Quick rant: So let me get this straight- I'm supposed to shell out $2,333 (that's $700 BILLION divided by ~300 million people) to prop up a bunch of businesses that played fast and loose with my debt? Fuck that. They can put up their own billions and buy their own asses out of the problem they created. If I made bad bets in the market no government money would be floating my way. If it's such a big deal, why isn't Warren Buffet or Bill Gates or any of the big bank CEOs putting their money on the line? Fuck these guys. They deserve to be paupers and their companies deserve to die to make way for smaller companies that will (at least for a few years) act responsibly.
Since everyone seems to have money on the brain, I've decided to use mine for good. I spend a lot of time trying to understand why people do what they do and trying to explain why it's often a bad idea. I rarely do anything to get involved though. You can call it cynicism, laziness, or a love of complaining. It goes by many names. But I've decided to do something. I'm going to start using the power of money and voting with my wallet.
I'm not talking about electing representatives based on economics. Under no circumstances should you EVER vote for a leader based on one issue, particularly when that issue is money. Far too many people do and it leads to very bad things (e.g. tax cuts for industry and the wealthy and lax oversight). But using your day to day purchasing power to make a point is a very good idea. It works like this: I'm going to minimize the amount of money I spend on products from companies that do stupid things. That way, my dollars do not end up in the hands of people that will only exploit them. I say minimize because sometimes you don't get a choice.
For starters, I'm buying my produce from a CSA (community supported agriculture) farm. This is a farm that sells locally, practices sustainable farming (no agribusiness, no chemicals, minimal shipping and handling, and good land-use practices like crop rotation), and places itself within the community instead of above it. For ~$20 a week, I will have in-season vegetables and fruits fresh off the vine or tree. And none of my money will go to support ground water contamination, soil erosion, government subsidized over-intensive water use (you think growing wheat in the desert is a good idea?), aquifer depletion, or food that tastes like diesel fuel and feels like rubber.
Further, I'll no longer be buying meat or eggs from grocery stores. Instead, I'll buy from ranchers that allow their animals true free range (not just 'access' which is all that's required now), feed their animals grass (not corn mixed with paper, antibiotics, and ground up leftovers of other animals), and process their animals on-site (instead of at a facility where profit takes precedence over sanitation and ethics). The fact that cows are shipped in large trucks where they shit all over each other before being turned into dinner is fucking ridiculous and repulsive. Feeding cows to cows is fucking stupid. Feeding chicken feathers to chickens, leftover manure to pigs, and jacking animals full of growth hormones are all repugnant practices that should offend far more people. I'm not a stereotypical tree-hugger or some left-wing animal rights activist. But Jesus Christ. These practices are damaging our environment, our health, and are treating these animals as something less than dirt. If you don't have respect for the things you eat, then you don't really have respect for yourself. Brillat-Savarin said it best- "Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are". Apparently I'm feces, chicken feathers, high fructose corn syrup, bovine growth hormones, and pesticide. No wonder I had such a tough time with the ladies. Who wants to date that?
I'm also trying to keep the things I buy with high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, glucose syrup, and the other bajillion corn-derived products to a minimum. Corn does not belong in everything. Corn belongs in corn. And as ethanol for imbibing, not for driving.
Every dollar that goes toward well-tended crops and food animals is a dollar that doesn't support greedy, unethical, and inhumane practices. Will it cost more? Yes. But the food will taste better, be better for you, and will be better for managing the limited resources we have. It'll also keep my fat ass from eating so much. Remember- Price isn't everything and cheap food is cheap for a reason. Don't visit businesses that treat customers as second-class citizens (Best-Buy and Albertson's to name two) and be sure you know where your money is going. Minimize how much of it is ending up in the hands of lawyers, advertising firms, and people who have more wealth than sense. Of course, if you don't, I won't care. I'm not a proselytizer for any cause. I'm just tired of seeing my money used to support a system that is obviously deranged. My dollar is one less the agribusiness complex will have access to until they change their behavior.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Hyperbole and ideologues
Adam pointed out a bit of hyperbole in my post not long ago saying that xenophobia is at an all time high. He made a good point- Alien & Sedition Acts, internment camps, etc. I wrote a comment back listing some of the ridiculousness happening now and somewhat defending my statement. Part of the problem is that we have laws and rules that are not well known and have come under the auspices of "national security", that great catch-all term that says "we can do what we want because we want". In June and July, the Asian Law Caucus and the Electronic Frontier Foundation received 6,000 pages of documents from the Department of Homeland Security from a freedom of information request (after a lawsuit to get them at all I might add). These documents showed that, over the past 8 years (2000-2007), restrictions and oversight of border searches, seizures, and examinations of traveler's personal property were significantly scaled back or dropped altogether. Essentially, behind the scenes, laws were being rewritten to allow increased searches and seizures of anything deemed questionable. While not exactly an Alien and Sedition Act, these types of laws effectively do many of the same things- they keep people afraid, they make it more difficult to speak out against the perceived majority rule, they make anti-American sentiment questionable at best and illegal at worst even if those ideas do NOT involve terrorism (with little recourse to 1st amendment rights), and they push personal privacy into an even smaller corner. The reason the Asian Law Caucus got involved in this mess was because Asian and Middle Eastern travelers are the ones being racially and ethnically targeted by these types of travel laws. My original statement is probably still a bit of hyperbole, but the xenophobic strain runs deep and, at the least, is alive and well and living in.
A study of Republican voters by scientists at Georgia State showed that ideology does, in fact, trump reality. Let me say here: the study was only done using conservative voters and may not be applicable to liberal or independent voters and it was only done with a small number of examples. But the conclusions they reached are also backed up by experience- at least to anyone that has tried to have a political discussion with someone that had basic facts wrong. And those conclusions are troubling to anyone interested in honest public debate and rational decision making.
The study went like this. Participants were shown a fake news story but were told that it came from known news sources (CNN, FOX NEWS, CNN, etc). These stories had incorrect information (such as a broadcast saying that WMDs were found in Iraq or that Saddam Hussein was actively working with al-Qaeda before the war). They were then shown a news story retracting the original story and clarifying the inaccuracies (that no WMDs were ever found and that al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before the war started). Those facts that contradicted the observer's ideology and preconceived notions (i.e. that the reasons given for going to war were wrong) were very significantly ignored and, in many cases, actually increased the observer's incorrect beliefs. The retractions and the correction of the inaccurate reporting did little to no good in changing how the participants viewed the issue. Other issues, including stem cell research and taxation were also tested with the same results. All of this suggests that fighting ideology with facts may only lead to entrenchment of incorrect ideas rather than any increase in understanding the situation. I, for one, am unsurprised at the results. Simple observations will tell you people are less willing to accept new information if it does not conform to their preconceived ideas. I'm guilty of this just like everyone else. I've seen it happen during debates on the Iraq war, immigration policy, and the current economic meltdown. You can also debate the interpretation of evidence if there are conflicting stories. But denying evidence altogether or arguing about interpretation when all of the credible evidence says that you're wrong appears to be the preferred solution, which may explain some of the ridiculousness in the world today. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, see all the possible interpretations, and be willing to admit your interpretation may not be the best one, then you may end up killing people over something that was never real.
An interesting side note- FOX NEWS was the primary news source for 33% of the people that believed WMDs were found in Iraq and a whopping 66% of the people that believed Saddam was working with al-Qaeda. Close behind were CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC. Bringing up the rear were print media and PBS, with PBS typically showing the smallest number of misinformed viewers/listeners. [These numbers are from a 2003 study by PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll with a 1.7% margin of error]. Fair and balanced my ass.
The key here is that people be aware of this tendency, that they fight those knee-jerk reactions and, when presented with new information, take the time to incorporate that information into their outlook. The refusal to accept any information unless it conforms to some magical ideal you have is zealotry. And we've all seen where that goes.
A study of Republican voters by scientists at Georgia State showed that ideology does, in fact, trump reality. Let me say here: the study was only done using conservative voters and may not be applicable to liberal or independent voters and it was only done with a small number of examples. But the conclusions they reached are also backed up by experience- at least to anyone that has tried to have a political discussion with someone that had basic facts wrong. And those conclusions are troubling to anyone interested in honest public debate and rational decision making.
The study went like this. Participants were shown a fake news story but were told that it came from known news sources (CNN, FOX NEWS, CNN, etc). These stories had incorrect information (such as a broadcast saying that WMDs were found in Iraq or that Saddam Hussein was actively working with al-Qaeda before the war). They were then shown a news story retracting the original story and clarifying the inaccuracies (that no WMDs were ever found and that al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before the war started). Those facts that contradicted the observer's ideology and preconceived notions (i.e. that the reasons given for going to war were wrong) were very significantly ignored and, in many cases, actually increased the observer's incorrect beliefs. The retractions and the correction of the inaccurate reporting did little to no good in changing how the participants viewed the issue. Other issues, including stem cell research and taxation were also tested with the same results. All of this suggests that fighting ideology with facts may only lead to entrenchment of incorrect ideas rather than any increase in understanding the situation. I, for one, am unsurprised at the results. Simple observations will tell you people are less willing to accept new information if it does not conform to their preconceived ideas. I'm guilty of this just like everyone else. I've seen it happen during debates on the Iraq war, immigration policy, and the current economic meltdown. You can also debate the interpretation of evidence if there are conflicting stories. But denying evidence altogether or arguing about interpretation when all of the credible evidence says that you're wrong appears to be the preferred solution, which may explain some of the ridiculousness in the world today. If you're not willing to look at the evidence, see all the possible interpretations, and be willing to admit your interpretation may not be the best one, then you may end up killing people over something that was never real.
An interesting side note- FOX NEWS was the primary news source for 33% of the people that believed WMDs were found in Iraq and a whopping 66% of the people that believed Saddam was working with al-Qaeda. Close behind were CBS, NBC, CNN, and ABC. Bringing up the rear were print media and PBS, with PBS typically showing the smallest number of misinformed viewers/listeners. [These numbers are from a 2003 study by PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll with a 1.7% margin of error]. Fair and balanced my ass.
The key here is that people be aware of this tendency, that they fight those knee-jerk reactions and, when presented with new information, take the time to incorporate that information into their outlook. The refusal to accept any information unless it conforms to some magical ideal you have is zealotry. And we've all seen where that goes.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A quick update
The bailout proposed by the treasury secretary is falling on rough times and deaf ears. It's about damn time Congress took a serious look at something rather than rubber stamping it. In case you didn't read the comments to the last post, the proposal to spend said money to float bad business decisions was a whole THREE PAGES LONG. I've written longer documents on the john. At least mine got an A. It doesn't take an economist to give this proposal an F. Three pages to "save" a multi-trillion dollar economy? Everyone's bullshit meter should be ringing loud and at least a good number on the congressional finance committee are.
Only a few weeks ago Paulson was saying that the economy was fine and would not require any bailouts. The fact that this proposal showed up poorly written, poorly thought out, and poorly presented to the people makes it smell awful fishy. The proposal, as is, includes zero oversight, zero methods for recouping this money, zero methods for the taxpayers to claim any of the profits generated from this money, and would drastically expand the treasuries powers to lend money in the future with only the swipe of a pen. It's also suspicious that the banks, lenders, and mortgage companies are going to get a say in how the plan (if there ever is one) is structured. What that usually means is freebies to the industry, bad terms for the taxpayers, and ultimately no responsibility taken and no lessons learned from the excessive risk.
If anyone is interested, I could churn out an actual analysis (which means facts and numbers, making connections among different lines of reasoning, and using these connections to reach reasonable conclusions about the situation- NOT opinion, grand-standing, or flawed logic common to 'analysis' on FOX NEWS and CNN) explaining how and why this all happened. I've been following it since it all started in the late 90's and it's a whale of a tale. It's complicated and interesting, but I'm not going to take the time unless there is interest. This one would require more thought than rant and a good explanation for concepts that you may be unfamiliar with (like credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, leverage, or risk exposure). Even if you aren't economically inclined this is a rare opportunity for the public to see what is going on behind the scenes of their financial system and I encourage everyone to really try to understand the big picture, the details, and start thinking about how these types of issues will be addressed by the next administration. It's Enron on a massive scaled. And it was totally, completely preventable with common sense.
Only a few weeks ago Paulson was saying that the economy was fine and would not require any bailouts. The fact that this proposal showed up poorly written, poorly thought out, and poorly presented to the people makes it smell awful fishy. The proposal, as is, includes zero oversight, zero methods for recouping this money, zero methods for the taxpayers to claim any of the profits generated from this money, and would drastically expand the treasuries powers to lend money in the future with only the swipe of a pen. It's also suspicious that the banks, lenders, and mortgage companies are going to get a say in how the plan (if there ever is one) is structured. What that usually means is freebies to the industry, bad terms for the taxpayers, and ultimately no responsibility taken and no lessons learned from the excessive risk.
If anyone is interested, I could churn out an actual analysis (which means facts and numbers, making connections among different lines of reasoning, and using these connections to reach reasonable conclusions about the situation- NOT opinion, grand-standing, or flawed logic common to 'analysis' on FOX NEWS and CNN) explaining how and why this all happened. I've been following it since it all started in the late 90's and it's a whale of a tale. It's complicated and interesting, but I'm not going to take the time unless there is interest. This one would require more thought than rant and a good explanation for concepts that you may be unfamiliar with (like credit default swaps, mortgage backed securities, leverage, or risk exposure). Even if you aren't economically inclined this is a rare opportunity for the public to see what is going on behind the scenes of their financial system and I encourage everyone to really try to understand the big picture, the details, and start thinking about how these types of issues will be addressed by the next administration. It's Enron on a massive scaled. And it was totally, completely preventable with common sense.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
The bottom line
Once again I got stiffed. Because the Seahawks were sold out, I got stuck watching a garbage game when there were other perfectly good games to watch. I hope all the teams that this happens to lose, because the fans are losing out and the game is built on the fans. No fans, no NFL. Remember the XFL? Of course you don't. No fans, no game.
Alright. On to more important things. You might be reading a lot of financial news lately, what with the implosion of the mortgage market, the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion bailout, the sell-off of banks, and the folding of Lehman Brothers. There are a lot of articles and "analysis" purporting to explain the root causes of the situation. They call it "infinite optimism" or "misguided enthusiasm" or "poisonous debt positions". It all means GREED. They don't call it that but the reality is that this whole situation was caused by greed- greedy banks, greedy lenders, and greedy mortgage companies.
There are two truths that seem to have gone unnoticed so far in the debate. One- this is what you get for taking mortgages, re-packaging them as debt securities, and then reselling them to the people that have the mortgages in the first place. Essentially, you're selling people their own mortgages to invest in. It's the same principle as the meat industry uses- take the leftovers, grind them up, and feed them back to the animals (animals that are NOT carnivorous I might add). In that case, we ended up with E. coli and mad cow disease (which caused CJD in humans). In this case, we ended up with a debilitating crash of the housing and financial markets and a $700 billion dollar taxpayer-funded bailout of greedy businesses. Playing stupid games with money in order to make a quick buck ended up a massive failure. Who would have thought?
The second truth- policies, rules, and regulations (many not even official laws) WERE in place to prevent these types of situations from happening. They were implemented by the Roosevelt administration to address some of the key reasons for the Great Depression and the massive stock market collapse of 1929. These laws were implemented to curb speculation, to keep lenders from giving money to people unable to repay, and to keep businesses from getting into a position where their failure imperiled an entire industry (think anti-monopoly laws). They were implemented to constrain and watchdog government programs such as the FHA to make sure these types of institutions were looking out for the public good and not acting as profit seeking entities. These rules and regulations were eroded over time under pressure from big business and zealots that believed markets are always self-correcting and self-sustaining. They were decimated by Reagan and Bush Sr. amid economic policy that proved, in the long run, to be a massive failure for much of America. I mean, for crying out loud, Reagan believed in the "magic of markets" (a direct quote) like they were somehow separate from the social, political, and cultural climate of the people that used them. (As a side note, the policies enacted by Reagan have since come under the more appropriate moniker "voodoo economics".)
Without the regulatory and oversight structures in place, it was simply a matter of waiting for people to do what they do- put short term profits and money ahead of responsible business growth and sustainable practices. And here we are. My surprise is that it took almost two decades, although the S&L fallout in the 1980's and the dot com collapse at the turn of the century were good harbingers of the things to come. To be fair, there are economic policies, cultural norms, and types of money and loans that were unheard of and unthinkable when FDR and the Congress implemented the regulatory strictures after the stock market crash. So it's reasonable to think that this type of meltdown could still happen. But under a sophisticated regulatory structure that was meant to point out that lending people money with no income verification was stupid (and the rules used to be there), the chances it would happen at all were greatly reduced.
I guess a big thank you is in order to the market zealots, the anti-regulation crowd, the CEOs of the corporations that put profit over common sense, and to the members of Congress and the White House that listened to what any reasonable person would point out as bad logic. If we're going to worship money and profits, we may as well go whole hog. After all, what's faith without blind faith?
I close with our own President elect. He stood on the White House lawn and acknowledged for the first time, more than a year after it was obvious that the housing market was bust, more than 9 months after it was obvious we were in a recession, and more than a two months after it was obvious that the problems ran deeper than just Fannie and Freddie, that the economy is fucked. Of course, he phrased it as a rough patch, turbulence, and other non-committal garbage, but at least the beginnings of a hint of realization were there. He then spent copious amounts of time arguing that markets are the answer to all life's problems (an exaggeration, admittedly, but not by much) while shoving money into the pockets of companies that deserve nothing more than complete removal from the planet, once again proving that government is willing to prop up big business on Wall Street (the S&Ls, airlines, banks, brokers, government entities like Fannie and Freddie) but not on Main Street. All this underscores the bottom line: greed will get you places in this society. Even if you sell people back debt they already have, make bad business choices, and destroy the home ownership dreams of millions, you too can have a fat severance package, no responsibility, and a loan from Uncle Sam's wallet at artificially low interest rates to rebuild your empire and do it all again.
Anybody that doesn't lay the blame for the current situation on greed is trying to hide something. The root cause is simple. It's the ramifications, the ripples throughout the entire economy, that are complicated. The effects of the event are up for debate. The cause is not. It was pure, unadulterated greed.
Alright. On to more important things. You might be reading a lot of financial news lately, what with the implosion of the mortgage market, the takeover of Fannie and Freddie, the $700 billion bailout, the sell-off of banks, and the folding of Lehman Brothers. There are a lot of articles and "analysis" purporting to explain the root causes of the situation. They call it "infinite optimism" or "misguided enthusiasm" or "poisonous debt positions". It all means GREED. They don't call it that but the reality is that this whole situation was caused by greed- greedy banks, greedy lenders, and greedy mortgage companies.
There are two truths that seem to have gone unnoticed so far in the debate. One- this is what you get for taking mortgages, re-packaging them as debt securities, and then reselling them to the people that have the mortgages in the first place. Essentially, you're selling people their own mortgages to invest in. It's the same principle as the meat industry uses- take the leftovers, grind them up, and feed them back to the animals (animals that are NOT carnivorous I might add). In that case, we ended up with E. coli and mad cow disease (which caused CJD in humans). In this case, we ended up with a debilitating crash of the housing and financial markets and a $700 billion dollar taxpayer-funded bailout of greedy businesses. Playing stupid games with money in order to make a quick buck ended up a massive failure. Who would have thought?
The second truth- policies, rules, and regulations (many not even official laws) WERE in place to prevent these types of situations from happening. They were implemented by the Roosevelt administration to address some of the key reasons for the Great Depression and the massive stock market collapse of 1929. These laws were implemented to curb speculation, to keep lenders from giving money to people unable to repay, and to keep businesses from getting into a position where their failure imperiled an entire industry (think anti-monopoly laws). They were implemented to constrain and watchdog government programs such as the FHA to make sure these types of institutions were looking out for the public good and not acting as profit seeking entities. These rules and regulations were eroded over time under pressure from big business and zealots that believed markets are always self-correcting and self-sustaining. They were decimated by Reagan and Bush Sr. amid economic policy that proved, in the long run, to be a massive failure for much of America. I mean, for crying out loud, Reagan believed in the "magic of markets" (a direct quote) like they were somehow separate from the social, political, and cultural climate of the people that used them. (As a side note, the policies enacted by Reagan have since come under the more appropriate moniker "voodoo economics".)
Without the regulatory and oversight structures in place, it was simply a matter of waiting for people to do what they do- put short term profits and money ahead of responsible business growth and sustainable practices. And here we are. My surprise is that it took almost two decades, although the S&L fallout in the 1980's and the dot com collapse at the turn of the century were good harbingers of the things to come. To be fair, there are economic policies, cultural norms, and types of money and loans that were unheard of and unthinkable when FDR and the Congress implemented the regulatory strictures after the stock market crash. So it's reasonable to think that this type of meltdown could still happen. But under a sophisticated regulatory structure that was meant to point out that lending people money with no income verification was stupid (and the rules used to be there), the chances it would happen at all were greatly reduced.
I guess a big thank you is in order to the market zealots, the anti-regulation crowd, the CEOs of the corporations that put profit over common sense, and to the members of Congress and the White House that listened to what any reasonable person would point out as bad logic. If we're going to worship money and profits, we may as well go whole hog. After all, what's faith without blind faith?
I close with our own President elect. He stood on the White House lawn and acknowledged for the first time, more than a year after it was obvious that the housing market was bust, more than 9 months after it was obvious we were in a recession, and more than a two months after it was obvious that the problems ran deeper than just Fannie and Freddie, that the economy is fucked. Of course, he phrased it as a rough patch, turbulence, and other non-committal garbage, but at least the beginnings of a hint of realization were there. He then spent copious amounts of time arguing that markets are the answer to all life's problems (an exaggeration, admittedly, but not by much) while shoving money into the pockets of companies that deserve nothing more than complete removal from the planet, once again proving that government is willing to prop up big business on Wall Street (the S&Ls, airlines, banks, brokers, government entities like Fannie and Freddie) but not on Main Street. All this underscores the bottom line: greed will get you places in this society. Even if you sell people back debt they already have, make bad business choices, and destroy the home ownership dreams of millions, you too can have a fat severance package, no responsibility, and a loan from Uncle Sam's wallet at artificially low interest rates to rebuild your empire and do it all again.
Anybody that doesn't lay the blame for the current situation on greed is trying to hide something. The root cause is simple. It's the ramifications, the ripples throughout the entire economy, that are complicated. The effects of the event are up for debate. The cause is not. It was pure, unadulterated greed.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The wide world of sports
It was a distressing sports week. Ed Hochuli blew a major call in the San Diego-Denver matchup, the Eagles failed to hold their two score lead against Dallas, T.O. was an asshole, and Maverick Josh Howard is in the news for making "un-patriotic" comments.
Let's start with the most ridiculous item. Howard, at a charity flag football game, was caught on camera saying "'The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this shit. I'm black." To be fair, this is not the proper place to express your opinion about America. It was a poor choice of words and poor timing. But the sentiment rings very true and white America needs to understand that rather than condemning it off-hand. There are millions (and I mean MILLIONS) of people that live here but do not have any reason to have respect for American symbolism be they white or black, native or foreign. Racism is rampant, sexism is virulent, xenophobia is at an all time high, and the leadership is the most unpopular since these types of things were recorded and studied. Those aren't really reasons to get weepy about nationalism. I'll also defend to the death Josh's right to say what he wants when he wants. That's written right into the Constitution and it you don't defend that, then you're not being very 'American'. For some reason, everyone in this country is always expected to kowtow to the flag, the anthem, and the almighty lapel pin. Personally, during the national anthem I don't put my hand over my heart, sometimes I leave my hat on, and sometimes I just sit right through it. Sort of depends on my mood. It's not meant as a disrespectful act and should not be construed as such. Like many people I just don't respect symbols because they are too easily manipulated. Barack not wearing a lapel pin does not make him un-American and Howard's lack of anthem enthusiasm does not make him un-American. I respect honest actions and people that have earned respect. Howard should have picked a better forum for his grievance, but dismissing his opinion could be considered just as unpatriotic.
Speaking of respect, some kudos are in order for Ed Hochuli. He blew the call big time. Unfortunately, because of bullshit anti-competitive NFL and broadcast rules I didn't get to see the game. But he had the testicular fortitude to stand up, apologize for the call, admit that he made a mistake, and do the best he can to rectify the situation. Of course, no one will pay attention and he'll get booed at the next game he refs. That's an action that deserves respect.
And T.O. I don't even like to mention him because he already gets enough attention. He's an amazing athlete, a great competitor, and a great football player. But none of those make him a good person and once again he's been an asshole and lauded for it. During the Philly-Dallas game he scored a touchdown and afterwards ran around the field doing the Philly Eagle arm-flap. Should have been a 15 yard penalty for tauting and a hefty fine. This action, combined with his previous asinine antics and stunts, show a supreme lack of respect for his team, his opponents, his sport, and the fans. These are not actions deserving of hours of television time. The message is clear though: if you're good at something you can be an asshole and people will love you anyway. That's not a good message to send to young athletes. Of course, you can always argue that it's just "entertainment" and not disrespectful. But this argument doesn't hold water when you further examine his verbal attacks on his current and previous teammates and his emphasis on himself rather than his team. Of course, he can say whatever he wants. As long as this type of behavior is acceptable and makes the news reels, it will continue and will be viewed as acceptable by young athletes. Personally, I think it detracts from the game. Individual effort and achievement should be lauded, but bad sportsmanship should never be rewarded.
You might argue that there's a bit of a double standard here- I'm ragging on T.O. for being disrespectful but not Josh Howard for being disrespectful. To me, there are some important differences. T.O.'s actions are continually unsportsmanlike and disrespectful. Howard's comments were a one-time thing. T.O.'s actions set a poor example for young athletes and are directly targeted at specific people (fans, opponents). Howard's comments did not deliberately target any person. They don't even target a group. Rather, his comments targeted an idea, a symbol, an intangible that only has meaning because we give it meaning. Further more, freedom of speech protects Howard's opinion (though I agree that he should have chosen a more appropriate forum) while T.O.'s taunting and spectacles are not protected by any "freedom of actions" clause. In fact, many sports seek to stop this kind of show-boating behavior in order to make the sport's image more professional. The Mavericks have already taken unspecified actions to curb future incidents like these. The Cowboys have done no such thing for T.O.'s disrespect. T.O.'s actions are antithetical to the notion of sportsmanship. Howard's comment, while not exactly pro-sportsman, is exactly what America was founded on- unhappiness with the status quo (i.e. British oversight) and a rejection of its symbols (East India tea, the British flag, etc). Finally, T.O,'s actions could never be construed as respectful or appropriate even if he changed the forum. Howard's comment would be perfectly appropriate off the field during a discussion of current social issues, current racial issues, politics in America, or any of a number of other topics. The message was good, the forum was not. T.O. does not have a productive message under any circumstances.
Let's start with the most ridiculous item. Howard, at a charity flag football game, was caught on camera saying "'The Star-Spangled Banner' is going on. I don't celebrate this shit. I'm black." To be fair, this is not the proper place to express your opinion about America. It was a poor choice of words and poor timing. But the sentiment rings very true and white America needs to understand that rather than condemning it off-hand. There are millions (and I mean MILLIONS) of people that live here but do not have any reason to have respect for American symbolism be they white or black, native or foreign. Racism is rampant, sexism is virulent, xenophobia is at an all time high, and the leadership is the most unpopular since these types of things were recorded and studied. Those aren't really reasons to get weepy about nationalism. I'll also defend to the death Josh's right to say what he wants when he wants. That's written right into the Constitution and it you don't defend that, then you're not being very 'American'. For some reason, everyone in this country is always expected to kowtow to the flag, the anthem, and the almighty lapel pin. Personally, during the national anthem I don't put my hand over my heart, sometimes I leave my hat on, and sometimes I just sit right through it. Sort of depends on my mood. It's not meant as a disrespectful act and should not be construed as such. Like many people I just don't respect symbols because they are too easily manipulated. Barack not wearing a lapel pin does not make him un-American and Howard's lack of anthem enthusiasm does not make him un-American. I respect honest actions and people that have earned respect. Howard should have picked a better forum for his grievance, but dismissing his opinion could be considered just as unpatriotic.
Speaking of respect, some kudos are in order for Ed Hochuli. He blew the call big time. Unfortunately, because of bullshit anti-competitive NFL and broadcast rules I didn't get to see the game. But he had the testicular fortitude to stand up, apologize for the call, admit that he made a mistake, and do the best he can to rectify the situation. Of course, no one will pay attention and he'll get booed at the next game he refs. That's an action that deserves respect.
And T.O. I don't even like to mention him because he already gets enough attention. He's an amazing athlete, a great competitor, and a great football player. But none of those make him a good person and once again he's been an asshole and lauded for it. During the Philly-Dallas game he scored a touchdown and afterwards ran around the field doing the Philly Eagle arm-flap. Should have been a 15 yard penalty for tauting and a hefty fine. This action, combined with his previous asinine antics and stunts, show a supreme lack of respect for his team, his opponents, his sport, and the fans. These are not actions deserving of hours of television time. The message is clear though: if you're good at something you can be an asshole and people will love you anyway. That's not a good message to send to young athletes. Of course, you can always argue that it's just "entertainment" and not disrespectful. But this argument doesn't hold water when you further examine his verbal attacks on his current and previous teammates and his emphasis on himself rather than his team. Of course, he can say whatever he wants. As long as this type of behavior is acceptable and makes the news reels, it will continue and will be viewed as acceptable by young athletes. Personally, I think it detracts from the game. Individual effort and achievement should be lauded, but bad sportsmanship should never be rewarded.
You might argue that there's a bit of a double standard here- I'm ragging on T.O. for being disrespectful but not Josh Howard for being disrespectful. To me, there are some important differences. T.O.'s actions are continually unsportsmanlike and disrespectful. Howard's comments were a one-time thing. T.O.'s actions set a poor example for young athletes and are directly targeted at specific people (fans, opponents). Howard's comments did not deliberately target any person. They don't even target a group. Rather, his comments targeted an idea, a symbol, an intangible that only has meaning because we give it meaning. Further more, freedom of speech protects Howard's opinion (though I agree that he should have chosen a more appropriate forum) while T.O.'s taunting and spectacles are not protected by any "freedom of actions" clause. In fact, many sports seek to stop this kind of show-boating behavior in order to make the sport's image more professional. The Mavericks have already taken unspecified actions to curb future incidents like these. The Cowboys have done no such thing for T.O.'s disrespect. T.O.'s actions are antithetical to the notion of sportsmanship. Howard's comment, while not exactly pro-sportsman, is exactly what America was founded on- unhappiness with the status quo (i.e. British oversight) and a rejection of its symbols (East India tea, the British flag, etc). Finally, T.O,'s actions could never be construed as respectful or appropriate even if he changed the forum. Howard's comment would be perfectly appropriate off the field during a discussion of current social issues, current racial issues, politics in America, or any of a number of other topics. The message was good, the forum was not. T.O. does not have a productive message under any circumstances.
Friday, September 12, 2008
For those that didn't believe me
This is my last political post for awhile. It's becoming too disgusting to watch and too painful and frustrating to see people falling for it.
For those of you that didn't believe me and wanted to argue that the current Iraq war is nothing like Vietnam, put this in your pipe and smoke it. It was finally revealed (although nearly 2 months late) that Bush approved both raids into and bombing of Pakistan. Does anyone else remember Nixon and the secret bombings of Cambodia or am I the only one paying attention? Now we have secret military actions being taken against a sovereign nation with no public oversight. On top of that, Pakistan has repeatedly refused access to our military (probably because they see what happens when you allow it- at least they're smart enough to make the connection). While we're trying to make Russia feel bad for its behavior in Georgia, we're busy doing the same thing in Iraq AND continuing to make unilateral military decisions in Pakistan. Fuck this government and everyone attached to it. Whatever small accolades they get in the history books with be too good for them. And I hope they suffer, in this life or the next, for all of the pain they've caused others and all the deceit they've produced to justify it. It's enough to make me not have kids because I don't want them to have to see or deal with this type of ignorant, unethical, straight up retarded behavior.
I was going to put up the positions of the different candidates on various issues. But I'm done and here's why. Based on Palin's behavior I've concluded that it's become totally unnecessary. She's a liar (by claiming that she is against earmarks and pork barrel legislation because she vetoed the $233 million "bridge to nowhere"- meanwhile she still accepted that entire amount for other projects), is hastily backtracking and trying to 'clarify' her claim that the soldiers in Iraq are on "a mission from God" even though that's exactly what she meant and had plenty of time to correct the statement since she read her speech beforehand, and is now claiming that she is on-board with climate science and has challenged the media to prove that she ever said humans were not responsible even though that's exactly what she's spent the last decade claiming. So I'm done. I wouldn't vote for McCain simply because of Palin. And now I'm not voting for him because he 1) doesn't comprehend basic English and 2) is ok with double-standards. McCain claims Barack is sexist because he referred to McCAIN'S POLICIES as a "pig in lipstick" and claiming he was referring to Palin. I listened to the speech and nowhere, FUCKING NOWHERE, did Barack refer to Palin as a pig in lipstick. So McCain can suck it. That only shows he wasn't listening to the speech, is looking for a distraction from discussions of actual issues, and is about character assassination over substantial debate (although to be fair Obama has run a few attack ads, though as far as I am aware not with this type of personal attack or with such a blatant manipulation of words). On top of that, McCain said EXACTLY THE SAME THING about Hillary Clinton's policies. Therefore, if Barack is sexist, McCain is both sexist and a swindler for not mentioning his own sexism. Fuck this type of politics. It's the same shit we've been handed the last eight years, although in retrospect it's pretty much been part of the game since day one. That doesn't make it right or good. But unless the voting masses start to see through it, that's all we'll get.
Fuck politics. You can have them.
Update: Today the McCain camp publicly acknowledged and defended Palin's inquiries into banning books from the public library of Wasilla while she was mayor. While she never explicitly banned books, her explanation of the events are not consistent with the public record nor are they consistent with accounts reported by the librarians. Apparently the McCain campaign is also ok with her attempts to fire the head librarian because Palin didn't have her "full support". Do I really need to point out that this is the same type of partisan, unethical firings that Alberto Gonzalez resigned over? Are people's memories really that short? While Gonzalez was never brought to trial and Palin never actually fired the librarian (mostly due to local political pressure in Wasilla) it all adds up to something very fishy and highly questionable. I guess sometimes the word "change" doesn't really mean change. Sometimes it means doing the same thing. I should also point out that that's a clinical sign of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. To be clear, none of these people are clinically or medically insane. But continuing to do questionable things when the American public has made it manifestly clear that's not what they want (e.g. the public pressure on Gonzalez to resign) is highly suspect as a form of change.
For those of you that didn't believe me and wanted to argue that the current Iraq war is nothing like Vietnam, put this in your pipe and smoke it. It was finally revealed (although nearly 2 months late) that Bush approved both raids into and bombing of Pakistan. Does anyone else remember Nixon and the secret bombings of Cambodia or am I the only one paying attention? Now we have secret military actions being taken against a sovereign nation with no public oversight. On top of that, Pakistan has repeatedly refused access to our military (probably because they see what happens when you allow it- at least they're smart enough to make the connection). While we're trying to make Russia feel bad for its behavior in Georgia, we're busy doing the same thing in Iraq AND continuing to make unilateral military decisions in Pakistan. Fuck this government and everyone attached to it. Whatever small accolades they get in the history books with be too good for them. And I hope they suffer, in this life or the next, for all of the pain they've caused others and all the deceit they've produced to justify it. It's enough to make me not have kids because I don't want them to have to see or deal with this type of ignorant, unethical, straight up retarded behavior.
I was going to put up the positions of the different candidates on various issues. But I'm done and here's why. Based on Palin's behavior I've concluded that it's become totally unnecessary. She's a liar (by claiming that she is against earmarks and pork barrel legislation because she vetoed the $233 million "bridge to nowhere"- meanwhile she still accepted that entire amount for other projects), is hastily backtracking and trying to 'clarify' her claim that the soldiers in Iraq are on "a mission from God" even though that's exactly what she meant and had plenty of time to correct the statement since she read her speech beforehand, and is now claiming that she is on-board with climate science and has challenged the media to prove that she ever said humans were not responsible even though that's exactly what she's spent the last decade claiming. So I'm done. I wouldn't vote for McCain simply because of Palin. And now I'm not voting for him because he 1) doesn't comprehend basic English and 2) is ok with double-standards. McCain claims Barack is sexist because he referred to McCAIN'S POLICIES as a "pig in lipstick" and claiming he was referring to Palin. I listened to the speech and nowhere, FUCKING NOWHERE, did Barack refer to Palin as a pig in lipstick. So McCain can suck it. That only shows he wasn't listening to the speech, is looking for a distraction from discussions of actual issues, and is about character assassination over substantial debate (although to be fair Obama has run a few attack ads, though as far as I am aware not with this type of personal attack or with such a blatant manipulation of words). On top of that, McCain said EXACTLY THE SAME THING about Hillary Clinton's policies. Therefore, if Barack is sexist, McCain is both sexist and a swindler for not mentioning his own sexism. Fuck this type of politics. It's the same shit we've been handed the last eight years, although in retrospect it's pretty much been part of the game since day one. That doesn't make it right or good. But unless the voting masses start to see through it, that's all we'll get.
Fuck politics. You can have them.
Update: Today the McCain camp publicly acknowledged and defended Palin's inquiries into banning books from the public library of Wasilla while she was mayor. While she never explicitly banned books, her explanation of the events are not consistent with the public record nor are they consistent with accounts reported by the librarians. Apparently the McCain campaign is also ok with her attempts to fire the head librarian because Palin didn't have her "full support". Do I really need to point out that this is the same type of partisan, unethical firings that Alberto Gonzalez resigned over? Are people's memories really that short? While Gonzalez was never brought to trial and Palin never actually fired the librarian (mostly due to local political pressure in Wasilla) it all adds up to something very fishy and highly questionable. I guess sometimes the word "change" doesn't really mean change. Sometimes it means doing the same thing. I should also point out that that's a clinical sign of insanity...doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. To be clear, none of these people are clinically or medically insane. But continuing to do questionable things when the American public has made it manifestly clear that's not what they want (e.g. the public pressure on Gonzalez to resign) is highly suspect as a form of change.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
When the Bullet Hits the Bone and other memorable subtitled tracks from the great Golden Earring
Tomorrow we'll discuss why Vietnam II (i.e. Iraq: Part Deux) is even more like Vietnam after today's intolerable revelations. History is lovingly circular and life is hilariously cruel. Right now I've got a piece by my dawg, my homie, and my resident bullshit expert Adam. Enjoy.
Don't ask me why, but I happened to read one of the most entertaining magazines of my life recently—American Rifleman. Actually, ask me why; I try to read as widely as possible. Time and Newsweek, Rolling Stone and Pitchfork, Mere Christianity and The Power Of Myth. I watch CNN and Fox News; I drink Coke and Pepsi. I like opposing viewpoints.
In case you were curious, American Rifleman is a darling little NRA-sponsored publication dedicated to such varied topics as: cleaning guns, owning guns, and, um, shooting guns. But the particular "article" which I had the extreme "pleasure" of reading, during a particularly grueling bowel movement, was about the evils of gun control, and three things immediately jumped out at me which set my Internal Bullshit Meter (IBM) from its standard grey-green color to piping hot red.
To begin, the article told the story of three women in a house. The door was kicked in and one woman was attacked. The others hid upstairs and when they heard only silence, crept back downstairs. Unfortunately, the bad guys were waiting and attacked them as well. The very next sentence—the author's witty attempt at a transition, I suppose—was "Now, I don't know if any of those three women wanted to own a gun, but…" and my meter clicked immediately to Bullshit Alert Yellow.
Since when are sympathy stories a valid way to argue constitutional law? Why not write about a toddler who finds a gun in his home and shoots himself? Or a father who blows his back out while cleaning his gun and bleeds to death on the table during Thanksgiving dinner in front of his wife, kids, Auntie Rose, and those adorable twins from next door? Sympathy stories mean nothing, and are designed not to prove points, but to make people sad/scared enough to believe whatever specious arguments follow (and they were specious).
The second jump on the IBM, to Bullshit Alert Orange, came in the form of the phrase "in clear violation of the intent of the founding fathers" in referring to gun-control legislation. This is stupid for several reasons: 1) every founding father had a different intent—those dudes could barely agree on anything, and some of them openly hated each other, so don't pretend we've nailed down their intentions. 2) even if we could magically average intent and get Ben Franklin's thoughts on home invasion in high-density urban areas, or assault weapons, or a 100-year-old man in a wheelchair's God-given right to shoot a lion in the face, since when are bound to follow that? Last time I checked, the constitution didn't say 'rule your lives based on what you think we might have wanted' but 'rule your lives based on this document and your common sense'. 3) 'intent' is a fundamentally unsound argument— would you refuse to school your children just because great-great-grandpa probably didn't intend for his ancestors to go to college? Hell no you wouldn't—you'd scoff at an old fuck who couldn't see they way society was headed, and know that you know better.
But fine, let's play the 'intent' game for a minute. Want to claim 'intent' to keep your guns? Fine, but women can no longer vote. Oh, snap! That was intent too! Do you own a house? If not, you can't vote either— intent got us again! I won't even go into who should be counted as three-fifths of a person; the point is, 'intent' is a garbage argument intended to draw on patriotic sentiment and goad people into doing/believing things, as if Jefferson and Hamilton having believed something makes it automatically worth believing. Fuck those old bastards— they were wrong about a lot of stuff.
So, with my IBM firmly in Orange and red spots floating in front of my eyes (grueling, grueling dump, I tell you), I read the last few paragraphs of the "article", wherein the author attacked 'revisionist' courts that had the audacity to claim grandpa shouldn't own an ak-47 because he's not part of a well-regulated militia. Suddenly, I had this blinding flash of insight that went:
BULLSHIT ALERT RED! BULLSHIT ALERT RED!
Someone should get this "author" a dictionary, because he/she has forgotten what 'revisionist' means in this country, which is to take the established legal stand on an issue (usually based on the constitution) and revise it. By disallowing gun ownership for those not in well-regulated militias, these courts are actually being constructionist courts. Another thing: courts can only be revisionist in this sense when revising previously established constitutional issues. Pay attention— on topics like stem-cell research and gay marriage, conservative pundits love to spew the phrase 'revisionist', although neither of those topics was addressed in the constitution, and therefore never had an established legal status to be revised. Only in retrospect have people tried to insert an asinine phrase like 'two dicks and no chicks = bad' into the constitution and pretend it was there all along.
It's funny to me that what American Rifleman actually wants is one of those crazy, activist, revisionist, non-constructionist courts to say "anyone can own any gun no matter what" even though that is clearly not what the Second Amendment states. What's funnier is that American Rifleman won't admit this, instead skewing reality to make it appear as if those dirty liberals are singeing the constitution yet again. Of course this "author" knows what 'revisionist' means, and knows the word is being used incorrectly, and so does the "editor" of this "magazine". But revisionist has become such a liberal-associated smear that they used it anyway, rendering their own argument about as strong as a wall made of Styrofoam and mortared with Cheez Whiz.
What I don't understand, and maybe someone can help me with this, is: why is revisionism is such a feared doctrine? Because it was originally associated with Marxian socialism? Because it puts the focus on evolutionary policy making (they're trying to say Jefferson was a monkey!)? Because change is scary?
Was it not a crazy revisionist court that said black people should be allowed to drink out of any water fountain? Or that women should be allowed to vote? Most of the social changes which have made this country more open and more equal were facilitated, if not initiated, by 'revisionist' courts. Sodomy should not be illegal, nor should miscegenation, yet without a court to strike down various old and outdated laws, revising our understanding of right and wrong, I could face jail time for marrying a Mexican, or making love to her poop chute.
It seems to me that revisionism is one of the biggest strengths of our legal system. It means that we are not strictly bound to the desires and minutiae of a handful of old, wealthy, white men with roughly 9th grade educations who could never have foreseen what America would look like in 200 years. It means that we have a strong frame and we hang the particular clothing of our society on it, just as previous generations did, and just as future generations will.
This has kept America progressing socially at a reasonable clip without the need for revolutions every 50 or 60 years to get things done. Remember: we are one of the few countries on Earth to not have witnessed a major internal threat to our political system in almost 150 years, precisely because of the fluidity of our system— because the founding fathers were geniuses in that they gave us something to build on, not something to live under.
All I know is that when my bullshit alert hits red, it's time put the "publication" down, wipe, and go play some World of Warcraft—at least that make-believe is more silly and fun than aggravating and hypocritical.
Don't ask me why, but I happened to read one of the most entertaining magazines of my life recently—American Rifleman. Actually, ask me why; I try to read as widely as possible. Time and Newsweek, Rolling Stone and Pitchfork, Mere Christianity and The Power Of Myth. I watch CNN and Fox News; I drink Coke and Pepsi. I like opposing viewpoints.
In case you were curious, American Rifleman is a darling little NRA-sponsored publication dedicated to such varied topics as: cleaning guns, owning guns, and, um, shooting guns. But the particular "article" which I had the extreme "pleasure" of reading, during a particularly grueling bowel movement, was about the evils of gun control, and three things immediately jumped out at me which set my Internal Bullshit Meter (IBM) from its standard grey-green color to piping hot red.
To begin, the article told the story of three women in a house. The door was kicked in and one woman was attacked. The others hid upstairs and when they heard only silence, crept back downstairs. Unfortunately, the bad guys were waiting and attacked them as well. The very next sentence—the author's witty attempt at a transition, I suppose—was "Now, I don't know if any of those three women wanted to own a gun, but…" and my meter clicked immediately to Bullshit Alert Yellow.
Since when are sympathy stories a valid way to argue constitutional law? Why not write about a toddler who finds a gun in his home and shoots himself? Or a father who blows his back out while cleaning his gun and bleeds to death on the table during Thanksgiving dinner in front of his wife, kids, Auntie Rose, and those adorable twins from next door? Sympathy stories mean nothing, and are designed not to prove points, but to make people sad/scared enough to believe whatever specious arguments follow (and they were specious).
The second jump on the IBM, to Bullshit Alert Orange, came in the form of the phrase "in clear violation of the intent of the founding fathers" in referring to gun-control legislation. This is stupid for several reasons: 1) every founding father had a different intent—those dudes could barely agree on anything, and some of them openly hated each other, so don't pretend we've nailed down their intentions. 2) even if we could magically average intent and get Ben Franklin's thoughts on home invasion in high-density urban areas, or assault weapons, or a 100-year-old man in a wheelchair's God-given right to shoot a lion in the face, since when are bound to follow that? Last time I checked, the constitution didn't say 'rule your lives based on what you think we might have wanted' but 'rule your lives based on this document and your common sense'. 3) 'intent' is a fundamentally unsound argument— would you refuse to school your children just because great-great-grandpa probably didn't intend for his ancestors to go to college? Hell no you wouldn't—you'd scoff at an old fuck who couldn't see they way society was headed, and know that you know better.
But fine, let's play the 'intent' game for a minute. Want to claim 'intent' to keep your guns? Fine, but women can no longer vote. Oh, snap! That was intent too! Do you own a house? If not, you can't vote either— intent got us again! I won't even go into who should be counted as three-fifths of a person; the point is, 'intent' is a garbage argument intended to draw on patriotic sentiment and goad people into doing/believing things, as if Jefferson and Hamilton having believed something makes it automatically worth believing. Fuck those old bastards— they were wrong about a lot of stuff.
So, with my IBM firmly in Orange and red spots floating in front of my eyes (grueling, grueling dump, I tell you), I read the last few paragraphs of the "article", wherein the author attacked 'revisionist' courts that had the audacity to claim grandpa shouldn't own an ak-47 because he's not part of a well-regulated militia. Suddenly, I had this blinding flash of insight that went:
BULLSHIT ALERT RED! BULLSHIT ALERT RED!
Someone should get this "author" a dictionary, because he/she has forgotten what 'revisionist' means in this country, which is to take the established legal stand on an issue (usually based on the constitution) and revise it. By disallowing gun ownership for those not in well-regulated militias, these courts are actually being constructionist courts. Another thing: courts can only be revisionist in this sense when revising previously established constitutional issues. Pay attention— on topics like stem-cell research and gay marriage, conservative pundits love to spew the phrase 'revisionist', although neither of those topics was addressed in the constitution, and therefore never had an established legal status to be revised. Only in retrospect have people tried to insert an asinine phrase like 'two dicks and no chicks = bad' into the constitution and pretend it was there all along.
It's funny to me that what American Rifleman actually wants is one of those crazy, activist, revisionist, non-constructionist courts to say "anyone can own any gun no matter what" even though that is clearly not what the Second Amendment states. What's funnier is that American Rifleman won't admit this, instead skewing reality to make it appear as if those dirty liberals are singeing the constitution yet again. Of course this "author" knows what 'revisionist' means, and knows the word is being used incorrectly, and so does the "editor" of this "magazine". But revisionist has become such a liberal-associated smear that they used it anyway, rendering their own argument about as strong as a wall made of Styrofoam and mortared with Cheez Whiz.
What I don't understand, and maybe someone can help me with this, is: why is revisionism is such a feared doctrine? Because it was originally associated with Marxian socialism? Because it puts the focus on evolutionary policy making (they're trying to say Jefferson was a monkey!)? Because change is scary?
Was it not a crazy revisionist court that said black people should be allowed to drink out of any water fountain? Or that women should be allowed to vote? Most of the social changes which have made this country more open and more equal were facilitated, if not initiated, by 'revisionist' courts. Sodomy should not be illegal, nor should miscegenation, yet without a court to strike down various old and outdated laws, revising our understanding of right and wrong, I could face jail time for marrying a Mexican, or making love to her poop chute.
It seems to me that revisionism is one of the biggest strengths of our legal system. It means that we are not strictly bound to the desires and minutiae of a handful of old, wealthy, white men with roughly 9th grade educations who could never have foreseen what America would look like in 200 years. It means that we have a strong frame and we hang the particular clothing of our society on it, just as previous generations did, and just as future generations will.
This has kept America progressing socially at a reasonable clip without the need for revolutions every 50 or 60 years to get things done. Remember: we are one of the few countries on Earth to not have witnessed a major internal threat to our political system in almost 150 years, precisely because of the fluidity of our system— because the founding fathers were geniuses in that they gave us something to build on, not something to live under.
All I know is that when my bullshit alert hits red, it's time put the "publication" down, wipe, and go play some World of Warcraft—at least that make-believe is more silly and fun than aggravating and hypocritical.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Three reasons to consider Canada
Reason #1:
Vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin said, and I quote, "Our national leaders are sending them [our soldiers] out on a task that is from God...That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Apparently, the crazy Muslims that claimed America is starting a religious war with them are not so crazy. Welcome back to the use of God's name to justify killing people. Oh wait. We never stopped. Sorry. I thought maybe we had learned that we shouldn't do that. My bad. The terrorists used it to justify terror and now we're using it to justify our actions. Anyone else see the stupidity in that? Apparently, God is somehow pro-American and pro-war. Last time I read it, the Bible said neither of those things. In fact, I'm pretty sure it said (paraphrased) "turn the other cheek", "what you do to the meekest you do to me", and "love your neighbor even if he wrongs you". If I needed one reason to not vote for McCain, this would be a good one. Religious superiority and borderline fanatacism and zealotry have no place in a country that ostensibly practices "freedom of religion". In no way did God ever come down and say to America "you're special, now show the rest of the world, by force of necessary". Lincoln said it best: "The question is not is God on our side, but rather are we on God's side?" I think even a cursory glance at our actions compared to our Biblical conception of God will answer that question. If not then you're not paying close enough attention.
Reason #2:
Cheney decided to kick in with his opinion and declared the Russian war against Georgia as "illegitimate". Meanwhile, he's defending our own illegitimate actions in Iraq. By illegitimate, both myself and Cheney are referring to unilateral, non-international military occupations of foreign powers. Once again, I shake my head and wonder why it's acceptable in politics and in elected officials to take completely opposite stances on the same issue and be praised for it. When your approval ratings actually reach single digits, you shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of Washington D.C.
Reason #3:
Karl Rove. Enough said, but I've got more. Karl spent weeks hammering Barack's list of vice presidential candidates as too inexperienced and used the argument that one of them was "only the governor of the 101st largest city in the U.S." as a reason to disqualify him from the vice presidency. Tuesday, Rove had the audacity to claim that Palin's leadership of the 2nd largest city in Alaska qualified her to run the U.S., both on the domestic and international front, in event of the president's inability to do so. Just a fun fact: the second largest city in Alaska has a population of ~9,780 people. So leading a city of 10,000 provides more experience than a city of roughly 202,000? Give me a fucking break. It doesn't matter anyway because she was mayor of the 9th largest city in Alaska, not the 2nd largest. I'm not saying she's not qualified because it was only 10,000 people. I'm just saying that if city size is going to be your barometer, then maybe the former mayor of the 1st largest city in Alaska would have been a better choice. Population, city growth, economy and economic growth, level of public services...all these things are more important that "2nd largest" or "101st largest". By Rove's logic, we should elect the leader of Sitka, Alaska because it has more land area than New York City (even though New York has a major financial sector and an international presence). These types of half-truths and logical fallacies should be considered unethical, particularly amongst people that know better but are more interested in maintaining control than in being honest. You can make plenty of good arguments about why Palin is a good candidate without setting up straw-man arguments- she was elected governor of Alaska (population 670,000) after all. This type of behavior suggests that your candidate is too weak to stand up to scrutiny of her voting record and political stances. But hell, Karl Rove has made a career out of public bull-shitting. Maybe this is what the country deserves for not calling our public figures on their behavior.
That's all for now. The next post will examine Sarah Palin in more depth, particularly her stances on issues beyond abortion and gun control (which you won't get from the media). I'm going to do this will all four candidates. Mostly for my own education. But also in the hopes of adding something to the debate amongst the five people that bother to read this. You can't have a good election or political discussion without at least a basic knowledge of where the candidates stand on many issues, not just the hot button topics on Fox News and MSNBC.
Vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin said, and I quote, "Our national leaders are sending them [our soldiers] out on a task that is from God...That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Apparently, the crazy Muslims that claimed America is starting a religious war with them are not so crazy. Welcome back to the use of God's name to justify killing people. Oh wait. We never stopped. Sorry. I thought maybe we had learned that we shouldn't do that. My bad. The terrorists used it to justify terror and now we're using it to justify our actions. Anyone else see the stupidity in that? Apparently, God is somehow pro-American and pro-war. Last time I read it, the Bible said neither of those things. In fact, I'm pretty sure it said (paraphrased) "turn the other cheek", "what you do to the meekest you do to me", and "love your neighbor even if he wrongs you". If I needed one reason to not vote for McCain, this would be a good one. Religious superiority and borderline fanatacism and zealotry have no place in a country that ostensibly practices "freedom of religion". In no way did God ever come down and say to America "you're special, now show the rest of the world, by force of necessary". Lincoln said it best: "The question is not is God on our side, but rather are we on God's side?" I think even a cursory glance at our actions compared to our Biblical conception of God will answer that question. If not then you're not paying close enough attention.
Reason #2:
Cheney decided to kick in with his opinion and declared the Russian war against Georgia as "illegitimate". Meanwhile, he's defending our own illegitimate actions in Iraq. By illegitimate, both myself and Cheney are referring to unilateral, non-international military occupations of foreign powers. Once again, I shake my head and wonder why it's acceptable in politics and in elected officials to take completely opposite stances on the same issue and be praised for it. When your approval ratings actually reach single digits, you shouldn't be allowed within 100 miles of Washington D.C.
Reason #3:
Karl Rove. Enough said, but I've got more. Karl spent weeks hammering Barack's list of vice presidential candidates as too inexperienced and used the argument that one of them was "only the governor of the 101st largest city in the U.S." as a reason to disqualify him from the vice presidency. Tuesday, Rove had the audacity to claim that Palin's leadership of the 2nd largest city in Alaska qualified her to run the U.S., both on the domestic and international front, in event of the president's inability to do so. Just a fun fact: the second largest city in Alaska has a population of ~9,780 people. So leading a city of 10,000 provides more experience than a city of roughly 202,000? Give me a fucking break. It doesn't matter anyway because she was mayor of the 9th largest city in Alaska, not the 2nd largest. I'm not saying she's not qualified because it was only 10,000 people. I'm just saying that if city size is going to be your barometer, then maybe the former mayor of the 1st largest city in Alaska would have been a better choice. Population, city growth, economy and economic growth, level of public services...all these things are more important that "2nd largest" or "101st largest". By Rove's logic, we should elect the leader of Sitka, Alaska because it has more land area than New York City (even though New York has a major financial sector and an international presence). These types of half-truths and logical fallacies should be considered unethical, particularly amongst people that know better but are more interested in maintaining control than in being honest. You can make plenty of good arguments about why Palin is a good candidate without setting up straw-man arguments- she was elected governor of Alaska (population 670,000) after all. This type of behavior suggests that your candidate is too weak to stand up to scrutiny of her voting record and political stances. But hell, Karl Rove has made a career out of public bull-shitting. Maybe this is what the country deserves for not calling our public figures on their behavior.
That's all for now. The next post will examine Sarah Palin in more depth, particularly her stances on issues beyond abortion and gun control (which you won't get from the media). I'm going to do this will all four candidates. Mostly for my own education. But also in the hopes of adding something to the debate amongst the five people that bother to read this. You can't have a good election or political discussion without at least a basic knowledge of where the candidates stand on many issues, not just the hot button topics on Fox News and MSNBC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)