulations kill jobs.

The real issue is not the IQ of the voters. I know for a fact that many of the loudest voices on the left should be locked in small rooms and only allowed to talk to rocks. Both sides have these people.

But what is so disturbing to me is how so many on the right so callously prey upon the ignorance of many in their voting base.

Perhaps this is my own prejudice, but what I see so often is the left saying, vote for us and we’ll keep the plant next door to your house from killing you while the right says, vote for us, and we’ll keep the left from putting job killing regulations on the plant next door to you and who really believes in all that science stuff, anyway, that says arsenic is bad for you? Jobs and superbabies! You can have it all!

I used the photo of the class warfare sign at the top of this post because I feel that this really is class warfare. It is an act of class warfare for the right to use these tactics on their own supporters.

The right says we cannot have a discussion about income inequality, because that is class warfare and an attack on the capitalist principles of the American Dream. Those on the right who would actually benefit from having this discussion, those who desperately feel the worsening ache of the dying American Dream every day, turn angry, fearful eyes towards those on the left who are fighting for them, away from those on the right who are actually stealing access to the American Dream from the vast majority of the country’s citizens in the first place.

And that, beyond being reprehensible, is just plain frightening.

from tag Conservatives

Democracy In Distress: What do Republicans have against science anyway?

from tag Ugly

Democracy In Distress: A dysfunctional system goes Super… And fails.

from tag Climate

Democracy In Distress: Climate Change

from tag Fear

from tag Ignorance

from tag Rights

from tag Incompetence

from tag Warfare

Santorum & Obama: Which is worse for religion?

2012-02-10T01:27:00.001-08:00

Some good points in this video…

What I want to know, if we are not supposed to be funding birth control with our tax dollars, we are also not funding erectile dysfunction treatments with our tax dollars, right?

That would just be crazy and hypocritical for insurance to cover one and not the other.

What? Really? One is a health issue and one is a moral issue?

Someone needs to explain that one to me.

The crazy right is always going off about how Obama is dangerous to religious freedom. I forget which one of the GOP candidates it was, they are blurring together a bit, was saying that one of his first acts upon taking office would be to overturn by executive order all of the anti-Christian acts put into place by the Obama Administration.

For the life of me, I can’t think of a single anti-religious executive order or bill signed by Obama, but maybe I am just getting my news from the wrong sources.

Watching this video, I realized they might be talking about women’s health issues. I forget that pro-woman’s health is often considered anti-Christian.

But, at least, if the GOP gains the Presidency, we can all rest assured that Islamic Sharia Laws will not be enacted in the United States. But who will protect us from these psychos wanting to write Leviticus into the U.S. Code and into the Constitution?

Well, if they do, we can rest assured that many of them will quickly be out of office, stoned to death for their sins…

Right?

To my way of thinking, these people harm religion more than Obama every would in a millions terms in office.

I suppose we do have to feel some sympathy since Christians are such a persecuted minority in this country.

ABCNEWS.com : Poll: Most Americans Say They're Christian:

Eighty-three percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Most of the rest, 13 percent, have no religion. That leaves just 4 percent as adherents of all non-Christian religions combined — Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and a smattering of individual mentions.

Oh, there I go again. Listening to their words instead of checking their facts. Better quit while I am ahead.

Fortunately, I do believe that these far right nut jobs are a minority, and if they feel persecuted, it is only because being surrounded by sane people must be very frustrating for them. That does give me hope and faith in my fellow Americans.

I am also pleased if, as Uygur argues, this turn back to the crazy social agenda by the GOP candidates means that they are losing confidence on running on economic issues. I agree the figures are on Obama’s side when it comes to the economy.

And the GOP loses when they run from so far to the right on the social issues.

from tag Islam

Democracy In Distress: Suburban Eschatology Part Two - September 12th, 2010: 30 Mosques, 30 Days

from tag Health

from tag Christianity

from tag Santorum

From The Daily Show… All three parts of the interview with Jonathan Macey

2012-02-01T10:22:00.001-08:00

This was really choppy on the show last night. Considering the length, I now understand why. But I thought it was a really worthwhile conversation. The clip at the end illustrates why the issues discussed matter.

Exclusive - Jonathan Macey Extended Interview Pt. 1

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Jonathan Macey Extended Interview Pt. 2

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Exclusive - Jonathan Macey Extended Interview Pt. 3

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Indecision 2012 - Bain Man

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

from tag Mortgage

Democracy In Distress: Bank Consolidation Chart

from tag Economy

from tag Corporations

from tag Recession

from tag Romney

Democracy In Distress: GOP & 2012: A grab bag of headlines from everyone's favorite dysfunctional family

from tag 2012

Florida… (yawn)

2012-01-31T16:20:00.001-08:00

There’s this…

Florida Primary 2012 Results: Election Reporting By County (MAP, REAL-TIME DATA):

According to the latest polls going into election day, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney held a commanding lead, with 42.3 percent of the vote. Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who won in South Carolina just over a week ago, had 29 percent of the vote heading into Tuesday, while former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and Texas Rep. Ron Paul trailed with roughly 11 percent of the vote each.

Still, by the end of tonight's race, only 5 percent of the delegates will have been rewarded.

Or this…

Personally, I’d go with the Modest Mouse. I don’t think Florida will decide anything. But we are getting closer…

Of course, this will be Santorum’s coffin nail.

from tag Florida

Democracy In Distress: Newt, NASA, & the Moon

from tag Music

from tag 2012

Kermit the Frog & Miss Piggy hit back at Fox News

2012-01-31T08:28:00.001-08:00

"Boy, that is going to be all over the internet!" Yep. Just doing my part.

from tag humor

from tag Humor

What do I believe in? The political world according to A. F. Litt

2012-01-30T01:23:00.000-08:00

Prelude

On my personal website I have been building a library of my academic papers from my school days. Tonight, I found one that I thought I would share here.

It was a quick response paper for a cultural anthropology class at Seattle Central Community College some sixteen years ago. Not my best writing ever, for a class or otherwise, but, clunky writing aside, in many ways I think this little piece sums up my political views better than anything I’ve written before or since.

It does not detail where I am on the left or right spectrum, conservative or liberal. On that scale, I am far from static and can usually manage to upset people on both sides of that particular divide. It does, however, explain my opinion on how the American political system operates.

After the massive political failures in Washington D.C. over the last decade, I suspect that more and more people have come around to seeing things from my perspective. Back in 1996, though, my ideas on government and the media were dismissed as naive by many from both the right and the left.

The popular view was that great, unseen political machinations were pulling the strings of power. Everything was a borderline conspiracy, or an actual conspiracy.

After watching both parties shattering like glass against the rocks of their own incompetency the last few years, however, I feel that my views on the system are a bit more mainstream now. Reading this essay for the first time in about 12 years today, it actually felt fresher than it did in the days of the Clinton Impeachment Trial and the WTO controversies, before the 2000 Election, eight years of George W. Bush, endless wars in the Mid-East, Hurricane Katrina, the Great Recession, and whatever sort of tragicomic train wreck the last six plus years of Congress will be labeled as by future historians.

Enough from me today, onwards to me from years past… This is warts and all, copied and pasted from the original Word document.

ANT 202, Fall 1996, Seattle Central Community College

Until recently, I had never read anything by Noam Chomsky, or heard him speak before, but I have run into many people who have and are rather worked up by his ideas. Many of these people, however, tended to have a very paranoid streak in them, and have used Chomksy’s words to confirm their own fears and suspicions about conspiracies and such. They use his ideas as proof that their fears about direct manipulations between corporations, government officials and agencies, the media, and the financial institutions are true. Instead of understanding the subtle and indirect influences these institutions, by nature, have upon one another; they just take these concepts in their bluntest, broadest forms, picturing some sort of wild X-Files type of conspiracy. They believe, in a very literal way, that all politics are nothing but a sham, that the corporations directly control everything, making phone calls and e-mails, ruling directly a puppet government, themselves taking their orders from the global financial institutions. I always ask them where the aliens fit into these schemes, and not all of them realize that I am joking. Because of these people, I have always been a bit weary of Chomsky, but knowing these people’s mind sets, I figured they were just laying their own fears over his ideas, and I’ve always wanted to find out if I was right.

My own view of government and its relationship with the private power structures has always been more of a chaos theory, rather than a conspiracy theory, seeing each individual and group being too caught up in their own special interests, and too busy covering their own asses, to ever work together at a level that such a complex conspiracy would require. There are just too many egos involved. My own view, it turns out, seems very similar to Chomsky’s. So, when listening to the conspiracy theorists talking about the power structures, about the relationships between industry, government, and the media, I’ve never been able to totally disagree. I’ve always ended up with sort of a “Yes, but…” and a “Well, I wouldn’t necessarily go that far” response. I can’t follow them all the way into the conspiracies. For these to actually be occurring, the politicians, CEOs, and journalists would all have to be a lot less self serving, and a hell of a lot smarter, than they ever seemed to be, to me, at least. In 1991, while attending a National Press Club conference in D.C., for example, I had an opportunity to meet briefly with former Rep. Rod Chandler and former Sen. Brock Adams. To be honest, these two were so preoccupied with themselves and with their own personal career goals (Adams, understandable, more so at this point – still vowing to run again, still certain that he could win), that I don’t see them plotting anything with anyone, unless they got to be in charge. When talking about legislation, bills they sponsored, bills where they offered up key support, they never talked with enthusiasm about the laws they were making, or about how they were good for their constituencies, but they were very jazzed up about how powerful they were personally, being able to make that big of a splash on the national issues. Chandler, being groggy from getting back from a fact finding mission to Kuwait, came across as a complete fool and managing to drop in a couple of racist comments, thinking that he’d made a funny, certainly didn’t help his case any. If this guy was ever involved in anything serious, I’d be willing to bet that he’d accidentally expose it. Of course, my paranoid friends all reassure me that these cases were all just acts, that they were ploys to lower our expectations of elected officials, and to lower our defenses.

Still, I feel that these politicians do try to do their best to stand up for and to fight for what they feel needs to be done, but it is no mystery to me how things like aid to the Guatemalan military gets passed by these people, as well. They see the word communist in the early 1980s, and communists are bad. If they don’t vote against the communists, they will endanger their re-election. In these circumstances, why should they even worry if the guerillas are even really communist insurgents or not, why should they waste any effort trying to dig deeper into this issue? It would just be a bother because they already know how they must vote, and so they probably never realize that they were aiding in the suppression of the Guatemalan public, and not in the suppression of the “Evil Empire’s” backing of Soviet-style communism in the Americas.

Likewise, the media. Journalists, like politicians, feel that they and not their possible replacements are the best for their jobs, that they will fight the good fight in a way that they are uniquely qualified for, in a way that their potential successors are not. On top of this, or in place of this, let’s face it: unemployment sucks. In the media, votes count as much towards job security as they do in politics. Here, however, the votes are cast through ratings and circulation figures instead of elections. Using the Guatemalan example again, in the early 80’s the American public was largely uninterested in Central American political struggles, just writing it all off as those damn Cubans working with the Soviets to expand communism closer to the States, and being bored with anything deeper than that. A minute or two here, a few column inches there. The sort of publicity needed to truly educate the public about these freedom fighters, the time and attention needed to explain that these repressed Indians were not really communists, and definitely not backed by any communist nations, would have sent, let’s say, the evening news ratings into the trash. Maybe some journalists knew about the situation down there, and they felt strongly about the need to bring the details to the public’s attention, but often they will sacrifice that story for another one they also feel strongly about, one that the public is more interested in, one with a higher ratings potential. The instinct for self-survival wins again.

This is how I see these two institutions working. It’s not that they are working together, it’s that the very nature of our society forces them both to work in ways that, in this case, serve each other well. Real issues become fuzzy sound bites that end up largely dictating American policies. And it is definitely not Sen. Doe calling up Jack Blowdry, having the network nix the story so Congress can get away with something. Most journalists I’ve met would run screaming to the showers seeking purification at just hearing such a suggestion.

So, getting back to the Chomsky interview, it was very refreshing to hear him say pretty much these same things, confirming my suspicions that he wasn’t a conspiracy theorist, and in fact, hearing him bluntly deny it. My paranoid friends, it seems, weren’t only misunderstanding his message, but completely missing the most important part of it all, that we do live in a free society, and that these institutions don’t have the strength that they would have if such a conspiracy was taking place. (Totalitarianism, anyone?) It’s the capitalistic democracy we live in that creates the appearances of a conspiracy, but it’s also this system that gives the public’s opinions so much strength. It’s the public’s voice, expressed through votes, and sales, and ratings, and such that fuels this system. It’s the fear of a negative opinion that brings out the negative aspects of this system. The idea, as Chomsky put it, that while in a totalitarian system, backed by violence and fear tactics, it doesn’t matter what the public thinks, only what it does, and that the powerful don’t need the support of the public when they decide policy, but in a capitalistic democracy the thoughts of the public are very powerful and potentially dangerous to those in charge while being the hardest part of the system to control, and the support, or ignorance, of the public mandates the policies of the powerful. Therefore, the fear of a negative opinion, of being perceived as another Mondale instead of another Reagan, of selling Pintos instead of Cadillacs, creates a situation where the truth is something to be feared in case it is taken wrong by the consumers. Image become more important than reality, and the truth, or at least the details of the truth, are avoided when possible by anyone selling themselves to the public. The truth is only investigated and reported by the media if it is exciting, importance or relevance becoming only a secondary consideration.

For example, when the Watergate scandal was being uncovered by the Washington Post, the idea of corruption on that level in the executive branch was big news, but after Nixon and 12 years of Regan/Bush, it’s going to take Clinton being caught at something a lot more clear-cut and scandalous than Whitewater to capture the public’s attention in the way it was by his predecessor’s misdeeds, 23 years ago. [I will interject here in order to point out that this essay was written before Monica Lewinski and the Impeachment] These days, however, O. J. Simpson managed to catch the public’s attention quite nicely in a way that Whitewater hasn’t been able to in post Watergate times.

So Chomsky’s most important message is that if we educate ourselves about how the system works, and why, if we can rekindle our interest in politics and government, we can make our voices even louder, and we will be able to more adroitly wield the power over the system that too many people believe we currently lack. Then we can make the interest of the public more important than just its opinion. It’s hard to inspire interest in the system, though, when 99% of what happens in D.C. does not effect our day-to-day lives, when the practices and attitudes of corporations do not affect us, as long as their products fulfill the use promised, and as long as the news media acts primarily as a form of entertainment, not education. How do the O. J. Simpson trials affect us at all? Even in times of war, the choices are made, or at least ratified, by our pre-elected representatives, and the only news that usually affects the public directly is delivered via mail in the form of selective service notices, notes from friends and loved ones at the front, and letters of consolation. So interest in these institutions is understandably low, but still, it is very necessary. Just because we are not directly affected by them most of the time doesn’t mean that we can’t be.

We need to be vigilant for the times when our lives could be very much changed by these institutions. It is important for the public to remain vigilant, and the power we have over the system needs to be maintained, or it could be lost, whittled away slowly with the public not even realizing that it has been lost, or that they ever even had it at all.

from tag Congress

from tag History

Newt, NASA, & the Moon (Updated January 30, 2012)

2012-01-28T21:39:00.001-08:00

On Newt Gingrich on the Moon | Vintage Space:

Last week, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich made a bold claim: “By the end of my second term [2020], we will have the first permanent base on the Moon and it will be American.” On the surface, it’s an intriguing and even exciting prospect to space enthusiasts. A base on the Moon would extend human presence in the Solar System and act as a stepping stone on the way to Mars. Or, it could bankrupt NASA and prove to be little more than an ill-thought out, dead-end program. (Gingrich proposed a lunar base by 2020 in Florida on January 25, 2012.)

Gingrich promises moon base that could become 51st state | The Raw Story:

“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” the candidate insisted. “We will have commercial near-Earth activities that included science, tourism and manufacturing.”

“I accept the charge that I am an American and Americans are instinctively grandiose because we believe in a bigger future!” he exclaimed. “I want you to help me both in Florida and across the country so that you can someday say you were here the day it was announce that of course we’d have commercial space and near space. Of course we’d have a man colony on the moon that flew an American flag.”

Do we need a manned space program? Yes we do.

Does NASA need to get out of low Earth orbit? Yes.

Will the private sector get us there? Probably not.

Is Newt the leader we’ve been waiting for to get us re-focused on space? Highly unlikely.

Is Newt the second coming of JFK? Only in his own mind.

UPDATE: January 30, 2012

Phil Plait always has some good thoughts on these subjects.

The Newt-onian Mechanics of Building a Permanent Moon Base | The Crux | Discover Magazine:

I’m also not comfortable with raising the specter of another space race. Any attempts to get political motivation for exploring or exploiting space will inevitably bring to mind the idea of the Chinese. Have no doubts: the Chinese space program efforts are solid, and accelerating. When they say they want to have a moonbase by the 2020s, this is not bluster. They may very well be able to do it. But getting into a second space race with China would be suicide for our space program. Obviously, they have far more money than we do for such an endeavor. But more than that; what is the goal of a race?

Answer: to win. And what happens after you win? Look to Apollo for that. The goal of the first space race in the 1950s and 60s was to beat the Soviets. We did: America got to the Moon first. But after that, enthusiasm for Apollo died rapidly, and Apollos 18–20 were canceled about a year after Armstrong first stepped foot on the Moon. After all, once you’ve won, why keep running?
The point is, if we want to have a sustainable, permanent base on the Moon, then it has to live or die on its merits. As soon as we make it an “us versus them” scenario, the chances of long-term thinking drop precipitously.
…
Now, don’t get me wrong. When it comes to space exploration, in many ways I’m a starry-eyed optimist, but I’ve learned to temper that optimism with cold, hard, reality. And history shows that building a moonbase by 2020 according to Gingrich’s ideas not only won’t work, but would be a disaster for NASA.
NASA simply can’t do it in that timeframe; there’s no place in the budget for that sort of mission, and it’s unlikely in the extreme they’ll get extra funding for this. Perhaps because of that, Gingrich proposed taking 10% of NASA’s budget—some 1-2 billion dollars—and creating a new X Prize to motivate private industry to be involved. This has worked in the past as a catalyst for companies to work on difficult goals, like launching a piloted vehicle into space. However, going to the Moon and building a base would cost more than 1000 times as much as launching that sub-orbital rocket did, so it’s not at all clear an X Prize like this would work.
Add to that the money needed to keep the base running—an estimated $7.4 billion per year. That’s a lot of cash for a fledgling corporation. Or even a government. It’s more than third of NASA’s annual budget.
…
A lot of the media have made fun of Gingrich for this plan. The irony is they’re doing it for the wrong reason. A Moon base is being likened to science fiction, just some silly fluff. But that’s grossly unfair.
Space exploration is an issue that’s important. It’s vital to our nation for a host of reasons, but it is also costly in every sense of the word. If we go, we should go for the right reasons, and we should do it the right way. If we go, we must go to stay. The budget for this can’t be set up on political election cycles, it must be based on the real constraints of engineering and technology, and far more importantly it must be based on a commitment to the future. If we do this, we must invest in the long haul.
Gingrich’s plan does not encompass that idea. Ineptly aimed media ridicule aside, what’s clear is that Gingrich’s speech was long on rhetoric but short on actual substance…
The Gingrich Who Stole The News Cycle | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine:
In the post for The Crux I was blunt, but held back my tongue a bit because that isn’t necessarily the venue for me to do otherwise. But here, on my blog, I’ll say this: Gingrich’s words were both transparent and hollow. I knew right away what he was claiming was simply not possible, either financially, technologically, or politically. Take your pick. And it was also clear to me that no matter how you slice it, NASA would get screwed royally if his Moon base plan were implemented, since it would mean billions of dollars moved away from NASA projects to finance this. I started digging deeper to see if my first reaction was wrong, and all I found showed I was righter than I first thought. Every way you try to do it, his plan would destroy NASA. And I’m not exaggerating; the amount of money we’re talking about taking away from NASA projects to fund a base his way would leave everything else in NASA facing cancellation. It’s really that simple.

Also see…

Amen! "I bet we could go explore the galaxy if..."

Armstrong to NASA: You're Embarrassing : Discovery News

Story Musgrave kicks ass: Thoughts on NASA's lack of vision

One small step for China, one impossible step for America: Falling behind in space

Final shuttle flight...

NASA's failure to launch: Being right in so many wrong ways...

50 years after the first manned spaceflight... Is human space exploration to become a footnote in history?

Very Cool: Response from Rep. Earl Blumenauer on SOPA

2012-01-27T09:58:00.001-08:00

Dear Mr. Litt:

Thank you for contacting me in support of Internet freedom. My apologies if you tried to access my website on Wednesday January 18, 2012--it was blacked out in solidarity with Oregonians like you who believe in Internet freedom and entrepreneurship.

I could not agree with you more regarding this flawed legislation. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is intended to protect the intellectual property of United States businesses by shutting down websites that traffick pirated material. There is widespread agreement that online piracy and the problem of "rogue" foreign sites can threaten the economic security of U.S. businesses. There is also widespread agreement that the Internet has revolutionized the way the world learns, interacts, and does business.

Well intentioned though it may be, I have very strong concerns that SOPA would infringe on Internet freedom, stifle the innovation critical for Oregon's startup culture, and threaten Internet security.

Congress must be careful to protect intellectual property rights without jeopardizing what has made the Internet one of the biggest drivers of the economy. SOPA does not strike this balance and needs to go back to the drawing board.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. I will continue working to protect the integrity of the Internet.

Sincerely,

Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress

from tag Congress

from tag Interwebs

I am pretty sure I worked for this company before…

2012-01-27T03:57:00.001-08:00

Note: Cross posted from Suburban Eschatology Part Two.

Permalink

McSweeney’s Internet Tendency: New Hire Form Letter For the Modern American Worker.:

Our staff consists of many talented former professionals who were unfortunately laid-off without warning during the financial collapse: surgeons, engineers, educators, pilots, medical technicians. We understand that you might consider this new position somewhat of a “downgrade,” both financially and mentally; that screwing metal pieces together is “mindless labor.” But we think your skills will prove invaluable considering the number of hands accidentally severed off in our factory. Perhaps you could invent new prosthetic limbs or concoct an amazing super drug that prevents workers from ever falling asleep. Who knows? Don’t be shy. Be creative! IMPORTANT NOTE: Please know we cannot offer additional compensation for these services. You wouldn’t pay an office’s designated Fire Marshall for his or her volunteer work, would you?

…

We encourage growth and career advancement through our “Spread Your Wings”™ program. Many of the upstanding gentlemen carrying whips and prodding tired laborers awake started at this company in the same position as you find yourself today. With a bit of hard work and offering turn-coat information about secretive organized revolts, you too can work your way to the top of the food chain.

from tag Randomness

from tag Humor

Republicans too liberal for today’s GOP… These guys!

2012-01-26T22:19:00.001-08:00

WATCH: Obama's "Socialist" Ideas Aren't So Different From the GOP's [Fiore Cartoon] | Mother Jones:

Lefties | Mark Fiore's Animated Cartoon Site: Lefites (01/25/12)

Neat video. Unfortunately I cannot get it to embed right now, but it is worth following one of these links to see it.

from tag Comic

from tag humor

Eisenhower warning about the Military-Industrial Complex (including the complete Farewell Address)

2012-01-26T16:46:00.001-08:00

I cannot remember if I have posted this before. If I haven’t, then the oversight is corrected. If I have, well… It’s worth putting up again.

The full farewell address…

from tag History

from tag video

Rubble: RAMA Arrives... What's that mysterious object near Mercury?

Expressing a build up of viral material: Recent viral images…

2012-01-26T15:06:00.001-08:00

A collection of recent viral images that made me laugh, think, or scream... Because sometimes it is hard to type with fists.

Only in order of how they landed on my Facebook wall...

from tag Comic

from tag Chart