Tonight on the Daily Show, John Hodgman asked what Jon Stewart would say upon Obama's inauguration, when "comedy dies." I hope that as President Bush shatters the record for "longest lame duck tenure in American history" (the Quackie Award?), comedy will begin to shift to the inevitable idiocy of an Obama Administration. It doesn't seem likely, though. The Stewarts of the world will likely praise St. Barack until they sound like Evangelicals circa 2002. You know, when George W. Bush could do no wrong.
So what's funny about Obama? How about his Cabinet appointments, which might as well be labeled Clinton the Third. Obama is claiming that he's not appointing anyone (ANYONE!!) new to Cabinet level positions because those folks need to have the experience to run a country. If we wanted to have all of Bill Clinton's cronies back, we would have voted for his wife. His reaction to Barbara Walters questions about the issue were a six on the unintentional comedy scale.
Obama will continue most of the policies of the Republicrats. The one-party system isn't going anywhere. Foreign intervention isn't going anywhere. Economic intervention, high taxation, encroachment upon civil liberties, erosion of states' rights and a slew of other attacks on Americanism and the Constitution. I guess if Stewart and his ilk can't keep me laughing, I'll be doing a lot of crying.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
George Carlin, my hero.
George Carlin was a hero of mine. He was everything I would like to be: smart, funny, creative, a challenger to all authority, successful, witty and somehow both happy and angry at the same time. He used his medium, comedy, so well that sometimes it was important to remind one's self that what he said was not only funny, but true. When Carlin died, the mainstream media decided that they needed one fifteen second clip to sum up an author, actor and comedian whose career spanned five decades. They, of course, chose the Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television. They failed to mention, in most cases, that Carlin's recognition of the things that are wrong and excessive in this country was nearly always spot-on. He was skeptical of authority and government, and realized that the "owners of this country" don't want this place to be fixed. Here's the late genius in a particularly poignant clip, which I will quote a few times for those unable to watch (language is salty, NSFW and awesome).
Here's an extended version of the clip, as created for the Ron Paul Presidential campaign.
Carlin was marginalized upon his death. Since public schools are indoctrination centers which tell us that we have to choose between members of the "big club," it's up to us to remind each other and our progeny that we can do better.
"There's a reason education sucks, and it's the same reason that it will never, ever, ever be fixed. It's never going to get any better, don't look for it, be happy with what you got. Because the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians, they're irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give the illusion that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you! They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations, they've long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, city halls, they've got the judges in their back pocket and the own all the big media companies so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They've got you by the balls! They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I'll tell you what they don't want. They don't want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don't want well informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interest.
They don't want people who are smart enough to sit around the kitchen table and figure out how badly they're getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard thirty fucking years ago. They don't want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shittier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it. And now they're coming for your Social Security money. They want your fucking retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They'll get it all from you sooner or later because they own this fucking place. It's a big club, and you ain't in it. You and I are not in the big club."
Here's an extended version of the clip, as created for the Ron Paul Presidential campaign.
Carlin was marginalized upon his death. Since public schools are indoctrination centers which tell us that we have to choose between members of the "big club," it's up to us to remind each other and our progeny that we can do better.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Ah, Tony Perkins
Mr. Perkins, in charge of the Family Research Council, just said on CNN that "fiscal conservatism" means small government, and "social conservatism" means personal responsibility. Really? First of all, the two cannot be separated, but commonly are, both by liberals and conservatives, to fit their narrow agendas. If a fiscal conservative wants small government and low government intervention in financial matters, then it is logically inconsistent to decide that one wants the government to dictate one's socially acceptable behavior. The reverse is also true, but on to Mr. Perkins's claim about personal responsibility.
Social conservatism does not mean personal responsibility. It just simply is not true. Personal responsibility, like personal liberty, are not just non-partisan issues, but a-partisan issues. They simply are not ideas which are developed or motivated by any one area of the political spectrum. They are, however, abused and misrepresented by many areas of the political spectrum. Social conservatism is the idea that the government has the right and/or duty to enforce moral behaviors on its citizens, not merely to protect one another from harm but to promote tradition and moral order, however one defines that order. Personal responsibility is the idea that when a person engages in behavior, he or she is responsible for the effects of that behavior, legally and morally. The big difference is that morals are not laws. Morals and traditions, due to our Constitutional rights, do not have to be followed, so long as they do not break a law.
Logically, we have to decide then whether morals should be laws. In this country, the founders of the nation thought that the law should be designed to protect people from being harmed. Prisons are made to house those who have done harm, and civil suits can be filed for compensation; however, the legislation of taste is one of the things we are protected from in America. One ought not be prevented from acting because the action is distasteful, unpleasant or annoying, only directly, demonstrably harmful. That is true personal responsibility, not legislating some religious sect's preference.
Social conservatism does not mean personal responsibility. It just simply is not true. Personal responsibility, like personal liberty, are not just non-partisan issues, but a-partisan issues. They simply are not ideas which are developed or motivated by any one area of the political spectrum. They are, however, abused and misrepresented by many areas of the political spectrum. Social conservatism is the idea that the government has the right and/or duty to enforce moral behaviors on its citizens, not merely to protect one another from harm but to promote tradition and moral order, however one defines that order. Personal responsibility is the idea that when a person engages in behavior, he or she is responsible for the effects of that behavior, legally and morally. The big difference is that morals are not laws. Morals and traditions, due to our Constitutional rights, do not have to be followed, so long as they do not break a law.
Logically, we have to decide then whether morals should be laws. In this country, the founders of the nation thought that the law should be designed to protect people from being harmed. Prisons are made to house those who have done harm, and civil suits can be filed for compensation; however, the legislation of taste is one of the things we are protected from in America. One ought not be prevented from acting because the action is distasteful, unpleasant or annoying, only directly, demonstrably harmful. That is true personal responsibility, not legislating some religious sect's preference.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Pragmatism v. Idealism
There has been a lot of talk lately about how great it will be for the next four years to have a pragmatist in the White House. Obama, the media loves to note, is a pragmatist, willing to cross the aisles to negotiate and be flexible enough to represent all the people. Why on earth would we want that?
If Obama is what I fear he is, a purely pragmatic, solution-obsessed politician, then an Obama administration has no principles. He will see an issue, discuss the possible uni-partisan answers, and come to an agreement which partly satisfies everyone. There is an extent to which that process is effective, but it only goes so far. Sometimes pragmatism is bad. Negotiating on issues of principle is impossible if one seemingly defers to pragmatism over principle. Obama does not appear to have any core issues with which he will not part, except a string of murky notions of hope and fairness. Where does he put his foot down? Even if I dislike the issue, I hope he can put aside practical solutions and be a man of principle. Indeed, it seems that we are going to go from an unflinching ideologue to an unflinching pragmatist.
The Lincoln comparisons with Obama have begun already, because Lincoln appointed a group of politicians with whom he was not particularly enamored to serve as his Cabinet. I find no fault in appointing those from differing political perspectives to positions on one's staff. Obviously, GroupThink is to be avoided in politics, but Obama has a strange fascination with Lincoln. Having dissenting opinions around one helps to knock out bad ideas and facilitates the molding of good ones. Every good leader knows that. As Matthew Pinsker notes, though, it did not work out too well for Lincoln.
Finally, there is the Union-stomping elephant in the room. Lincoln's Presidency has become a myth, much like Franklin Roosevelt's reign. Lincoln ruined the very nature of a voluntary union of states under a common law by forcing the Confederacy back into the United States. Putting the issue of slavery aside (and keeping it legal in states which did not secede), Lincoln declared a war to save the Union, but the 'Civil War' led to Lincoln maiming the Constitution. He suspended habeus corpus, founded a state, imprisoned and killed civilians, did not support equal rights for blacks (at least not before deporting them), and so on. The excellent Tom DiLorenzo explains here.
Obama is like Lincoln in a few good ways, like his oratory and aims for unity. Let's hope he's not going to ignore the Constitution and strip states of even more of their rights.
If Obama is what I fear he is, a purely pragmatic, solution-obsessed politician, then an Obama administration has no principles. He will see an issue, discuss the possible uni-partisan answers, and come to an agreement which partly satisfies everyone. There is an extent to which that process is effective, but it only goes so far. Sometimes pragmatism is bad. Negotiating on issues of principle is impossible if one seemingly defers to pragmatism over principle. Obama does not appear to have any core issues with which he will not part, except a string of murky notions of hope and fairness. Where does he put his foot down? Even if I dislike the issue, I hope he can put aside practical solutions and be a man of principle. Indeed, it seems that we are going to go from an unflinching ideologue to an unflinching pragmatist.
The Lincoln comparisons with Obama have begun already, because Lincoln appointed a group of politicians with whom he was not particularly enamored to serve as his Cabinet. I find no fault in appointing those from differing political perspectives to positions on one's staff. Obviously, GroupThink is to be avoided in politics, but Obama has a strange fascination with Lincoln. Having dissenting opinions around one helps to knock out bad ideas and facilitates the molding of good ones. Every good leader knows that. As Matthew Pinsker notes, though, it did not work out too well for Lincoln.
Finally, there is the Union-stomping elephant in the room. Lincoln's Presidency has become a myth, much like Franklin Roosevelt's reign. Lincoln ruined the very nature of a voluntary union of states under a common law by forcing the Confederacy back into the United States. Putting the issue of slavery aside (and keeping it legal in states which did not secede), Lincoln declared a war to save the Union, but the 'Civil War' led to Lincoln maiming the Constitution. He suspended habeus corpus, founded a state, imprisoned and killed civilians, did not support equal rights for blacks (at least not before deporting them), and so on. The excellent Tom DiLorenzo explains here.
Obama is like Lincoln in a few good ways, like his oratory and aims for unity. Let's hope he's not going to ignore the Constitution and strip states of even more of their rights.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Don't Fail Me, Cheeseheads
Here's an excerpt from an article in the New York Times:
Here is a good example of the dilemma facing many places where laws do not seem to deter behavior, and we once again find beer as the measuring stick: do we punish everyone (prohibition), or only the offenders? The fact that people drink, even heavily, and even with their children, is no doubt cause for concern on its own, but it is a moral, personal issue. The fact that Wisconsin's drunken driving-related death rate is highest in the country is another story. The article notes, however, that the AWARE group wants to "dramatically change the laws, culture and behaviors in Wisconsin." Raising AWAREness is one thing, but forcing people not to drink is another. In Wisconsin, it takes until the fifth DUI to be charged with a felony. Rather than giving 12.6 million taxpayer dollars to state agencies for "screening, intervention and referral services" why not simply punish those who break the already existing laws more?
The truth is that most people enjoy alcohol responsibly. That does not mean the "responsibly" promoted in beer promos. I read an article stating that in Australia more than four drinks in one sitting is "binge drinking." Blanket statements like that show little effort by researchers, and I think are attempts at demonizing drinkers. The way to prevent poor behavior is to punish it when it harms someone, not because you don't like it. So Cheeseheads, next time I'm in Wisconsin, drinks are on me.
Minors can drink alcohol in a bar or restaurant in Wisconsin if they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian who gives consent. While there is no state law setting a minimum age, bartenders can use their discretion in deciding whom to serve...People in Wisconsin are more likely than anywhere else to drive drunk, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The state has among the highest incidence of drunken driving deaths in the United States.
Now some Wisconsin health officials and civic leaders are calling for the state to sober up. A coalition called All-Wisconsin Alcohol Risk Education started a campaign last week to push for tougher drunken driving laws, an increase in screening for alcohol abuse at health clinics and a greater awareness of drinking problems generally.
Here is a good example of the dilemma facing many places where laws do not seem to deter behavior, and we once again find beer as the measuring stick: do we punish everyone (prohibition), or only the offenders? The fact that people drink, even heavily, and even with their children, is no doubt cause for concern on its own, but it is a moral, personal issue. The fact that Wisconsin's drunken driving-related death rate is highest in the country is another story. The article notes, however, that the AWARE group wants to "dramatically change the laws, culture and behaviors in Wisconsin." Raising AWAREness is one thing, but forcing people not to drink is another. In Wisconsin, it takes until the fifth DUI to be charged with a felony. Rather than giving 12.6 million taxpayer dollars to state agencies for "screening, intervention and referral services" why not simply punish those who break the already existing laws more?
The truth is that most people enjoy alcohol responsibly. That does not mean the "responsibly" promoted in beer promos. I read an article stating that in Australia more than four drinks in one sitting is "binge drinking." Blanket statements like that show little effort by researchers, and I think are attempts at demonizing drinkers. The way to prevent poor behavior is to punish it when it harms someone, not because you don't like it. So Cheeseheads, next time I'm in Wisconsin, drinks are on me.
Bailout Redux
Well, it did not take long. The automakers are lined up like they're in Oliver Twist, asking for more food. They all saw Wall Street bailed out, and now they believe it is their turn. Some lawmakers want the bailout for the auto industry to come out of the bazillion dollar bailout from earlier this year, and some want it to be a separate loan with certain rules. Not surprisingly, the change we can believe in is that there is not change: there is near-consensus on Capitol Hill that we need to do it, and near-consensus throughout America that we are getting hosed.
GM is begging so obviously for free money (after all, they only have $16B cash on hand), that CNN wrote this: GM executives say the $25 billion loan money would come with enough strings attached to it that they are not sure it can be used to solve their cash crisis. That's right: getting money they did not earn from taxpayers who may not use their goods cannot have strings attached. It's gotta be free and clear, or GM is not happy. The truth is GM and the other American automakers are going under unless they drastically change their business practices. A blank check is no incentive to do so.
The National Taxpayers Union has an open letter to Congress, which I'm sure will not be read, let alone considered, by nearly all of Congress. In the letter, they make some great points. First, those not working for the "Big 3" in the American auto industry make only 65% on average compared to those working for the American companies. A sound business model, for sure. Next, they say this:
Couldn't put it much better.
While I'm at it, here is another good read on the issue:
Bailout to Nowhere by David Brooks Brooks supported the original bailout package, but at least he puts his foot down, albeit too late. He makes an argument against the auto bailout which many made against the financial one: when does it end?
GM is begging so obviously for free money (after all, they only have $16B cash on hand), that CNN wrote this: GM executives say the $25 billion loan money would come with enough strings attached to it that they are not sure it can be used to solve their cash crisis. That's right: getting money they did not earn from taxpayers who may not use their goods cannot have strings attached. It's gotta be free and clear, or GM is not happy. The truth is GM and the other American automakers are going under unless they drastically change their business practices. A blank check is no incentive to do so.
The National Taxpayers Union has an open letter to Congress, which I'm sure will not be read, let alone considered, by nearly all of Congress. In the letter, they make some great points. First, those not working for the "Big 3" in the American auto industry make only 65% on average compared to those working for the American companies. A sound business model, for sure. Next, they say this:
Most Americans recognize that risk is a fundamental element of our economy. Some businesses succeed tremendously, some fail spectacularly. But they should do so at their own risk, not with the unwilling backing of millions of citizens' paychecks. It is little wonder so many American taxpayers feel that Congress is not looking out for them.
Couldn't put it much better.
While I'm at it, here is another good read on the issue:
Bailout to Nowhere by David Brooks Brooks supported the original bailout package, but at least he puts his foot down, albeit too late. He makes an argument against the auto bailout which many made against the financial one: when does it end?
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Some interesting links
I am a bit behind on my blog posts this week, and in the interim I thought I'd post some very thought provoking links I came across in my reading this past month.
This first link is to an article by George Will in the Washington Post entitled "'Socialism'? It's already here." Published on Nov. 16th, I think the article ties in nicely with some of the points I made in "The Real Change We Need, Part I" about the similarities between the parties and the hypocrisy of John McCain decrying Obama's so-called socialism, while endorsing it when it comes from the Bush White House. Anyway, definitely worth a read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403045.html
The three links posted below all deal with the book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, by Naomi Wolf. I had not heard of the book until recently, and in my search for more information on it, I came across some interviews that the author gave on the topic. The interviews on YouTube are from last year, while the one given to the A.V. Club is from November 3rd of this year. The videos and article were eye-opening, to say the least, with Wolf comparing the actions of the Bush administration in the last several years to those undertaken by historical fascist and dictatorial movements across the globe; the similarities are very disconcerting. Both YouTube videos go over basically the same information, but they are both worth a watch. Keep an ear open at the end of the first video for what she says about 'candidates supporting the Constitution.' The A.V. Club interview obviously is a more recent take on things. So here are the links:
This next link is to an article in the Boston Globe which is also older (from 2006), but worth a read nonetheless. It is entitled "Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws" and discusses the President's use of signing statements. Here is the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
After those fairly disconcerting articles and interviews, I thought I'd leave you with something a little lighter. It is another article from Mr. Will, this time about how drinking alcohol may have exerted a selection pressure on the human race; certainly interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070901934.html
Anyway, enjoy -
Romo
This first link is to an article by George Will in the Washington Post entitled "'Socialism'? It's already here." Published on Nov. 16th, I think the article ties in nicely with some of the points I made in "The Real Change We Need, Part I" about the similarities between the parties and the hypocrisy of John McCain decrying Obama's so-called socialism, while endorsing it when it comes from the Bush White House. Anyway, definitely worth a read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403045.html
The three links posted below all deal with the book The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, by Naomi Wolf. I had not heard of the book until recently, and in my search for more information on it, I came across some interviews that the author gave on the topic. The interviews on YouTube are from last year, while the one given to the A.V. Club is from November 3rd of this year. The videos and article were eye-opening, to say the least, with Wolf comparing the actions of the Bush administration in the last several years to those undertaken by historical fascist and dictatorial movements across the globe; the similarities are very disconcerting. Both YouTube videos go over basically the same information, but they are both worth a watch. Keep an ear open at the end of the first video for what she says about 'candidates supporting the Constitution.' The A.V. Club interview obviously is a more recent take on things. So here are the links:
First YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
Second YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs
A.V. Club interview: http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/naomi_wolf/1
Second YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9PulYpjGs
A.V. Club interview: http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/naomi_wolf/1
This next link is to an article in the Boston Globe which is also older (from 2006), but worth a read nonetheless. It is entitled "Bush Challenges Hundreds of Laws" and discusses the President's use of signing statements. Here is the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
After those fairly disconcerting articles and interviews, I thought I'd leave you with something a little lighter. It is another article from Mr. Will, this time about how drinking alcohol may have exerted a selection pressure on the human race; certainly interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/09/AR2008070901934.html
Anyway, enjoy -
Romo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)