23 July 2007

A Man of Integrity Would Not Have Done This...

...it's just that simple and I don't care what side of the spectrum you're on or your political affiliation.

Thanks to AlterNet for this little find. They are calling it Romney's "macaca moment", as well they should. Seriously, they just can't help themselves, can they? It is so latent that unless they have their handlers right there telling them what to say and do...it just 'slips' out!

All of this type of treatment of Obama, usually by the very people who claim America is so special, and almost completely ignored or made light of by the mainstream media, totally debases what this country is supposed to stand for. It gives away the ghost on what many Americans really believe. If it were coming from guys in white hoods, the media would be all over it, but because it's not, even if it's the same sentiment, they just brush if off. If it had been Obama holding a sign (jokingly!) equating Bush with Hitler or something, well, we don't even need to guess what the reaction to that would be.

If this Ken Doll doesn't have sense (and let's face it, morality) enough to know this is wrong at his age...then we shouldn't elect him to any office in any land. But just watch - if it gets any attention at all - and I doubt it will - it'll be played off as the political equivalent to a "youthful indiscretion". A lapse in "judgement". But we know better. Lapses in judgement are usually when your 'true self' gets out from behind the posturing. Like Dr. Strangelove's arm...

Update: Oh yes...he has 'responded' to it. It was just a cute little alliteration. Get it? It's a PLAY ON WORDS! It didn't MEAN anything! We should all just "lighten up". Sillies!

Sigh.... so...Vote Mittler!!!!!!!! But remember I am only joking...it's just an alliteration, and means absolutely NOTHING! They are just "words", after all. Everyone knows words don't have any MEANING! Lighten UP!

Maybe I Just Like British Accents... Tony Benn on DEMOCRACY

I've always felt that "democracy" never gets its due for the radical idea it really is. While the far left denigrates it as not radical enough, the right has begun to completely change its definition - a much more serious crime (democracy = loyalty to elites...WTF?!?!?). Worse, the current administration talks of "bringing democracy" the same way the Spanish talked of "bringing Christianity" and the British et al talked of bringing "civilization". "Democracy" as a useful term is becoming almost completely debased. Anyway, my hero in the movie 'Sicko' (other than Michael Moore himself) was Tony Benn, a former British MP. In this documentary, he is essentially saying, just in more detail, exactly what he was touching on in Moore's film. Below is the first segment, and parts 2-5 can be found, in order, here, here, here, and here.



Enjoy.

21 July 2007

Why Are We Expected to "Respect" 'Faith', Again?

Found this little gem at LiveLeak (a place usually of soul crushing jingoism and disregard for humanity - seriously, read the comments section and you will lose your "faith", ironically enough, in mankind in two minutes or less. I do not jest). Don't know much about this guy (and he has many more that you should check out), his name is Pat Condell, but basically...just...as far as I'm concerned? What he said:



I mean, seriously...if someone told you they had faith that Santa Clause existed, would you "respect" that? Even feel like you should admire it? I may believe in the right of people to HAVE whatever opinions or beliefs they want, but I DO NOT have to "respect" those beliefs if I think they are batshit crazy.
The ultimate paradox of "tolerance" ideology - should you have to tolerate intolerance? I say no.

20 July 2007

Educate the Little Bastards!!! aka...I'm Coming Out of the Closet (not like that!). aka...Dengre Asks a Good Question. aka...What Motivates Me.


Dengre at Daily Kos, that website equivalent to the Klan or the Nazis according to Orally, recently asked a good question. As the bumper sticker says, "If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention". Dengre asked, what do you do with your anger?

Well, I posted a response to that, some or most of it re-posted here and edited, which I decided to turn into my coming out party for this blog. No...not that kind of coming out party...(not that there's anything wrong with it...)

In explaining what made me angry and what I 'did' with it, I realized I was starting to get to my raison d'etre - both in terms of what motivates me and what I do. My reason for existence, it seems anymore, is to fight 'conservative' talk radio and the neo-conservative ideology which I believe is literally destroying America. And I have a special bullseye set on (economic) libertarianism....more on that later. So, yeah, that's 'who' I am.... And what I 'do' with this obsession, beyond reading all night, 'blogging', posting messages on random websites' comments sections, etc. is teach. Ironically, they now seem to have become intertwined with each other. So here's a quick introduction to how this obsession became the bane of my existence and what I do about it (now are you getting the first title?).

And yes, I know...the neo-cons, con-radio/Fox bloviators, and Libertarians are, as we speak, quaking in their boots. Yeah...

Let me start with what will be a common thread on this site about what I think has gone 'wrong' in this country (not that I'm the first or only one to think of this stuff...but it's my obsession, so...what the hell?). I recently read this quote and it reminded me of how far we've come and who I hold responsible for it. I'll come back to this quote in subsequent posts, but here it is:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54


And here's how I remember us getting so far away from this...

I remember being angry at Reagan/Bush I. But I was still young. And debate in the country still seemed to make sense. Liberals and conservatives seemed to argue that the other was wrong for their positions on the issues, their philosophy, not for simply being liberals or conservatives. At least that's how I remembered it. Yeah, Jerry Falwell was lurking about, but no one of any substance seemed to take him seriously...

Well, conservatives changed all that with the rise of talk radio and Fox 'News'. I first noticed it in early 1993. Not two months into Clinton's first term I saw a bumper sticker that turned the 'C' in 'Clinton' into a soviet style hammer and sickle. I was so perplexed, then. I thought, what has he done to already piss people off? I didn't think these types of things appeared until a President had done something wrong. What I didn't realize then was that I was witnessing the beginning of the 'machine'. The Republican noise machine. Propaganda that would make Goebbels proud. Clinton hadn't done anything "wrong" (yet...). He just was. He was "liberal". He was a Democrat. THAT was what was "wrong"...

I knew something suspicious was going on - like a shadow on an x-ray...but I had no idea.

Then came Rush and the "Revolution". But I was largely out of the loop for awhile, happily listening to NPR and surrounding myself with intellectuals and fellow travelers. And ignoring all of this. Then came impeachment...and I became concerned that reason seemed to be taking a vacation.

A couple of years ago, NPR was doing their pledge drive and I was annoyed with it (and feeling pretty guilty...) so I thought, let me take a listen to this "right wing talk radio" that I hear so much about. So I tuned to AM. And almost drove off the road. They couldn't be serious? This was a parody of idiotic conservatives, right? NOBODY takes this seriously, right???!?!? Right...?

And that was when the anger really began. What happened to real debate in this country? Your policy versus mine, mano e mano?? Nope. Gone. Name calling and the most willfully ignorant "talking points" known to man, instead. I became hooked, in a weird, masochistic way.

Everyone tells me it's not good for me. That all that hate and anger will just fill up space in my brain and who has room for it? Besides, what about heartburn and high blood pressure? But I can't help it. I listen to it. And it's like listening to the slow destruction of the country, one breathless syllable at a time.

But I'll tell ya this much. Having listened to it, I always know EXACTLY what their next move is. What direction the debate will go. Why decent people and ideas will lose. People say nobody takes them seriously, that they're "fringe"... Not so. They were the first to harp on the "flip flopping" and the swiftboats and isn't that what it all came down to in the end in 2004?

The biggest mistake liberals can make is to surround themselves in a little progressive bubble where everyone is decent and kind and rational. It's like they sometimes forget how venal and crass and just plain evil people can be. And did I mention, ignorant? Yeah, that too.

And THAT brings me to the answer to the question. I don't end up just having to sit around seething. I have an outlet. I teach. (cue evil laughter here)

Having listened to the 'enemy' (and remember, as far as I'm concerned they are the 'enemy' - these are not Ike's "conservatives" and they are not participating in a debate - they are destroying the ability to debate) for a few years now, I can pick out the underlying ignorance which might make their arguments make sense to the unintelligent, uneducated, or simply not well taught. I find the lynchpin of their argument - which usually comes down to a profound lack of historical knowledge, or worse, historical misinformation - and here's how I get my 'revenge'.

I teach high school history. No power, you say?

I can pre-emptively unteach this stuff every day! I don't even have to be biased in my instruction, I've got history on my side. I can constantly undermine their position by making sure that I emphasize what it is that people don't know that makes them vulnerable to falling for right wing lies. Every day, I get to 'inoculate' 150 kids against arguments that can only survive in a historically illiterate environment.

Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Ok, ok...I know what you're saying - it's only 150 kids versus quite a few million watching Fox and listening to con-radio. Shut up! It FEELS good! At the end of the day, I can at least say, you don't get THESE kids! Not these ones! Not on MY watch!

They say the truth will set you free, but I like what Aldous Huxley said better, and it came to my mind after a class discussion of the Philippine Insurrection of 1899-1903-1913 when a student blurted out, "we gotta stop liberating people!!!!" Yes, the truth will make you mad....

So, that's what I do. AND I get paid for it! Ok, not much, but still... Yes, most of this post was somewhat tongue in cheek... I KNOW I'm not all-powerful... But impotent rage is really just not all it's cracked up to be. So...ya know...don't burst my bubble here. Yeah, I'm attempting to continue to believe that truth and education can defeat propaganda. Silly, I know.

Hopeless, maybe.

06 July 2007

To What Depths Will They Sink...? Wait! Don't Answer That!!


Does this even require any commentary from people with an IQ above, say, 65? Really, after those last two long-winded posts, I'll just let you off easy this time.
I mean, what is there to even say?
IF you have the stomach for it, you can watch the actual clip at Crooks and Liars. Seriously though, if you have high blood pressure, you may need to check with your doctor or get a pre-approval from your HMO before you read. Truly contemptable.

05 July 2007

The Post that Claims We're Probably Gonna Invade Iran So that When We Do, I Can Say "Told Ya So"...


Or at least bomb them. And If we don't, well, I could always delete it, now couldn't I? We bloggers have ALL the power.

So. Here's the danger: in the run-up to the Iraq war, many of us - rational, intelligent, moral - just could not believe that our government would go through with invading a country that obviously posed no threat to us. Surely it just could not happen. A lot of people marched. We didn't realize we all needed to, because most of us just thought, nah. He's not that crazy.
I distinctly remember when the Administration first began banging the drums. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that at the time, Bush claimed that he didn't even need to get the approval of Congress, let alone the U.N. Something to do with the "Tonkin Gulf Resolution II: the Sequel", or whatever the Bill was called, signed after 9-11, that gave Bush the blank check, I mean *cough*authorization*cough* to pursue the terrorists with military force anywhere in the world. Technically, the same law that had given him the right to invade Afghanistan, would give him the right to invade Iraq. All he had to do, was link it to 9-11...
Luckily for us, some people sorta had a problem with that, and so we got to have even more fun and experience the dog and pony show that was the transparent attempts to get this thing legalized by UN Security Council Resolutions, Weapons Inspections (did anybody else notice that Bush et al never seemed to be relieved whenever they heard the latest report of 'no weapons'...maybe it's just me, but you'd think if war were your last resort, you'd be relieved to find you didn't have to go to war, according to the inspectors...hmmm...), and, the most fun of all, Congressional Authorization debates right on the eve of Mid-Term elections! Boy, those were the days.
And I remember... part of me, the smart, confident, politically savvy and cynical part, was absolutely sure that this was all a facade...that the decision had already been made. I just knew. Last resort, my ass. But there was this one small doubt in the back of my mind - SURELY Bush wouldn't take such a chance with such a slim chance at vindication? What would he DO when the weapons weren't found? How could he survive that? It would be like some horrible replay of "One Tin Soldier"! Nah, maybe he's just bluffing. Maybe we won't invade. Oh, I was so naive then....
It was this one idea that kept me at first doubting that he would do it, and then, as it became apparent that it was a 'go', my belief that the weapons weren't there. I mean, maybe I was wrong about the weapons, maybe they really were there. I'm nobody, what do I know? Because, I thought, over and over, how could he survive it politically? What if a couple of hundred soldiers die? We would never forgive him!
Still... those were just doubts. Of course I did know he was gonna go. And I knew the weapons wouldn't be found. And I knew we wouldn't be greeted as liberators. And I knew there would likely be an insurgency. Unfortunately, none of this made me a sage. A halfway bright middle school geography student could have figured it out. And so I remember thinking, that as horrible as all this would be, at least it would expose him to the people once and for all as the fraud that he is, and great change would result. There would at least be a political awakening. Americans would rise up upon learning they were lied to by a stupid puppet. Sigh. Oh to be young again.
So...back to the danger. You remember the danger? Mentioned at the top of this post? Good.
The danger is that the idea of invading Iran is so absolutely ludicrous, that we rational, intelligent, moral people just can't believe he'd do it. I mean surely not! Everyone's just being paranoid! Where will they find troops? Besides, what if you're wrong and then you can't go back and edit your blog so the whole world knows you were wrong?! Sound familiar?
But you know as well as I do what all these recent Iran stories are doing in the Press. How Iran seems to have become a danger to the entire world overnight. Or at least to Israel. We need a missile shield! They're building NUKES! They want to "wipe Israel off the map"! They question the Holocaust! They are (and I have to stop to catch my breath from laughing at this one) violating the sovereignty of Iraq! And the most interesting one: they are behind attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. I'll come back to that momentarily...
And on top of it all, you've got the same media mindlessly repeating "Administration-Officials-report-stories" without any critical analysis, let alone fact checking. You even have one of the most notorious reporters who helped build the case for Iraq in the NYT being allowed to DO IT AGAIN! I do not jest! This is a must-read: Greg Mitchell at Editor and Publisher has this story on NYT reporter Michael Gordon, once again spoon feeding America the Administration's case for war, verbatim. You heard me right. The same Michael Gordon of Judith Miller and Michael Gordon fame. Does our entire country suffer from ADD? I mean, I know we aren't very good at history, but this is...five years ago! It's not really even history yet.
So, we sit here...we rational, intelligent, moral people...and we think...nah, he wouldn't dare.
And you just KNOW this is all BS again because, supposedly, our government is telling us, the Iranians are attacking our troops. If it wasn't BS then why the hell aren't we bombing them?!? I don't mean that jingoistically. I mean, if another country attacks our troops we are supposed to respond. Period. So why aren't we? Because the answer of course is that this is all propaganda meant to manufacture consent for a later war, to borrow Chomsky's phrase, rather than an immediate casus belli. But this particular charge is a casus belli. They accidently created a casus belli when all they were supposed to do was create the desire for war. Like HotPotatoMash so articulately pointed out recently about creating monsters that you cannot contain, this may be a story that the Administration will come to regret. If I were a right winger, I would be demanding a response to verified attacks on our troops. What SHOULD they think? In other words, creating the Iranian boogeyman with tales of possible nukes, threats to our buddies, etc. does not necessarily a case for war make. But it does "soften them up" in anticipation of war on their new enemy. But now they have claimed that Iran has actually attacked us (let's not forget that an attack on American soldiers is an attack on US). What kind of pansy ass President does not respond to attacks on his troops?!?!?! Now he HAS to attack Iran. Oops.
So we sit here, we rational, intelligent, moral people... And we think, nah. He wouldn't. Would he?
And THAT's the danger...
Oh...and the 'One Tin Soldier' link? Complain to me all you want, but it's 'One Tin Soldier'! You didn't expect cheeziness? In fact, I think it is the single cheeziest thing I have EVER seen. Sorry!

03 July 2007

The Obligatory 'Sicko' Post...






Well...


Maybe I'm not sufficiently cynical. I honestly believe Americans need to see movies like this and I think all the "intellectuals" out there who like to dismiss Moore's style, passion, emotional manipulation, whatever, don't get it. Yes, we 'smart people' already agree with him because we are so enlightened. Yes, some book can probably explain it with more economic, social, or political rigor. But c'mon, Moore is funny. Can we stop taking ourselves so seriously for just a couple of hours? Can we not be so cool that we forget that it's not necessarily "emotional manipulation" when the damn subject IS emotional? You wouldn't be so detached and academic if any of this stuff ever happened to you. I'm not saying that there is no place for dispassionate, objective articulation of the issue. I'm just saying that sometimes I am more annoyed at those who ostensibly agree with Moore's position, but like to appear too sophisticated for such populist mediums, than those who just outright disagree and think he's a commie. Oops, there I go again. Earnestness. Terrible, I know.

Anyway - to look at the film and the ongoing "debate" about it will be the subject of this post. And yes, I've made the mistake of reading some right wing commentary... so I'm a bit unbalanced right now...

Back to the ones who agree with Moore but want to appear to be oh-so-above it all. I think they forget that not everyone understands the issues like they do. You know, normal people. They might just need someone to give them a reason to give a damn. What is Moore supposed to do? A dissertation? I mean, yeah, Al Gore pulled it off...but he's a former VP, so we let him slide.

The ones who disagree with Moore - both those who just claim they don't like his documentary film "style" and those who openly disagree with his politics - bug me for a number of reasons.

First of all, they often claim that Moore doesn't take the other side of the arguments into account, when, at least in this film, even if they disagree with Moore's conclusions, they have to agree that he does. He did address the concerns over higher taxes, rationing and waits, doctor compensation, and all the horror stories that supposedly come out of countries with national healthcare systems. Ironically, they practice exactly what they accuse Moore of practicing to make their case for his supposedly "sloppy" or "biased" documentary journalism: the sin of ommission.

They also seem stuck on the idea that a "documentary" can be only one thing: that monotoned science film about photosynthesis that they saw in the 7th grade. How DARE a political documentary have a point of view! If I hear one more accusation of "bias" I will need a doctor myself. Repeat after me: you can make a documentary that holds a particular interpretation or viewpoint. Good. I knew ya could. Let's move on.

What's hilarious, is that they'll claim that Moore should not be trusted with this information (when even mainstream CNN found it pretty fact-check proof), because of his alleged socialist/big government/liberal 'bias', and then turn right around, sometimes in the same paragraph (I'm looking at you Kurt Loder!), and use the argument of an avowed Libertarian (free market bias much?) or industry group to make their "case" refuting Moore, as if their sources are unasailable! Fair? Logical? Who cares!

It's obvious that these attacks on his 'style' are attempts to distract from the fact that they usually have very little to attack him on his substance. Certainly not his overall arguments. And they know that the substance does resonate with the very people they claim to represent - so the con-radio types (always attempting to portray themselves as 'populists') can't risk appearing as if they are against "the people". Instead, they pretend to be upset simply over his "dishonesty", as they're only concerned with "truth", don't ya know.

But what really gets me is the attack on the messenger. Not the obvious attacks, e.g. Al Gore's a hypocrite, Michael Moore is...fat...or something...ad nauseum. No, it is the implication that they are the only ones making the argument! As if Al Gore isn't reporting the work of scientists around the world. Global Warming will just go away if Al Gore does. As if Michael Moore is the only loon talking about the problems in the U.S. system and the case for national healthcare. Their strategy seems to be that if they can only destroy that stupid (America-hating, liberal, traitorous, etc.) Michael Moore, then they win the whole healthcare debate. Well, is former British MP Tony Benn just "stupid"? Was Tommy Douglas "stupid"? Are almost all Europeans and Canadians just "stupid"? That's why, in my opinion, what I felt Moore did a particularly good job at, WAS to let other people make the case for him.

The single most important scenes in the whole film, in my mind, were the ones with Tony Benn explaining what true democracy is - turning how libertarians and free market ideologues view "freedom" completely on its head, and the one with the gentlemen from Canada in the golf cart - who himself was a "conservative", yet who didn't question for an instant why all members of a society should be willing to help their fellow citizens - turning American style conservative dogma (which has simply degenerated into a Darwinian 'every man for himself' excuse for selfishness) on its head.

Which brings me to the end (and you thought I'd never stop). This is an important film, not just for the obvious message that at this point only a true fool would be opposed to (the mental gymnastics one has to perform to be opposed to nationalized healthcare - unless you are among the top 5% economically - are truly mind boggling, at this point), but because Moore is making a much larger statement about what society and democracy and quality of life is really all about. What human dignity is. The detractors think they can just compete with the case for nationalized healthcare by telling stories about people in Canada or Belgium or wherever having to wait 16 months for a hip replacement, all while paying the dreaded higher taxes for what they liken to charity, welfare, "entitlement". The "competing horror stories" model, and the "it's too expensive" model. In the end, though, that's not what the argument is about. All systems have flaws. They are just details. Flaws can be fixed. A system like this is expensive, yes. The real issue is: what is the underlying value that the system is based on?

It reminds me of how slave owners used to argue in defense of slavery in the 1850's that their slaves were treated better than the "wage slaves" in the factories up north, thus their system was better. Probably in a few rare cases that may have even been true. Both sides could have argued this using anecdotal stories and competing economic points til the cows came home. But no amount of arguing over details could make slavery a better system. And not just because the northerners could eventually provide more horror stories coming out of slavery than the southerners could find in the factories. No. It was the value that underlay the system of free labor (even with all of its pre-New Deal flaws ), which was just simply morally superior to that which underlay the system of slavery. A moral no-brainer.

In the healthcare debate, we have two competing systems, which reflect two competing values. Both ration healthcare. One rations based on what a person can individually afford and what markets and corporate profit margins will allow, the other rations based on what the entire society, pooling its resouces and deciding through the democratic process, can afford. One literally lets profit motive and social class determine the value of human life, the other maintains that when it comes to healthcare, as with justice and education, and even though it is expensive, all should have equal human value. In the end, one says every man for himself, the other says one for all and all for one. It should also be a moral no-brainer. And that's "too bad", as Bono would say, "because it's not about charity, it's about justice." Because you can't have justice without equality. And what the detractors are really against in this debate, is equality.

Oh, and one other thing: move.
To FRANCE!
Just trust me on this one.