October 10, 2011
Occupation
.
The scattershot approach to voicing the progressive concerns highlighted by the Occupy Wall Street protest include many over-the-top populist anthems that, while perhaps ringing a tone that resonates with a majority of Americans, are not the way to proselytize the uninformed. This is important in crafting a strategy to overcome how the right keeps repeating the same stupid lies until they almost sound true to the average inattentive citizen. And to the many who are ignorant of the reality of progressive politics, some of the worst tenets of the right seem to make enough sense to justify railing against all these dirty, jobless malcontents camped out in front of the NYSE (who may also be students, union members, working mothers, single fathers, airline pilots, teachers, retail workers, military service members, and laid-off foreclosure victims, but who definitely ARE Americans exercising their right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”).
Most of the uninformed masses are hard to reach with what they see as pointy-headed, over-educated liberals pushing their commie-Muslim-gay propaganda. It's not complicated — that's what they hate because that’s what they’ve been conditioned to fear. Perhaps the most focused way to scare them back the other way is incessantly repeating the vision of corporate fascism that thrives on constant internal and external Holy War and what will come to pass if these billionaire gangsters aren't stopped and damn soon. Then again, most of those who are at the point of accepting the reports of Fox News as gospel are likely not worth the time to engage.
So if the many great voices out there are for the most part preaching to the choir, what can less verbose progressives do to help? Start by making copies of good articles and offer to discuss them with friends and relatives who are right-wing sympathizers. You won't win a lot of popularity contests, but is that really important? The idea is to make the world slightly less stupid, one Republican at a time. You can only defeat the truly evil, but you can educate the clueless and confused.
.
The scattershot approach to voicing the progressive concerns highlighted by the Occupy Wall Street protest include many over-the-top populist anthems that, while perhaps ringing a tone that resonates with a majority of Americans, are not the way to proselytize the uninformed. This is important in crafting a strategy to overcome how the right keeps repeating the same stupid lies until they almost sound true to the average inattentive citizen. And to the many who are ignorant of the reality of progressive politics, some of the worst tenets of the right seem to make enough sense to justify railing against all these dirty, jobless malcontents camped out in front of the NYSE (who may also be students, union members, working mothers, single fathers, airline pilots, teachers, retail workers, military service members, and laid-off foreclosure victims, but who definitely ARE Americans exercising their right “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”).
Most of the uninformed masses are hard to reach with what they see as pointy-headed, over-educated liberals pushing their commie-Muslim-gay propaganda. It's not complicated — that's what they hate because that’s what they’ve been conditioned to fear. Perhaps the most focused way to scare them back the other way is incessantly repeating the vision of corporate fascism that thrives on constant internal and external Holy War and what will come to pass if these billionaire gangsters aren't stopped and damn soon. Then again, most of those who are at the point of accepting the reports of Fox News as gospel are likely not worth the time to engage.
So if the many great voices out there are for the most part preaching to the choir, what can less verbose progressives do to help? Start by making copies of good articles and offer to discuss them with friends and relatives who are right-wing sympathizers. You won't win a lot of popularity contests, but is that really important? The idea is to make the world slightly less stupid, one Republican at a time. You can only defeat the truly evil, but you can educate the clueless and confused.
.
Labels: couldn't we just TRY a hardcore lefty for four years folks?, gummint, justice, madness, money, politix, rants, The FEAR, violence inherent in the system, war
June 30, 2011
I'm not a cynic, but I play one on TV
.
The U.S. is in the midst of yet another national debt brouhaha. It's a common situation - the country has experienced federal debt since its founding (BTW - happy birthday), with war being a consistent culprit. Currently the U.S. is in the highest spike of the percentage of its total debt to GDP (2010 = 96.3%) ratio since World War II. But the debt sunk quickly in the prosperous post-war years, while today financial wonks in public accounting agencies and private sector economists are in lock-step agreement as to the path of sustainability the country is on, or more accurately flying wildly off of.
The U.S. is in the midst of yet another national debt brouhaha. It's a common situation - the country has experienced federal debt since its founding (BTW - happy birthday), with war being a consistent culprit. Currently the U.S. is in the highest spike of the percentage of its total debt to GDP (2010 = 96.3%) ratio since World War II. But the debt sunk quickly in the prosperous post-war years, while today financial wonks in public accounting agencies and private sector economists are in lock-step agreement as to the path of sustainability the country is on, or more accurately flying wildly off of.
Is it coincidence that the U.S. is experiencing some of the highest federal debt during a half-century low of its marginal tax rates? Could there be some kind of correlation between tax rates and tax revenue? In the parlance of the new GOP math, of course, "lower taxes increase revenue."
I'm seriously thinking of adopting this method, as surely it would help my personal budget in a manner similar to the government's current faux fortune. Yeah, that's it - if I spend more than I make, I'll just work less hours to make up for it.
.
I'm seriously thinking of adopting this method, as surely it would help my personal budget in a manner similar to the government's current faux fortune. Yeah, that's it - if I spend more than I make, I'll just work less hours to make up for it.
.
October 25, 2009
Who is Howard Beale?
.
Incensed by the continuing wholesale kleptomania of the financial world as described in the Washington Post, El Jefe at Boiled Dinner did that "write to your senators" thing that passionate citizens do when they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Kudos to Jeff for a succinct and effective note.
As happens from time to time, here is a typical "comment on a blog that became a post instead."
I have fear that increases a bit with each article I read about all this financial stuff. It's a fear that America, like some strung-out junkie, will have to hit rock bottom in order to snap out of the consumerist greedocracy in which it has become so comfortable living. And yes, as Jeff pointed out, rage is something else I have - it's about the only thing that keeps me from being burned out on concern for our nation's future.
It is a frustrating thing to be unable to muster any trust for our elected officials to fashion a proper solution to our troubles.
The only things that I can so far agree to, based on a plethora of news and commentary both organized and informal, are the following rather nebulous points of indeterminate feasibility:
1. Break the grip of the two-party system. One more viable party would great, two seems to be the impossible dream.
2. Declare 100 percent public financing of all elections. How much would this cost in comparison to American military deployments and financial bailouts? Seems like a bargain to me.
3. Reform of corporate personhood designations that facilitate loopholes in everything from liability to taxes to government lobbying.
4. (Write-in)
5. (Et cetera)
6. (Et cetera)
Incensed by the continuing wholesale kleptomania of the financial world as described in the Washington Post, El Jefe at Boiled Dinner did that "write to your senators" thing that passionate citizens do when they're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Kudos to Jeff for a succinct and effective note.As happens from time to time, here is a typical "comment on a blog that became a post instead."
I have fear that increases a bit with each article I read about all this financial stuff. It's a fear that America, like some strung-out junkie, will have to hit rock bottom in order to snap out of the consumerist greedocracy in which it has become so comfortable living. And yes, as Jeff pointed out, rage is something else I have - it's about the only thing that keeps me from being burned out on concern for our nation's future.
It is a frustrating thing to be unable to muster any trust for our elected officials to fashion a proper solution to our troubles.
The only things that I can so far agree to, based on a plethora of news and commentary both organized and informal, are the following rather nebulous points of indeterminate feasibility:
1. Break the grip of the two-party system. One more viable party would great, two seems to be the impossible dream.
2. Declare 100 percent public financing of all elections. How much would this cost in comparison to American military deployments and financial bailouts? Seems like a bargain to me.
3. Reform of corporate personhood designations that facilitate loopholes in everything from liability to taxes to government lobbying.
4. (Write-in)
5. (Et cetera)
6. (Et cetera)
Labels: gummint, justice, law, Nothing about Yoko, politix, rants, terms of enragement
December 23, 2008
I'm Coming Out
.
I've been called out, and now my closet door can no longer remain shut. I'm here to announce to the world that as a happily married heterosexual, I'm gay.
As a heterosexual I do not fully relate to being gay, but as long as the theocracy mongers of America continue their assault on the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness of the gay community then I will continue to be gay.
I guess I'm lucky in that this is a decision that I can make of my own free will, and when/if ever my country comes to a peaceable understanding of the equal rights and protection of ALL its citizens, then I can decide once again to not be gay. So I stand with those who are so unfortunate as to have no choice in being held in contempt by an uncaring and ignorant multitude of stone-throwing sinners.
There are so many points that made my decision to come out rather simple. Many revolve around the recent boil of debate over California's Prop 8 and its surface attempt to define marriage and, just a scratch below the surface, define it by a narrow, traditional religious worldview. When people talk about the sanctity of marriage in one breath, and tradition in another, they forget what those traditions actually are, for marriage hardly has a pure and glorious history. It's rarely been about love, and even more rarely has it been about choice. For millennia and still today women have married the men they were told to marry and spent their lives being miserable. The men got married to women for a variety of convenient and expedient reasons, then promptly went out and got a cartload of mistresses to fool around with.
As for religion, the Christian church explicitly avoided anything to do with marriage until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and there the primary interest was for the Roman Catholic church to introduce barriers to reformation. Let's not forget all the family squabbles that were settled by marrying the children of the warring sides together, or the marriage of close cousins to keep royal bloodlines "pure" (and ugly and inbred). And what of the still-current tradition of marrying barely pubescent girls to much older men for the purpose of pumping out "legitimate" babies? If one girl died in childbirth, you just haul another one to the alter and start the bed springs bouncing again.
The way I see it, since there is no state religion, then as far as the state (which issues licenses and regulates the social benefits and responsibilities of married couples) is concerned, marriage is a legal contract and not a religious one. It is a contract that smooths out all sorts of estate and power of attorney issues as well as some legal aspects concerning minors. It's a pretty decent deal for all involved (unless someone tries to dissolve the contract, in which case it's usually just a pretty decent deal for the lawyers). Still, so long as the state intertwines marriage with inheritance, child custody, durable powers of attorney, etc., then the government should have no say in which adults do, and which do not, get to be in a binding contractual arrangement simply based on whether or not the people have matching sex organs.
I often wonder why gay marriage is such a hot button issue, but then I also wonder why people try to impose their will on complete strangers. If a church doesn't want to bless/recognize gay marriage then that's their prerogative, but I can see no logical argument for why it would support denying two loving partners to enter into this form of legal contract. I do understand that the most zealous anti-gay practitioners want to live under a theocracy. They want their religious law to be everyone's law, and they want to be free to use their bigotry to oppress others without comment or complaint. And so I stand.
What is the impetus for this all? I admit that my mind has wavered over the importance of the decision by President-elect Obama to invite Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren to deliver an invocation at his inaugural on January 20. My liberal sensibilities were typically incensed by the thought of having such a high-profile individual that represents the worst of the two-faced evangelical establishment. Someone referred to Warren as "Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt," which, from what I know of the man's homophobic bashing and foamy hatred of all things not Jesusified, I count as an accurate characterization. But being new to this gay thing I considered that maybe we queer folks were making too much of this, that Obama is merely "reaching across the aisle" (to employ one of the top 10 cliches of 2008) to help heal the scars our nation has endured from the right-wing authoritarian religionists these past eight years. Bullshit, I've decided. This is political fence-sitting at best and at worst paranoid pandering.
BTW, this was initiated by stalwart ex-pat (and bloggy shit/conscience-stirrer) Ser Kelso de Panama, who has dubbed it the HETEROSEXUAL ANTI-WARREN SELF-OUTING PROJECT. One point of conviction for me was this very well-put notion of his: "Ultimately, a kind of cowardly president is a good non-leader for a cowardly nation whose soon-to-be-governing party has not had an idea or principle yet that they've been willing to put the smallest effort into defending when challenged by the Republicans or the MSM."
I am encouraging snazzy corresponding blog badges for the project participants, but for now the reward to any willing participants is the satisfaction of knowing that you and your good heart stand on righteous ground. And aside from any schtick this project may be reduced to, I think the call was put forth best by Keith Olbermann just a week after the vote on Prop 8:
I've been called out, and now my closet door can no longer remain shut. I'm here to announce to the world that as a happily married heterosexual, I'm gay.
As a heterosexual I do not fully relate to being gay, but as long as the theocracy mongers of America continue their assault on the lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness of the gay community then I will continue to be gay.
I guess I'm lucky in that this is a decision that I can make of my own free will, and when/if ever my country comes to a peaceable understanding of the equal rights and protection of ALL its citizens, then I can decide once again to not be gay. So I stand with those who are so unfortunate as to have no choice in being held in contempt by an uncaring and ignorant multitude of stone-throwing sinners.
There are so many points that made my decision to come out rather simple. Many revolve around the recent boil of debate over California's Prop 8 and its surface attempt to define marriage and, just a scratch below the surface, define it by a narrow, traditional religious worldview. When people talk about the sanctity of marriage in one breath, and tradition in another, they forget what those traditions actually are, for marriage hardly has a pure and glorious history. It's rarely been about love, and even more rarely has it been about choice. For millennia and still today women have married the men they were told to marry and spent their lives being miserable. The men got married to women for a variety of convenient and expedient reasons, then promptly went out and got a cartload of mistresses to fool around with.
As for religion, the Christian church explicitly avoided anything to do with marriage until the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and there the primary interest was for the Roman Catholic church to introduce barriers to reformation. Let's not forget all the family squabbles that were settled by marrying the children of the warring sides together, or the marriage of close cousins to keep royal bloodlines "pure" (and ugly and inbred). And what of the still-current tradition of marrying barely pubescent girls to much older men for the purpose of pumping out "legitimate" babies? If one girl died in childbirth, you just haul another one to the alter and start the bed springs bouncing again.
The way I see it, since there is no state religion, then as far as the state (which issues licenses and regulates the social benefits and responsibilities of married couples) is concerned, marriage is a legal contract and not a religious one. It is a contract that smooths out all sorts of estate and power of attorney issues as well as some legal aspects concerning minors. It's a pretty decent deal for all involved (unless someone tries to dissolve the contract, in which case it's usually just a pretty decent deal for the lawyers). Still, so long as the state intertwines marriage with inheritance, child custody, durable powers of attorney, etc., then the government should have no say in which adults do, and which do not, get to be in a binding contractual arrangement simply based on whether or not the people have matching sex organs.
I often wonder why gay marriage is such a hot button issue, but then I also wonder why people try to impose their will on complete strangers. If a church doesn't want to bless/recognize gay marriage then that's their prerogative, but I can see no logical argument for why it would support denying two loving partners to enter into this form of legal contract. I do understand that the most zealous anti-gay practitioners want to live under a theocracy. They want their religious law to be everyone's law, and they want to be free to use their bigotry to oppress others without comment or complaint. And so I stand.
What is the impetus for this all? I admit that my mind has wavered over the importance of the decision by President-elect Obama to invite Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren to deliver an invocation at his inaugural on January 20. My liberal sensibilities were typically incensed by the thought of having such a high-profile individual that represents the worst of the two-faced evangelical establishment. Someone referred to Warren as "Jerry Falwell in a Hawaiian shirt," which, from what I know of the man's homophobic bashing and foamy hatred of all things not Jesusified, I count as an accurate characterization. But being new to this gay thing I considered that maybe we queer folks were making too much of this, that Obama is merely "reaching across the aisle" (to employ one of the top 10 cliches of 2008) to help heal the scars our nation has endured from the right-wing authoritarian religionists these past eight years. Bullshit, I've decided. This is political fence-sitting at best and at worst paranoid pandering.
BTW, this was initiated by stalwart ex-pat (and bloggy shit/conscience-stirrer) Ser Kelso de Panama, who has dubbed it the HETEROSEXUAL ANTI-WARREN SELF-OUTING PROJECT. One point of conviction for me was this very well-put notion of his: "Ultimately, a kind of cowardly president is a good non-leader for a cowardly nation whose soon-to-be-governing party has not had an idea or principle yet that they've been willing to put the smallest effort into defending when challenged by the Republicans or the MSM."
I am encouraging snazzy corresponding blog badges for the project participants, but for now the reward to any willing participants is the satisfaction of knowing that you and your good heart stand on righteous ground. And aside from any schtick this project may be reduced to, I think the call was put forth best by Keith Olbermann just a week after the vote on Prop 8:
You are asked now, by your country and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don’t have to help it, you don’t have to applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it. Just don’t put it out. Just don’t extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don’t know and you don’t understand and maybe you don’t even want to know, it is, in fact, the ember of your love for your fellow person. Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too. Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace that love? The world is barren enough.
Labels: gummint, politix, religion, The FEAR
October 03, 2008
One bad mutha...SHUTCHOMOUTH !
.
This just in:
I am a Wachovia customer. As I have deposits that amount to half a gnat's turd in the grand scheme of things, I have not been worrying much in the face of news about the bank's travails. But now I'm inclined to go get mine, slide (not stuff) it into the mattress and let these assholes duke it out without me.
But the BIG economic news, of course, is that the Bush Bailout+ finally, after five grueling days of uncertainty for Wall Street and its minions, slithered its 451-pages of graft through the House, which had wisely slapped down a much trimmer bill earlier this week.
Many economists are regarding October 3, 2008 as a date that will live in infamy. I use that turn of phrase to point out the irony of how the world's richest man, as told to Charlie Rose on Wednesday , regards the entire U.S. economic situation.
So, what are we being bombarded with? How about the "Exemption From Excise Tax For Certain Wooden Arrows Designed For Use By Children" which, appearing on page 301, is among hundreds of tax relief sausages cooked up on the big Congressional barbe-queue [sic]. The EFETFCWADFUBC, as I will fondly dub it probably just this once, applies (I think) to manufacturers of "certain wooden arrow shafts...consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type which after its assembly (1) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter and (2) is not suitable for use with a bow as described in bullah, bullah, bullah..."
What is this saying about Congresspeeps who, finding Monday's 108-page version of a free (and credit) market/home/business-saving $700 MMM financial rescue objectionable, switched their nay to yay for the fattiness that includes a children’s wooden arrow excise tax exemption in it? Only that as usual, they are all too willing to give their constituents the shaft.
With a h/t to DCup - "Because what goes around comes around"
This just in:
Wells bids $15 MMM for Wachovia; scuffles with Citi
Reuters, Friday October 3, 2008
NEW YORK - Wells Fargo & Co agreed to buy Wachovia Corp for about $15 billion, upstaging a government-backed Citigroup Inc bid for Wachovia's banking assets with a deal that would catapult it into the top ranks of national consumer banking.
Citigroup demanded Wells Fargo drop its surprise bid, which comes four days after Wachovia preliminarily agreed to sell its banking assets to Citi...
I am a Wachovia customer. As I have deposits that amount to half a gnat's turd in the grand scheme of things, I have not been worrying much in the face of news about the bank's travails. But now I'm inclined to go get mine, slide (not stuff) it into the mattress and let these assholes duke it out without me.
But the BIG economic news, of course, is that the Bush Bailout+ finally, after five grueling days of uncertainty for Wall Street and its minions, slithered its 451-pages of graft through the House, which had wisely slapped down a much trimmer bill earlier this week.
Many economists are regarding October 3, 2008 as a date that will live in infamy. I use that turn of phrase to point out the irony of how the world's richest man, as told to Charlie Rose on Wednesday , regards the entire U.S. economic situation.
So, what are we being bombarded with? How about the "Exemption From Excise Tax For Certain Wooden Arrows Designed For Use By Children" which, appearing on page 301, is among hundreds of tax relief sausages cooked up on the big Congressional barbe-queue [sic]. The EFETFCWADFUBC, as I will fondly dub it probably just this once, applies (I think) to manufacturers of "certain wooden arrow shafts...consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type which after its assembly (1) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter and (2) is not suitable for use with a bow as described in bullah, bullah, bullah..."
What is this saying about Congresspeeps who, finding Monday's 108-page version of a free (and credit) market/home/business-saving $700 MMM financial rescue objectionable, switched their nay to yay for the fattiness that includes a children’s wooden arrow excise tax exemption in it? Only that as usual, they are all too willing to give their constituents the shaft.
With a h/t to DCup - "Because what goes around comes around"
Labels: gummint, madness, No Ordinary Bill, Nothing about Yoko, politix, rants, taxes, terms of enragement
February 29, 2008
I just might wanna Ralph
.
My rarely-comments-on-this-blog sister sent me a link to this column by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times:
Permit me a small digression here, but I wanted to point out how after Steinberg's screed his column continued with this little tidbit of revealing attitude about one of my old haunts:
Anyway, my sister's e-mail was accompanied by the following comment: "Please re-consider if you're seriously planning to WASTE your vote on Nader!"
The concept of a "wasted vote" is one of the most heinous and misleading constructs of the two-party system and its lackey, the mainstream media. It is quite akin to "Let's not have Kucinich in the debate - it would be a waste.* "
To say that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election is refuckingdiculous. Technically it was in fact the SCOTUS, but moreover it was the Democratic Party that could not convince more people not to vote for Bush (I mean how hard was that?). Being a true progressive, I'm not a huge fan of Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council, but From, who would have no reason to support Nader, dissolves the 2000 myth in a column he wrote just after Bush's first inauguration:
Could this be because independents come out to vote when there is an independent candidate to vote for? The noive! Also, let's not sweep under the rug some other numbers: In the 2000 general election, 11 percent of Democrats defected from Gore and voted for Bush, but only four percent of Republicans swung away from their party. And yet people still have the audacity to excoriate the 2.6% of us who went for Nader?
I'm not convinced I will vote for Nader. In the previous post's comments, Joe the Troll contends that Ralph has been silent between elections. Well, it's not like he's gonna get invited on "Meet The Unimpressed" or "This Week with George Snuffleuppagus." He's been around, but the MSM ignores him. When Nader first made a name for himself the news media were actually in the business of reporting unvarnished news. Now, with Fortune 500 corporate ownership, consolidation of media and the inherent conflicts of interest this creates, voices like Nader and Kucinich are swept aside. The media and the DLC don't want all this talk of getting out of Iraq NOW and impeaching the two highest office holders in our gummint. Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it wasn't said.
And with that said, I contend that the reality is that Nader has not been effective at getting his message out to the mainstream, and that's what matters here. If Nader can say it's Gore's own fault for losing the election in 2000, he must also accept responsibility for his own political failures.
Still, to my beloved sibling I say there is no such thing as a citizen wasting their vote, and to assert such, madam, is to discount the very foundation of our republic.
Besides, I'm not taking advice from a guy who proclaims Blind Faith Cafe (old or new) as having "the offensive taint of vegetarianism."
* Not the real REASON THEY OUSTED HIM
.
My rarely-comments-on-this-blog sister sent me a link to this column by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times:
Just in case any Democrat is laboring under the illusion that winning the White House this year will be easy now that the Republicans are pinning their hopes on John "Bush's War is My War" McCain, up from the ash heap of history pops gadfly consumer advocate Ralph Nader, announcing he is ready to make his fifth, count 'em, fifth run for the presidency.
Sure, the dust of the tomb is upon him. Sure, his appeal is strictly limited to anti-corporate fanatics or anti-Israel zealots, the type of campus-bound leftie who reads Adbusters and wears a keffiyeh. But that is a tiny-yet-significant fraction of the Democratic Party, and in a tight race it could matter, as the nation discovered to its woe in 2000, when Nader helped George Bush swipe Al Gore's victory.
Any citizen can run for president, and while most perennial candidates are Harold Stassen-esque jokes, Nader is a special case -- deadly earnest, and drawing down his last reserves of attention and respect, based on the consumer activist movement he sparked some 40 years ago. That he feels compelled to spend his twilight years slurring the nation and grabbing frantically at relevance is his tragedy. That he has a chance to upend the election yet again, by his unwelcome presence, is ours.
Permit me a small digression here, but I wanted to point out how after Steinberg's screed his column continued with this little tidbit of revealing attitude about one of my old haunts:
Business brought me to Evanston on Saturday, and I took the older boy along for company, promising ... lunch out somewhere.
I suggested Blind Faith Restaurant, regaling him with tales of how, when I went to college 30 years ago, it was a hippie joint on the other side of the L tracks where you bused your own table, and had such good food - wonderful chili - that I patronized the place despite its offensive taint of vegetarianism...
Anyway, my sister's e-mail was accompanied by the following comment: "Please re-consider if you're seriously planning to WASTE your vote on Nader!"
The concept of a "wasted vote" is one of the most heinous and misleading constructs of the two-party system and its lackey, the mainstream media. It is quite akin to "Let's not have Kucinich in the debate - it would be a waste.* "
To say that Nader cost Gore the 2000 election is refuckingdiculous. Technically it was in fact the SCOTUS, but moreover it was the Democratic Party that could not convince more people not to vote for Bush (I mean how hard was that?). Being a true progressive, I'm not a huge fan of Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council, but From, who would have no reason to support Nader, dissolves the 2000 myth in a column he wrote just after Bush's first inauguration:
"The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."
Could this be because independents come out to vote when there is an independent candidate to vote for? The noive! Also, let's not sweep under the rug some other numbers: In the 2000 general election, 11 percent of Democrats defected from Gore and voted for Bush, but only four percent of Republicans swung away from their party. And yet people still have the audacity to excoriate the 2.6% of us who went for Nader?
I'm not convinced I will vote for Nader. In the previous post's comments, Joe the Troll contends that Ralph has been silent between elections. Well, it's not like he's gonna get invited on "Meet The Unimpressed" or "This Week with George Snuffleuppagus." He's been around, but the MSM ignores him. When Nader first made a name for himself the news media were actually in the business of reporting unvarnished news. Now, with Fortune 500 corporate ownership, consolidation of media and the inherent conflicts of interest this creates, voices like Nader and Kucinich are swept aside. The media and the DLC don't want all this talk of getting out of Iraq NOW and impeaching the two highest office holders in our gummint. Just because you didn't hear it doesn't mean it wasn't said.
And with that said, I contend that the reality is that Nader has not been effective at getting his message out to the mainstream, and that's what matters here. If Nader can say it's Gore's own fault for losing the election in 2000, he must also accept responsibility for his own political failures.
Still, to my beloved sibling I say there is no such thing as a citizen wasting their vote, and to assert such, madam, is to discount the very foundation of our republic.
Besides, I'm not taking advice from a guy who proclaims Blind Faith Cafe (old or new) as having "the offensive taint of vegetarianism."
* Not the real REASON THEY OUSTED HIM
.
Labels: gummint, Nader, politix, vital statistics
December 21, 2007
The town cryer from hell
.
Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
The Federal Communications Commission passed new media ownership rules by a three to two Bushco party-line vote this week. This opens the door for fewer and bigger media companies to decide what Americans see, hear and read in the news as the big fish can more easily swallow up local news outlets. The FCC did this despite a HUGE public outcry - in the required public comment period, 99 percent of the respondents opposed media consolidation! This is because they realize that fewer outlets in the media mean less honest oversight of the news, and more bias because of the pressure of large corporate interests and the emphasis on the bottom line over truth and accuracy.
Just a few examples pointed out by Norman Solomon of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:
And then there's Solomon's exchange with Glenn Beck, CNN's pinnacle of integrity, who had invited Solomon on his show to point the finger at NBC for its conflicting interests in news reporting that affects its parent company General Electric:
So there you have it, the facts that show you’ve got to be careful about where you’re getting your news from (especially that gawldurn LIBERAL MEDIA!). As Solomon said in closing his column, "Wouldn’t it be nice if once in a while somebody came on and said, you know, I don’t really have an agenda except the truth? It’s my truth. If you don’t like it, you should go someplace else."
As Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said in an op-ed response to the FCC vote, "The airwaves are owned by the public, not the mega media corporations. The American people deserve information from many different, independent outlets, with diverse, fair coverage from all sides of an issue, and different points of view."
The last thing our democracy needs is fewer independent media voices. Congress has the power to reverse this rule change, and if you agree that they should, let your voice be heard. Following the vote, a bipartisan group of 26 senators sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, vowing to "immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule." Please give these Senators a stronger voice by also signing this online petition.
For more on big media and net neutrality matters, checkout Freepress
.
Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
The Federal Communications Commission passed new media ownership rules by a three to two Bushco party-line vote this week. This opens the door for fewer and bigger media companies to decide what Americans see, hear and read in the news as the big fish can more easily swallow up local news outlets. The FCC did this despite a HUGE public outcry - in the required public comment period, 99 percent of the respondents opposed media consolidation! This is because they realize that fewer outlets in the media mean less honest oversight of the news, and more bias because of the pressure of large corporate interests and the emphasis on the bottom line over truth and accuracy.
Just a few examples pointed out by Norman Solomon of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting:
* ABC, owned by Disney, doesn’t disclose in their relevant news reports about Disney’s stake in sweatshops.
* Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, owned by the same entity - Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp - don’t disclose that the ownership is entangled with the Chinese government to the detriment of human rights but to the advancement of the profit margin of the parent company.
* CNN has a huge multi-BILLION dollar stake in Internet deregulation, and the failure of the Congress to safeguard so far what is generally known as "Net Neutrality." So every time CNN does a news report on the Internet, on efforts to regulate or deregulate or create a two or three-tier system of the Internet, CNN News should disclose that Time Warner, the parent company, stands to gain or lose billions of dollars in those terms.
* Chevron is a funder of key news programming on PBS. They were an underwriter of "Washington Week" last year, and now the massive energy firm currently funnels big bucks to the most influential show on PBS, the nightly "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer."
* The corporate funders of the "NewsHour" now include not only Chevron but also AT&T and Pacific Life. There must be dozens of journalistic reports on the program every week - whether relevant to the business worlds of energy, communications or insurance - that warrant, and lack, real-time disclosures while the news accounts are on the air. Meanwhile, over at "Washington Week," the corporate cash now flows in from the huge military contractor Boeing and the National Mining Association.
* And that’s just "public broadcasting." On avowedly commercial networks, awash in corporate ownership interests and advertising revenues, a thorough policy of disclosure in the course of news coverage would require that most of the airtime be devoted to shedding light on the media outlet conflicts-of-interest of the reporting in progress.
And then there's Solomon's exchange with Glenn Beck, CNN's pinnacle of integrity, who had invited Solomon on his show to point the finger at NBC for its conflicting interests in news reporting that affects its parent company General Electric:
Solomon: A major advertiser for CNN is the largest military contractor in the United States, Lockheed Martin. So when you and others...
Beck: I got news for you, Norman. Norman...
Solomon: ...promote war, when you and others promote war on this network...
Beck: Norman...Norman...
Solomon: ...we have Lockheed Martin paying millions of dollars undisclosed. So I would quote you...
Beck: Norman...Norman...
Solomon: "Promoting but not disclosing is a bad way to go."
Beck: Norman, let me just tell you this. First of all, Lockheed Martin is not a corporate overlord of this program.
Solomon: It’s a major advertiser on CNN.
Beck: That’s fine. That’s fine. Advertisers are different. But let...
Solomon: Well, it is fine, but it should be disclosed.
Beck: Norman, let me just tell you something. If you think that it’s warmonger central downstairs at CNN, you’re out of your mind. But that’s a different story.
Solomon: Well, upstairs, when I watch Glenn Beck, in terms of attacking Iran, it certainly is. It’s lucrative for the oil companies, as well as for the major advertiser on CNN, Lockheed Martin.
So there you have it, the facts that show you’ve got to be careful about where you’re getting your news from (especially that gawldurn LIBERAL MEDIA!). As Solomon said in closing his column, "Wouldn’t it be nice if once in a while somebody came on and said, you know, I don’t really have an agenda except the truth? It’s my truth. If you don’t like it, you should go someplace else."
As Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) said in an op-ed response to the FCC vote, "The airwaves are owned by the public, not the mega media corporations. The American people deserve information from many different, independent outlets, with diverse, fair coverage from all sides of an issue, and different points of view."
The last thing our democracy needs is fewer independent media voices. Congress has the power to reverse this rule change, and if you agree that they should, let your voice be heard. Following the vote, a bipartisan group of 26 senators sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, vowing to "immediately move legislation that will revoke and nullify the proposed rule." Please give these Senators a stronger voice by also signing this online petition.
For more on big media and net neutrality matters, checkout Freepress
.
Labels: analysis, gummint, journalism, media, politix
October 03, 2007
Meanwhile, up the road a piece...
.
I might hafta mosey over and see what this fuss is all about:
Killen, huh? Perhaps the vice-president is from Lynchburg (rrrummpish!). And this is the first I've heard of northern leftists that are pushing for secession. I always figured those pinko pansies would opt for the "leave it" part of the old two-part "America:" slogan.
But seriously, that this is happening right down the road is titillating. I've had passing "what ifs?" on this subject through the years, but I wasn't aware of any concerted effort beyond some weak bumper sticker aphorisms. But reading this I must say I can see how this scenario is becoming less and less of an ideological pipe dream and more and more a distinct possibility, given the current polarized state of affairs here. Libertarians have been working on a similar separatist tack on a minimized electoral basis (I didn't dig in to see how well it was going but my guess would be "not particularly").
Could an ideologically dividedUnited States of America work? It seems to me that the shaky ground right off the bat would be in the implementation of national defense. Certainly there would have to be some sort of non-aggression pact in place to keep the peace between states, but is that something that could stand the test of time and it's changing political winds? What about trade? Or labor? Immigration?
So I'm seriously considering a trip downtown this week, assuming the secessionists might have some answers or at least food for thought. My ideological appetite would of course be more aroused by the tofu of the pointy-headed liberals than by the greasy barbecue of the good old boys, but I'm open-minded. I've never considered states rights to be a bad thing - the founders set up the constitution that way for a reason, and one of those was surely so that differing regions could adjust their structure of government to best suit the purposes of their peoples. The concept has indeed gotten a bad rap for its association with southern racist/secession thinking (if you can call it that). As the University of North Carolina history professor says in the article, it's a surprise to see the liberals conferring with the League of the South, "an organization that's associated with a cause that many of us associate with the preservation of slavery."
My gut feeling is that these two groups are likely just too fringe-y to accomplish anything, but that they have come so far as to gather and talk is enough to gain my interest.
UPDATE: Unfortunately I wasn't able to make it to the conference, but here is the article from the Chattanooga Times-Free Press.
.
I might hafta mosey over and see what this fuss is all about:
Secessionists meeting in Tennessee
By Bill Poovey, Associated Press
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.
Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.
That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence.
"We believe that an independent South, or Hawaii, Alaska, or Vermont would be better able to serve the interest of everybody, regardless of race or ethnicity," said Michael Hill of Killen, Ala., president of the League of the South...(read more)
Killen, huh? Perhaps the vice-president is from Lynchburg (rrrummpish!). And this is the first I've heard of northern leftists that are pushing for secession. I always figured those pinko pansies would opt for the "leave it" part of the old two-part "America:" slogan.
But seriously, that this is happening right down the road is titillating. I've had passing "what ifs?" on this subject through the years, but I wasn't aware of any concerted effort beyond some weak bumper sticker aphorisms. But reading this I must say I can see how this scenario is becoming less and less of an ideological pipe dream and more and more a distinct possibility, given the current polarized state of affairs here. Libertarians have been working on a similar separatist tack on a minimized electoral basis (I didn't dig in to see how well it was going but my guess would be "not particularly").
Could an ideologically divided
So I'm seriously considering a trip downtown this week, assuming the secessionists might have some answers or at least food for thought. My ideological appetite would of course be more aroused by the tofu of the pointy-headed liberals than by the greasy barbecue of the good old boys, but I'm open-minded. I've never considered states rights to be a bad thing - the founders set up the constitution that way for a reason, and one of those was surely so that differing regions could adjust their structure of government to best suit the purposes of their peoples. The concept has indeed gotten a bad rap for its association with southern racist/secession thinking (if you can call it that). As the University of North Carolina history professor says in the article, it's a surprise to see the liberals conferring with the League of the South, "an organization that's associated with a cause that many of us associate with the preservation of slavery."
My gut feeling is that these two groups are likely just too fringe-y to accomplish anything, but that they have come so far as to gather and talk is enough to gain my interest.
UPDATE: Unfortunately I wasn't able to make it to the conference, but here is the article from the Chattanooga Times-Free Press.
.
Labels: gummint, politix, riiiiights, The South
September 19, 2007
They "report," we must cry
September 18, 2007
Peanut v. Pumpkin
.
MoveOn.org's full-page NYT ad: $70,000
Bushco's Iraq War: $500,000,000,000 (monetary cost, that is - half a trillion is just half the story)
Kool-Aid drinkers getting upset over the "attack ad":
PRICELESS
Read more at HuffPo & MoveOn.org (backed up with more links than you can point an AK at as well as Petraeus' own 1200-word editorial Battling for Iraq in the The Washington Post, 9/26/04)
MoveOn.org's full-page NYT ad: $70,000Bushco's Iraq War: $500,000,000,000 (monetary cost, that is - half a trillion is just half the story)
Kool-Aid drinkers getting upset over the "attack ad":
PRICELESS
Read more at HuffPo & MoveOn.org (backed up with more links than you can point an AK at as well as Petraeus' own 1200-word editorial Battling for Iraq in the The Washington Post, 9/26/04)
My sincere apologies to those of you who visit Much That is Hidden for uplifting slices of life, which I realize have become more seldom in my postings of late. It's just that I fear if I don't say anything about this my head will eckspload.
Thank you for your patience and your patronage.
Thank you for your patience and your patronage.
.
Labels: gummint, politix, terms of enragement, vital statistics, war
August 19, 2007
Free and other things that freedom isn't
.
I was quite moved by this video* that D-Cup posted over at Politits. Viewer discretion is advised for some disturbing images included, but I heartfully recommend checking out her succinct post on what we as a nation may be facing for our children.
The actions of our government are unconscionable. They are a disgrace for a nation that considers itself the bastion of freedom at home and purports to be the defenders of the same abroad.
I hope the tide can be turned, and pledge now to act upon ways in which I can make a difference for my son. I hope it could be done short of revolution, but if not the most likely option for most of us not willing to kill (and preferring not to die) for our beliefs will be to shag ass out of this place.
* And if you are so inclined, embed this at your place and pass the word along. Thanks.
.
I was quite moved by this video* that D-Cup posted over at Politits. Viewer discretion is advised for some disturbing images included, but I heartfully recommend checking out her succinct post on what we as a nation may be facing for our children.
The actions of our government are unconscionable. They are a disgrace for a nation that considers itself the bastion of freedom at home and purports to be the defenders of the same abroad.
I hope the tide can be turned, and pledge now to act upon ways in which I can make a difference for my son. I hope it could be done short of revolution, but if not the most likely option for most of us not willing to kill (and preferring not to die) for our beliefs will be to shag ass out of this place.
"Find the cost of freedom
Buried in the ground
Mother Earth will swallow you
Lay your body down"
* And if you are so inclined, embed this at your place and pass the word along. Thanks.
.
Labels: gummint, Iraq, rants, violence inherent in the system, war
August 07, 2007
Supplies eyed
.
My good half went shopping recently for her teacher-provided-at-own-personal-expense school supplies for the upcoming year. Once again certain of Georgia’s teachers received a $100 “gift card” courtesy of the guvnah’s schmoozing in last year’s campaign. Yep, it’s a bona fide prepaid VISA card for one hunnert bones. You see, the guv knew that his 2002 upset victory over his predecessor, the incumbent Democrat, was on the backs of a huge chunk of teachers who were pretty pissed off that said predecessor said he didn’t need the teachers to get re-elected (that’s the short version anyway). So as ’06 loomed the first Republican guv since Reconstruction decided he needed a gimmick to stay on the teachers good side, especially after gutting the education budget (or to be nice I should say that teachers took it in the teeth with a budget that the guv and his team passed which whittled away at teacher retirement benefits and cut funding to local school districts whilst giving big business a billion dollars in tax relief aka “economic development” – fwoooh – and if you can believe it, short version). Yeah, hunnert bucks oughtta do it. Well I don’t know how many teachers bought the guv’s fancy charts and campaign BS – they got what they deserved if they did – but none of them are going to look a gift card in the, er, well they’re not about to complain about some cash for stuff that their school doesn’t provide each year.
Some schools had provided what must be considered a modest annual reimbursement, but once the guv stepped up to the plate to bunt many administrators saw the squeeze play was on and took it as a great opportunity to cut the reimbursements from their local budgets. Every little bit helps, right Mr./Mrs. School Board Member? Surfing about I came across this comment on one teacher’s blog:
As an additional “benefit” (read adding insult to injury) the cards must be used during the spectacular state tax-free holiday, whereby a plethora of retail items have been seemingly flung up in a taxpayer bribe that could be best described as 52-minus-Three-Card-Monty-pickup. What does and doesn’t make the list is amusing, to say the least:
From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
So, back to school with the teacher-wife. What $100 bought:
Pencils - CHECK
Notebooks - CHECK
Copious amounts of sanitizing supplies - CHECK, CHECK, CHECK
My good half went shopping recently for her teacher-provided-at-own-personal-expense school supplies for the upcoming year. Once again certain of Georgia’s teachers received a $100 “gift card” courtesy of the guvnah’s schmoozing in last year’s campaign. Yep, it’s a bona fide prepaid VISA card for one hunnert bones. You see, the guv knew that his 2002 upset victory over his predecessor, the incumbent Democrat, was on the backs of a huge chunk of teachers who were pretty pissed off that said predecessor said he didn’t need the teachers to get re-elected (that’s the short version anyway). So as ’06 loomed the first Republican guv since Reconstruction decided he needed a gimmick to stay on the teachers good side, especially after gutting the education budget (or to be nice I should say that teachers took it in the teeth with a budget that the guv and his team passed which whittled away at teacher retirement benefits and cut funding to local school districts whilst giving big business a billion dollars in tax relief aka “economic development” – fwoooh – and if you can believe it, short version). Yeah, hunnert bucks oughtta do it. Well I don’t know how many teachers bought the guv’s fancy charts and campaign BS – they got what they deserved if they did – but none of them are going to look a gift card in the, er, well they’re not about to complain about some cash for stuff that their school doesn’t provide each year.
Some schools had provided what must be considered a modest annual reimbursement, but once the guv stepped up to the plate to bunt many administrators saw the squeeze play was on and took it as a great opportunity to cut the reimbursements from their local budgets. Every little bit helps, right Mr./Mrs. School Board Member? Surfing about I came across this comment on one teacher’s blog:
“I wish we could call them school supply cards instead of teacher gift cards. I don’t think I was GIVEN anything. My class was given additional, state-paid supplies. I did not get any gift. Will we have to claim the $100 on our income tax?!”Well put, and the sentiment is understood and hereby sympathized with. Here’s another:
“Why didn’t speech langauge pathologist recieve the gift cards? We buy just as many supplies as teachers do, and we dont have parents that send in ‘classroom supplies’? Our contract says that we are teachers, so why did we recieve what the teachers got?”Please note I copied that comment verbatim, so while I don’t think this “langauge” pathologist was screwed out of “recieve”-ing money on grammatical grounds, in reading her missive I did have an “OY” moment for teachers everywhere. Lady, the south’s got a hard enough time as it is.
As an additional “benefit” (read adding insult to injury) the cards must be used during the spectacular state tax-free holiday, whereby a plethora of retail items have been seemingly flung up in a taxpayer bribe that could be best described as 52-minus-Three-Card-Monty-pickup. What does and doesn’t make the list is amusing, to say the least:
Clothes and shoes sold for $100 or less per item, INCLUDING helmets, jogging suits, lingerie, inline skates and sport coats BUT NOT umbrellas, cuff links, watch bands and ponytail holders.Oh, yeah:
Up to $1,500 worth of computers, computer accessories and nonrecreational software INCLUDING antivirus software, computer batteries, cables, database software, finance software, keyboards, monitors, other peripheral devices, personal digital assistant, modems for Internet and network access, scanners, Web cameras, zip drives, printers and storage devices BUT NOT action or adventure games, regular batteries, CD/DVD (music, voice or prerecorded), computer bags, computer games, controllers, copy machines, digital cameras, game systems, LCD/plasma televisions, MP3 players, personal digital assistant carrying cases, projectors, surge protectors and cell phones.
SCHOOL SUPPLIES under $20 each INCLUDING appointment books, backpacks, book bags, book covers, book markers, calculators, CD/DVD/floppy disks, chalk, chalkboard erasers, glue, pens, pencils, protractors, rubber bands, scissors and wire bound notebooks BUT NOT books (except children's books, dictionaries and thesauruses), briefcases, envelopes, janitorial supplies, medical supplies or supplies used in a trade or business.Now, if it's such a fabulous idea for a few days in August, why not the rest of the year? Better yet, why not follow the lead of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, which have NO state sales tax at all and are doing pretty well? Why the General Assembly couldn’t just pass lasting, across-the-board tax relief for the middle and lower classes that this ponzi scheme is aimed at is anyone’s guess. And if anyone is Alan Essig (aka “my hero”), executive director of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, they could argue that “it would make more sense to invest that money in supplies and materials in schools than to give the minimal benefit to folks.”
From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Proponents have argued that tax holidays are good for getting people into stores because shoppers tend to pick up products that are taxed on top of the items on their shopping lists.
But Essig said there's no evidence to support that analysis. Tax holidays are good politics, he said, but not necessarily sound fiscal policy.
He added that some stores may hold off on sales (on the tax-free) weekend because they know the tax break will draw customers in anyway.
“People think they're getting a great deal,” he said. “The real question is, if you shop the week after, do you get a better deal?”
So, back to school with the teacher-wife. What $100 bought:
Pencils - CHECK
Notebooks - CHECK
Copious amounts of sanitizing supplies - CHECK, CHECK, CHECK
Labels: gummint, law, Nothing about Yoko, politix, rants, school, taxes
July 05, 2007
Happy Birthday FOIA
.
I couldn't post yesterday (see me after class for a complete list of excuses for the week) as I was standing guard, water hose in hand, keeping vigil against my house burning down at the hands of drunken young redneck neighbors. Damn if I'm not that guy I used to laugh at.
But today I get to another notable national birthday on July 4, that of the Freedom Of Information Act, known in jargonese as FOIA (I don't know why 'of' gets in on the acronym action. Government thing I guess). Yes, the FOIA is 40, and ACLU executive director and chief brainiac Anthony D. Romero writes about her mid-life crisis in HuffPo.
Frightening times, I'm sure. Then and now seem pretty cozy. Of course one of mankind's favorite pastimes is predicting its demise, and 10 years probably never passes anywhere in the world without some good freak out to get the juices flowing.
So within a decade of McCarthy's death Lyndon Johnson gives up fighting Congress and signs onto FOIA. Of course it's become a mess, and the Act is hobbled further with White House Resident Bush (its a longer, insult-free title I can live with) giving it the Nancy Kerrigan treatment with his 9-11 tire iron.
To the rescue are some libertarianish Republican Senators with the Open Government Act.
I wish them all the best, as apparently one of their own is playing footsie with it in committee (damn but are they going to get anything done?). Beyond giving them the BOTD I guess until I look at the damn thing or hope to have it explained to me on C-SPAN, all I'm gonna be able to envision filed under examples of "greater specificity" is this:
Iraq
.
.
I couldn't post yesterday (see me after class for a complete list of excuses for the week) as I was standing guard, water hose in hand, keeping vigil against my house burning down at the hands of drunken young redneck neighbors. Damn if I'm not that guy I used to laugh at.
But today I get to another notable national birthday on July 4, that of the Freedom Of Information Act, known in jargonese as FOIA (I don't know why 'of' gets in on the acronym action. Government thing I guess). Yes, the FOIA is 40, and ACLU executive director and chief brainiac Anthony D. Romero writes about her mid-life crisis in HuffPo.
The Act can trace its origins to the time of Joe McCarthy. In March 1954, newsman Edward R. Murrow set into motion the downfall of the demagogue senator, using McCarthy's own words to show America his dark side.
Murrow warned that McCarthyism was a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself. National security concerns about Soviet espionage and global expansion were building into wildfires of public hysteria. Farmers in the Midwest, socialites in New York -- all were terrified of the Red Menace, a terror made even more acute by the advent of nuclear weapons.
Frightening times, I'm sure. Then and now seem pretty cozy. Of course one of mankind's favorite pastimes is predicting its demise, and 10 years probably never passes anywhere in the world without some good freak out to get the juices flowing.
So within a decade of McCarthy's death Lyndon Johnson gives up fighting Congress and signs onto FOIA. Of course it's become a mess, and the Act is hobbled further with White House Resident Bush (its a longer, insult-free title I can live with) giving it the Nancy Kerrigan treatment with his 9-11 tire iron.
To the rescue are some libertarianish Republican Senators with the Open Government Act.
The bill would require the government to create a tracking system for FOIA requests and would provide greater specificity in how the agencies may redact or exempt documents from disclosure.
I wish them all the best, as apparently one of their own is playing footsie with it in committee (damn but are they going to get anything done?). Beyond giving them the BOTD I guess until I look at the damn thing or hope to have it explained to me on C-SPAN, all I'm gonna be able to envision filed under examples of "greater specificity" is this:
Comprehensive Report
of the Special Advisor to the DCI onContents
Who .................................................................................................. 2
Saddam ............................................................................ ................ 3
Saddam...................................................... ....................................... 41
Saddam ____________________________.................................... 50
Saddam’s .......................................................................................... 59
A Few Key Players in the .................................................................. 66
Saddam’s effect on ............................................................................ 68
How Saddam .................................................................................... 104
The .................................................................................................... 109
His version of .............................. and its importance......................... 138
How Saddam .................................................................................... 212
His view on ...................................................................................... 219
His view on ....................................................................................... 238
His views on ................ and Ted ...................................................... 240
Key Findings .................................................................................... ___
.
.
January 05, 2007
Leaker Stands Up
.
National Public Radio reports that at the Association of American Law Schools annual conference Thursday, a panel discussion on prosecuting government employees who leak information to the media included an unexpected contribution.
Listen to the brief story - it made my journalistic heart all warm and toasty.
.
National Public Radio reports that at the Association of American Law Schools annual conference Thursday, a panel discussion on prosecuting government employees who leak information to the media included an unexpected contribution.
Listen to the brief story - it made my journalistic heart all warm and toasty.
.
December 15, 2006
Happy Birthday, Bill of Rights!
.
What's a poor civilian to do?
.
"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on Earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787
Today marks the 215th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. Every person in America knows it is comprised of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, some more than others. You furrners know, of course, that as the greatest country in the universe we're pretty proud of James Madison's humble little framework. Despite his advanced age, the Bill (or The Billster, as I like to call him) is still somewhat prominent today, though in a conceptual sense. As I understand, the original was destroyed after two copies were made - one by rolling a big wad of Silly Putty over the parchment, peeling it back and mounting it on the ceiling above Ruth Bader-Ginsburg's indoor pool. There it can only be read by keeping totally still and thinking pure thoughts. The other has the words - and man, there's a bunch of them - etched into granite and placed in Antonin Scalia's billiard room, where hyphenated bitch Justices with lead pipes are expressly forbidden from tinkering with it.
Anyway, Libertarian policy wonk Adam B. Summers writes in today's Orange County Register that the poor old BOR ain't what she used to be. He cites TJ himself in maintaining that among the 10 original amendments, Old No. 10 is the most important of them all, not to mention a damn good sour mash recipe.
Jefferson wrote in 1791:
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: 'That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people'. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible to any definition."To which Summers adds this analysis:
"The Anti-Federalists (like Jefferson) were, sadly, prescient in their criticisms of government power under the Constitution and the tendency of men and women of ambition to find ways to expand that power at the expense of the governed. The founders must be spinning in their graves. Nearly everything the government does today is unconstitutional under the system they instituted. Governmental powers were expressly limited; individual liberties were not. Now it seems it is the other way around."
What's a poor civilian to do?
.
Labels: analysis, Anti-Federalists, gummint, histoire, justice, riiiiights, TJ
