A few days ago, a student 'preacher' at the U of A stood in front of the administration building, holding a sign that read 'you deserve rape'. The university's newspaper got some grief for reporting on the incident. There were those who felt that simply reporting on it lent legitimacy to his views. It did not.
Reprehensible though it was, his right to free speech is constitutionally protected.
When you think about it, it's actually a good thing. He's now out in the open, and those who have to interact with him are now forewarned, and forarmed.
Much more dangerous, and more common, I think, are those who believe these things, but never state those beliefs. They look just like decent people. Sometimes they attain power and responsibility. Sometimes they even end up making policy and law.
A lot of bad, immoral, and unjust decisions could be avoided, had we known where they were coming from beforehand.
Still, the students did the
right thing in responding with the same free speech the misogynist availed himself of.
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News. Show all posts
Found Among the Ruins, and My Own Errant Thoughts
From Hank Fox:
The existence of the (GMO) technology doesn’t bother me in any extreme way. But that technology in the hands of nice corporations like Monsanto, in an oversight environment that includes a very friendly, very compliant pro-business government … that spooks me more than a little.
The downside of being emphatically yourself is that you can never slip easily into a group. You will always feel just a little bit ill-at-ease, a little bit off-balance, no matter where you are or who you’re with. For me, that price has almost always been acceptable. Still, I think I can understand the great numbers of us who make the other choice.
This is why I find the religious rights' passionate defense of marriage so amusing. A few excerpts from an article called: Marriage by Barbara G. Walker
Thomas Paine, in 1793, explains skepticism:
"The biggest failing of Libertarianism is the inability to distinguish liberty (the rights guaranteed by the state) from freedom (the practical ability to exercise those rights). Libertarianism ensures maximum liberty, but actual freedom is reserved only for the very rich."
-nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks
The deception began, at least in the modern age, with Milton Friedman, who said "The free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people...He moves fastest who moves alone."
This unflagging adherence to free-enterprise individualism is consistent with Social Darwinism , the belief that survival of the fittest (richest) will somehow benefit society, and that the millions of people suffering from financial malfeasance are simply lacking the motivation to help themselves. Social Darwinism is a feel-good delusion for those at the top. Or, as described by John Kenneth Galbraith, a continuing "search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
A tenet of progressivism is that a strong society will create opportunities for a greater number of people, thereby leading to more instances of individual success. This is the common sense attitude suppressed by conservatives for over 30 years.
There is a very good reason evolution invented death. The cycle of life and death ensures that a species adapts much better to changing circumstances. Imagine a society where everybody is immortal. It quite inevitably culminates in an ultra-conservative nightmare, where “everything is like it was forever”. Imagine a society where the industry tycoons of the 19th century still own the majority of money and influence.
A static society must break down sooner or later, one of the best examples for this is the late Soviet Union, where nothing new happened and which was completely dominated by old men who still evaluated everything in terms of an economy based on heavy industry. And when society breaks down (what it does regularly in human history, this is inevitable), most people will then lose the access to this life-prolonging technology.
I am glad that death exists, and when my time arrives, I will go, to make place for the young generation. They deserve their chance.
The existence of the (GMO) technology doesn’t bother me in any extreme way. But that technology in the hands of nice corporations like Monsanto, in an oversight environment that includes a very friendly, very compliant pro-business government … that spooks me more than a little.
The downside of being emphatically yourself is that you can never slip easily into a group. You will always feel just a little bit ill-at-ease, a little bit off-balance, no matter where you are or who you’re with. For me, that price has almost always been acceptable. Still, I think I can understand the great numbers of us who make the other choice.
This is why I find the religious rights' passionate defense of marriage so amusing. A few excerpts from an article called: Marriage by Barbara G. Walker
The word marriage came from the Latin maritare, union under the
auspices of the Goddess Aphrodite-Mari. Because the Goddess’s
patronage was constantly invoked in every aspect of marriage, Christian fathers were opposed to the institution. Origen declared, “Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion.” St. Jerome said the primary purpose of a man of God was “to cut down with an ax of Virginity the wood of Marriage”.(1) St. Ambrose said marriage was a crime against god, because it changed the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth.(2)
St. Augustine flatly stated that marriage is a sin and St. Paul damned Marriage with faint praise, remarking that to marry was only better than to burn ( 1 cor. 7:9).
Saturninus said God made only two kinds of people, good men and evil women. Marriage perpetuated the deviltry of women, who dominated men through the magic of sex(8). Centuries later, St. Bernard still proclaimed that it was easier of a man to bring back the dead to life than to live with a woman without endangering ones soul.(9)
Priests abandoned the churches’ rule of celibacy and began to take wives during the 5th and 6th centuries. This continued to the 11th century, when papal decretals commanded married clergymen to turn their wives out of their homes and sell their children as slaves. (5) The church displayed remarkable reluctance to deal with the matter of marriage at all. During the Middle Ages there was no ecclesiastical definition of a valid marriage nor of any contract to validate one.
Churchmen seemed to have no ideas at all on the subject(6) The earliest form of Christian marriage was a simple blessing of the newly wedded, “in facie ecclesiae” –outside the churches closed doors– to keep the pollution of lust out of God’s house. This blessing was a technical violation of canon law, but it became popular and gradually won status.(7).
There was no sacrament of marriage until the 16th century (3). Catholic scholars say the wedding ceremony was “imposed on” a reluctant church, and “nothing is more remarkable that the tardiness with which liturgical forms for the marriage ceremony were evolved.” It is perhaps not remarkable to find that these liturgical forms were not evolved by the church at all, but borrowed from pagan common law (4).
1-William Fielding, Customs of Courtship and Marriage, 82, 114
2-Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol 3, 373
3-William Fielding, Customs of Courtship and Marriage, 233
4-Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol 3, 248-249
5-Jacobus de. Voragine, The Golden Legend, 90-91
6-Ronald Pearsall, The Worm in the Bud , 162-63
7-Encyclopedia Britannica, “Marriage”
8-Vern Bullough,The Subordinate Sex, 103, 112
9-Joseph Cambell, Myths to Live By, 95
Thomas Paine, in 1793, explains skepticism:
"Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.
As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word ‘revelation.’ Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [NOTE: It is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God 'visits the sins of the fathers upon the children'. This is contrary to every principle of moral justice.—Author.]
When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.
When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence."
"The biggest failing of Libertarianism is the inability to distinguish liberty (the rights guaranteed by the state) from freedom (the practical ability to exercise those rights). Libertarianism ensures maximum liberty, but actual freedom is reserved only for the very rich."
-nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks
The deception began, at least in the modern age, with Milton Friedman, who said "The free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people...He moves fastest who moves alone."
This unflagging adherence to free-enterprise individualism is consistent with Social Darwinism , the belief that survival of the fittest (richest) will somehow benefit society, and that the millions of people suffering from financial malfeasance are simply lacking the motivation to help themselves. Social Darwinism is a feel-good delusion for those at the top. Or, as described by John Kenneth Galbraith, a continuing "search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
A tenet of progressivism is that a strong society will create opportunities for a greater number of people, thereby leading to more instances of individual success. This is the common sense attitude suppressed by conservatives for over 30 years.
There is a very good reason evolution invented death. The cycle of life and death ensures that a species adapts much better to changing circumstances. Imagine a society where everybody is immortal. It quite inevitably culminates in an ultra-conservative nightmare, where “everything is like it was forever”. Imagine a society where the industry tycoons of the 19th century still own the majority of money and influence.
A static society must break down sooner or later, one of the best examples for this is the late Soviet Union, where nothing new happened and which was completely dominated by old men who still evaluated everything in terms of an economy based on heavy industry. And when society breaks down (what it does regularly in human history, this is inevitable), most people will then lose the access to this life-prolonging technology.
I am glad that death exists, and when my time arrives, I will go, to make place for the young generation. They deserve their chance.
Just So You Know Where My Head's At
Ah the good old days, back when there was actually such a thing as a lucid Republican. Granted, I disagreed with him on many issues. But that's the point. He was able to prioritize and discern real issues, rather than the stupidity and minutia that today's Republicans focus on.
This speaks for itself.
Pretty much sums it up.
Sound familiar?
Admittedly, I'm not as chipper as I once was....
This speaks for itself.
Pretty much sums it up.
Sound familiar?
Admittedly, I'm not as chipper as I once was....
Courage and Common Sense
Liberals aren't generally big fans of firearms. But there are those whose fear is such, that they would turn this country into an armed camp in order to feel secure.
The mistake that our founding fathers made was in assuming that their descendants would have courage and common sense.
Certainly, risk can be managed to a point (that's the common sense part). But after that, you begin trading liberty for what is often the illusion of security. As far as courage, well, the conservative obsession with the myth of a risk-free existence is indicative of a cowardice that is embarrassing to watch. Their response to that fear is to actually make things more dangerous. Maybe it's because they believe that it's not their liberty that they'll be trading.
There is no such thing as a risk-free existence, nor should there be (that way lies extinction). A certain amount of stress and strife is necessary. Of course we would prefer it to be more in the way of positive challenges. But, life is risk, and all the firepower in the world won't change that.
Big business, and the politicians that they own realized long ago that fear is a great tool for manipulating the masses. A very lucrative tool, at that. It's unlikely that those who crave power could ever take our freedom by force. But they don't have to. They have frightened people to the point where they've been gladly voting against their own interests, and selling their security and freedom, a little at a time, for decades.
It isn't a TV show, or a video game. I can guarantee that anyone who says that they could have prevented a tragedy like this, if only they had been present and armed, hasn't ever actually had real bullets shot at them. A firefight is the very definition of chaos, and, unlike TV, someone who is mortally wounded rarely has time to deliver a moving soliloquy before a graceful exit. The end is most often horrifying, undignified, and immediate.
It's impossible for a sane person to take a human life without some damage to the psyche. It's the curse of having imagination and empathy. In times of war, or self defense, it has to be overridden, and that's when the damage occurs.
Most recover, but like any injury, there are scars.
So when I read about people like Russell Pearce, and his armchair heroics, I find it decidedly less than credible.
Aurora
I won't go into much detail about the tragedy in Aurora. Nor will I address the question of gun control, and the NRA. The situation speaks for itself. We're just not listening. I will say this:
There is a difference between the 2nd Amendment's intent, and what's going on today. The founding fathers were worried about tyrannical government, and foreign invasions.
They never considered the possibility that their descendants would actually allow public policy to be decided by those whose only qualification is a large pocketbook. They never thought we'd be so short-sighted as to allow our nation to be sold out from under us for such a pittance. They trusted the future of this nation to us. Their mistake was assuming that we'd be worthy of that trust.
Indeed, I think they would feel betrayed, and that we deserve whatever we get for that betrayal.
And they would be right.
There is a difference between the 2nd Amendment's intent, and what's going on today. The founding fathers were worried about tyrannical government, and foreign invasions.
They never considered the possibility that their descendants would actually allow public policy to be decided by those whose only qualification is a large pocketbook. They never thought we'd be so short-sighted as to allow our nation to be sold out from under us for such a pittance. They trusted the future of this nation to us. Their mistake was assuming that we'd be worthy of that trust.
Indeed, I think they would feel betrayed, and that we deserve whatever we get for that betrayal.
And they would be right.
Logic, Reason, and Fascism
For years, I've been trying to figure out why a number of affluent, educated people in this country would suddenly (in my perception, at least) turn against logic, reason, science, history -- in short, reality. That is, until I had the difference between Philosophical Conservatism, and Political Conservatism explained to me.
Philosophical Conservatism is a tendency -- a way of thinking. Although I never agreed with those ideals, they were, at least, consistent. William F. Buckley was a Philosophical Conservative. Probably the last.
Political Conservatism is an ever-evolving set of talking points used by some, in an infantile attempt to get want what they want, when they want it, without having to go through the tedious process of discussion, debate, or even thinking things through to their logical conclusion.
Without reason and logic, one does not have opinions, one only has affectations. Here's a quote from Ortega's "Revolt of the Masses" He is writing here during the rise of Fascism, as a philosophical Liberal:
As for me, I'm too damn young to see history repeat itself.
Philosophical Conservatism is a tendency -- a way of thinking. Although I never agreed with those ideals, they were, at least, consistent. William F. Buckley was a Philosophical Conservative. Probably the last.
Political Conservatism is an ever-evolving set of talking points used by some, in an infantile attempt to get want what they want, when they want it, without having to go through the tedious process of discussion, debate, or even thinking things through to their logical conclusion.
Without reason and logic, one does not have opinions, one only has affectations. Here's a quote from Ortega's "Revolt of the Masses" He is writing here during the rise of Fascism, as a philosophical Liberal:
The "ideas" of the average man are not genuine ideas, nor is their possession culture. Whoever wishes to have ideas must first prepare himself to desire truth and to accept the rules of the game imposed by it. It is no use speaking of ideas when there is no acceptance of a higher authority to regulate them, a series of standards to which it is possible to appeal in a discussion. These standards are the principles on which culture rests. I am not concerned with the form they take. What I affirm is that there is no culture where there are no standards to which our fellow-man can have recourse…
Under Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions. This is the new thing: the right not to be reasonable, the "reason of unreason." Here I see the most palpable manifestation of the new mentality of the masses, due to their having decided to rule society without the capacity for doing so. In their political conduct the structure of the new mentality is revealed in the rawest, most convincing manner. The average man finds himself with "ideas" in his head, but he lacks the faculty of ideation. He has no conception even of the rare atmosphere in which ideals live. He wishes to have opinions, but is unwilling to accept the conditions and presuppositions that underlie all opinion. Hence his ideas are in effect nothing more than appetites in words.
To have an idea means believing one is in possession of the reasons for having it, and consequently means believing that there is such a thing as reason, a world of intelligible truths. To have ideas, to form opinions, is identical with appealing to such an authority, submitting oneself to it, accepting its code and its decisions, and therefore believing that the highest form of intercommunication is the dialogue in which the reasons for our ideas are discussed. But the mass-man would feel himself lost if he accepted discussion, and instinctively repudiates the obligation of accepting that supreme authority lying outside himself. Hence the "new thing" in Europe is "to have done with discussions," and detestation is expressed for all forms of intercommunication, which imply acceptance of objective standards, ranging from conversation to Parliament, and taking in science. This means that there is a renunciation of the common life of barbarism. All the normal processes are suppressed in order to arrive directly at the imposition of what is desired. The hermeticism of the soul which, as we have seen before, urges the mass to intervene in the whole of public life.Sound familiar? Think about it the next time you watch a freak show disguised as a political debate.
As for me, I'm too damn young to see history repeat itself.
Rememberance
I told myself that I wouldn't write a 9/11 post. There are certainly those more
What changed my mind was talking to some of the kids I work with. They're all college-aged, and most hadn't even completed their first decade of existence in 2001. They don't really see what the big deal is. To them, those deaths are as remote as any other they hear about in the news. I can't really blame them for that. It's impossible to feel a sense of loss for something one has never experienced. They have no idea what life was like before 9/11, anymore than I have any idea what it was like before Pearl Harbor, or Hiroshima.
Like most, I remember that day vividly. Though, to some, it seems like yesterday. To me, it seems like a million years ago - Another lifetime. In truth, I suppose it was.
I was living in a small town in northern Arizona. As it happened, I had stayed home sick from work that day. I was about to become much more ill. I'd gone back to bed after calling in sick to work, and was in that place between wakefulness and sleep, when you're not sure whether you're either. My wife decided to stay up and make coffee.
I thought I heard my wife's voice repeating, "Oh, God no." Something in her voice - fear, shock, grief, and something that to this day I can't put a name to - brought me fully awake. I walked into the living room, and saw my wife standing there, frozen, in front of the TV. I noticed the TV just in time to see video of the plane hitting the first tower. That video, among others, seemed to play on an endless loop during the course of the day.
It took a few seconds. There was a disconnect between what I was seeing, and my mind's desperate attempt to find some other - any other - explanation for it.
We sat on the couch, barely speaking. Barely breathing. We watched as the second plane hit, then the Pentagon, then flight 93. We watched as people waved from smoking windows. Then as some of them fell, choosing their fate, rather than having it chosen for them. Then, as the towers themselves fell. It seemed like things were snowballing out of control. I wasn't worried for our own safety. After all, what self-respecting terrorist would attack Chino Valley, AZ?
I remember the sound of my wife crying. A combination of empathy, a pretty good imagination, and the flu, caused me to retreat into the bathroom a couple of times to throw up. But I wasn't angry. Not yet.
It was about mid-afternoon, and the news was showing people on the streets - relatives and friends of those missing, pictures of their loved ones in hand, desperately searching. The looks on their faces was heart-wrenching, and haunt me to this day. I was angry, and I wanted justice for them.
No, that's wrong. I wanted vengeance. I wanted them all dead. I wanted to see their collective heads on a pike. My rage was such that it wouldn't let me even ask who "they" were.
I had heard Osama Bin Laden's name before. I'd even felt sympathy for the way we left him hanging during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Our foreign policy is consistent, if nothing else. What sympathy I had, evaporated with the attack on the USS Cole.
I understand their anger, even their hatred of us. The rage I felt for a relatively short time has been theirs for a lifetime. And it would have been so easy to hate them, coming from a culture foreign, alien, and of which I had little knowledge.
For most of the people on this planet, life is hard, brutal, and short. As Americans, we've been spared many of the horrors that others face daily. Though, I fear those times are coming to an end. There are those in this country who believe that we have some sort of divine right to a risk-free existence, as if there were truly such a thing, or should be. The irony is, that these same people are the ones putting what safety and security we do have, at risk. They do this by their revisionist history (or as I like to put it, lying), and vilification of the ideals that made this country great. They would have it replaced with a sort of corporate theocracy - their twisted vision of utopia.
As I lie awake in bed that night, I worried about how we would respond as a nation, and how it would change us. Some things ended up being worse than the scenarios that were going through my head.
Three months after 9/11, my mother died. Two weeks after that, my father was diagnosed with lung cancer. We lost him 6 months later. The next few years are covered in my last post. Suffice to say that, for me, 9/11 didn't end until around 2007.
I know that evil exists. I've seen it. But I still believe that, as hard as life is, most people are decent, and good, and just trying to do the best they can. And that's what I hold onto.
Finding Logic
I've probably spent my whole life trying to figure out the Tea Party. Of course they weren't always called that, but these people have always been with us. I'm not talking about simply conservatism, though that's bad enough. That, I can understand to a degree. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see how they arrived at their (often incredibly wrong) conclusions.
No, I'm talking about folks who claim to venerate freedom, but would take it from their neighbor for the smallest of trespasses. Who claim to want a better world for their children, but have no problem sacrificing them to endless, pointless wars. People who hate and fear the one real constant in this world -- change.
I'm also talking about those they elect to hold public office. It's hard to tell which is worse: Those who seek power by pandering to fear and hatred, or those that give it to them. But I believe Paul Begala gives a good explanation in a recent article as to how we got to where we are today:
I can't understand people who's beliefs are so firmly held, that no amount of logic, reason, or quantifiable proof will sway them. They are, in fact, so adverse to this, that they would just as soon see this world end, rather than face any number of inconvenient truths.
To cite Mr. Begala again:
But I've realized that out of all the (deservedly negative) adjectives I've used to describe them,they are one thing above all others.
They are dangerous.
No, I'm talking about folks who claim to venerate freedom, but would take it from their neighbor for the smallest of trespasses. Who claim to want a better world for their children, but have no problem sacrificing them to endless, pointless wars. People who hate and fear the one real constant in this world -- change.
I'm also talking about those they elect to hold public office. It's hard to tell which is worse: Those who seek power by pandering to fear and hatred, or those that give it to them. But I believe Paul Begala gives a good explanation in a recent article as to how we got to where we are today:
Specifically, they did four things:After reading a news story about changing demographics in America, someone asked me if I was afraid that the white race would disappear. After quelling the urge to punch him in the nose, I told him that my concern was for the species as a whole, and that there was no such thing as a purebred human being, nor should there be (Change, remember?). They were less than happy with my response.
- Cut taxes (with a heavy tilt toward the rich).
- Caged two wars on the national credit card (one of which was against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no serious threat to America).
- Passed a prescription drug benefit with no pay-for (the first entitlement in American history without a revenue source), and deregulated Wall Street (which helped turn the American economy into a casino and touched off the Great Recession).
I can't understand people who's beliefs are so firmly held, that no amount of logic, reason, or quantifiable proof will sway them. They are, in fact, so adverse to this, that they would just as soon see this world end, rather than face any number of inconvenient truths.
To cite Mr. Begala again:
It has become a trope of the right to accuse Obama and the Democrats of trying to remake America in the image of Europe. That, of course, is silly as well as insulting to the people who gave us the Magna Carta and the Enlightenment, not to mention spaghetti. But in whose image would the radical Republicans remake us? Certainly not in the image of the Founding Fathers. The Republicans are already seeking to make Swiss cheese out of Mr. Madison's masterpiece, littering the Constitution with amendments on budgeting, the line-item veto, gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, restricting birthright citizenship, and more.These people hate knowledge, complexity; they hate the infernal need to explore. They are the petty, bigoted, greedy people who lack compassion, empathy, imagination, even common courtesy.
Seems to me the GOP seeks a banana republic: a toxic blend of right-wing populism, anti-intellectualism, debt defaults, and an end to the ladder of economic opportunity.
But I've realized that out of all the (deservedly negative) adjectives I've used to describe them,they are one thing above all others.
They are dangerous.
On the Tracks
A few days ago, Texas executed a Mexican national for the rape and murder of a 16 year-old girl in 1995. His guilt was never in question. But as a Mexican national, he had a right to notify his embassy or consulate at the time of his arrest. He was not informed of that right. President Obama, the United Nations and others asked Texas Governor, Rick Perry, to stay the execution, but he refused. In doing so, he violated a treaty we have not only with Mexico, but with every other civilized country on the planet. And we just told them all that our word is worth nothing. Governor Perry's motives had nothing to do with getting justice for a teenage girl, and everything to do with political expediency. The Supreme Court agreed with him. Killing someone was just their way of thumbing their collective noses at the feds, and at the President in particular. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, even innocence isn't enough to stay an execution. He once wrote,
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry our a death sentence properly reached."This is just one of many symptoms of a much larger, and potentially lethal, disease. I'll leave you with the words of Jon Nichols, who states it with more eloquence than I possess.
Face it, America. You've been bought and sold.
Only an idiot would believe our political leaders, regardless of their party affiliation, to be altruistic patriots who only want what's best for us. If you are in political power or if you are the CEO of a corporation, the last thing in the world that you want is to have a general populace that is capable of thinking for themselves or formulating their own opinions.
You want people to keep their words about the nation sweet, for fear that they might otherwise seem to be the bitter seeds of treason. You want people to think that "women's suffrage" means keeping them in the kitchen.
Sheep, brainless sheep who hold no concept of where they have been or where they are going, who need only to have a cloth of red, white, and blue waved in their faces to lead them. Oh and docile, too. Don't forget docile. Provided your bank account is sizable, your carnal needs are sated, and your TV is all reality, then it's all good, right?
We're standing on the railroad tracks. We can see the train coming, but we're too comfortable to get off. And yet we'll still probably be surprised when the train mows us down.
Conservatism by the numbers
"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." ~William E. Gladstone, 1866
I think I figured out what been happening to this country. The extreme religious right has gotten a serious toehold, via the Tea Party, and morally weak republicans. The middle class has all but been wiped out, and now comes their assault on the poor.
Since the Reagan administration, class politics in the US has waned; the Republican Party benefits from the fact that many lower-income citizens vote against their economic interests because they oppose the social liberalism of the Democratic Party.
Many vote against tax increases on the rich, because even if they themselves are not wealthy, there is a tiny chance they one day will be. There is also the prevailing mythology that the wealthy class earned their place and should not be punished. They somehow believe that the rich will show some sort of loyalty or gratitude to their servants.
I've noticed that conservative humor usually ends with a punchline that describes a (woman / liberal / poor / person of color) being killed, maimed or imprisoned (in order of their preference).
Like the 91 year-old freshman senator (Freshman? Really?) from New Hampshire who recently resigned after suggesting the the mentally ill be shipped off to Siberia. Or the State Rep. from Kansas who thinks illegal immigrants should be hunted from helicopter, and shot "like pigs". Both claimed that they were just joking. Well, they though it was funny...
The playbook from the extreme right must include this:
I think I figured out what been happening to this country. The extreme religious right has gotten a serious toehold, via the Tea Party, and morally weak republicans. The middle class has all but been wiped out, and now comes their assault on the poor.
Since the Reagan administration, class politics in the US has waned; the Republican Party benefits from the fact that many lower-income citizens vote against their economic interests because they oppose the social liberalism of the Democratic Party.
Many vote against tax increases on the rich, because even if they themselves are not wealthy, there is a tiny chance they one day will be. There is also the prevailing mythology that the wealthy class earned their place and should not be punished. They somehow believe that the rich will show some sort of loyalty or gratitude to their servants.
I've noticed that conservative humor usually ends with a punchline that describes a (woman / liberal / poor / person of color) being killed, maimed or imprisoned (in order of their preference).
Like the 91 year-old freshman senator (Freshman? Really?) from New Hampshire who recently resigned after suggesting the the mentally ill be shipped off to Siberia. Or the State Rep. from Kansas who thinks illegal immigrants should be hunted from helicopter, and shot "like pigs". Both claimed that they were just joking. Well, they though it was funny...
The playbook from the extreme right must include this:
This works for politicians, pundits, corrupt county sheriffs, equally corrupt corporate CEO's, insane cult leaders - essentially any conservative who is focused on their own interests, to the exclusion of all else.
- Use apocalyptic rhetoric that exacerbates fear, bigotry and extremism among the uneducated and intolerant.
- Counter any liberal criticism of your inflammatory calls for action by saying they can't take a joke.
- Keep turning up the heat and act shocked when somebody heeds your calls for extreme action.
- Be sure to maintain you were only speaking figuratively and you are being unfairly blamed when violence occurs (extra credit for insinuating that liberals set this up themselves).
- Keep your celebrations behind closed doors.
American Media
Ok, so I'm a boomer (although just barely, thank you). I remember Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, and others growing up. They just reported the news. They did it without spin, innuendo, and to the best of their ability, truthfully.
I'm not usually prone to nostalgia, but like so many other things, the decline of American journalism was too subtle for me to notice. I was too busy with the day to day business of living to take notice. I bear some of the blame for neglecting my duty as a citizen, and assuming that simply voting was enough. It's my country - my government, and I should have more informed and involved. I don't know if I could have made a difference, but at least I'd have the comfort of knowing I tried.
So here we are.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Wednesday. While doing so, she made some long overdue comparisons of the American media to Al-Jazeera. She said,
I figured it out about a year ago. I'd had it with the right-wing lies of Fox, the left-wing cheerleading of MSNBC, and the fluff of CNN. The only real news I was getting was from the Daily Show. As much as I like Jon Stewart, it wasn't enough.
My first stop was NPR, but their perspective was inherently American. The BBC was the next step. It's been the standard for exceptional journalism for years, though I often had to wade through a lot that I found less than relevant. Then I found Al-Jazeera. It was an eye-opener. I was outraged at some things. They would have people on that were blatantly anti-American. In some instances I could understand why they felt the way they did. Our foreign policy over the last half-century has been less than honorable. In other instances, their guests were simply the mirror image of the extreme religious right in this country. Opposing views, but the same hate.
Then I took notice, not so much of the content, but how it was presented. Whether pro, anti, or neutral, the reporting was just that, backed up by empirical data and sources.
It was then I realized how far we'd fallen. The American media isn't in the business of providing factual information to people. It's in business to sell the attention spans of those watching to other corporations. I'd like to think it's more complex than that, but it really is that simple.
No ethics, no integrity. Just money.
Somewhere along the way, big business decided that every human thought, every human endeavor, was theirs to profit from. No regard for privacy, or ethics. No thought as to what is morally or socially acceptable. It's whatever one can get away with. If it happens to be against the law, well, that's what lobbyists and campaign contributions are for. Perhaps it's always been that way. It's just more pronounced now.
This is America with Republicorp running things.
No more middle class. Just the stockholders, and those that serve them.
I'm not usually prone to nostalgia, but like so many other things, the decline of American journalism was too subtle for me to notice. I was too busy with the day to day business of living to take notice. I bear some of the blame for neglecting my duty as a citizen, and assuming that simply voting was enough. It's my country - my government, and I should have more informed and involved. I don't know if I could have made a difference, but at least I'd have the comfort of knowing I tried.
So here we are.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Wednesday. While doing so, she made some long overdue comparisons of the American media to Al-Jazeera. She said,
“In fact viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news,” Clinton said. “You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners.”Perhaps she was following the lead of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Juliette Kayyem, who urged cable providers to carry al Jazeera in her recent oped, “Let us see Al-Jazeera”.
I figured it out about a year ago. I'd had it with the right-wing lies of Fox, the left-wing cheerleading of MSNBC, and the fluff of CNN. The only real news I was getting was from the Daily Show. As much as I like Jon Stewart, it wasn't enough.
My first stop was NPR, but their perspective was inherently American. The BBC was the next step. It's been the standard for exceptional journalism for years, though I often had to wade through a lot that I found less than relevant. Then I found Al-Jazeera. It was an eye-opener. I was outraged at some things. They would have people on that were blatantly anti-American. In some instances I could understand why they felt the way they did. Our foreign policy over the last half-century has been less than honorable. In other instances, their guests were simply the mirror image of the extreme religious right in this country. Opposing views, but the same hate.
Then I took notice, not so much of the content, but how it was presented. Whether pro, anti, or neutral, the reporting was just that, backed up by empirical data and sources.
It was then I realized how far we'd fallen. The American media isn't in the business of providing factual information to people. It's in business to sell the attention spans of those watching to other corporations. I'd like to think it's more complex than that, but it really is that simple.
No ethics, no integrity. Just money.
Somewhere along the way, big business decided that every human thought, every human endeavor, was theirs to profit from. No regard for privacy, or ethics. No thought as to what is morally or socially acceptable. It's whatever one can get away with. If it happens to be against the law, well, that's what lobbyists and campaign contributions are for. Perhaps it's always been that way. It's just more pronounced now.
This is America with Republicorp running things.
No more middle class. Just the stockholders, and those that serve them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)