Wednesday, November 07, 2012
The Fall of Mittens
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Are you better off?
Maybe these stupid say-nothing cowardly dems can't say it, but I can:
YES. I am better off today than I was four years ago.
--Four years ago, I was being denied a car loan, despite my high credit score, little knowing that within a few days the markets would crash and we'd teeter on the brink of another Great Depression.
--Three years ago, I was trying to find a job in a California where unemployment was over 13 percent; I couldn't stay out there and had to move back from the land of dreams I always thought California would be.
--Today, I'm working for a company that's hiring and that's paying people good wages and providing great benefits. I'm working hard, but I'm making more than I've ever made.
--Today, I'm better off -- and feeling better now about life -- than I was back when we were all still reeling from eight years of Chimpy's dick-tater-shit.
Things aren't perfect, but when I think about the possibility of seeing Roe v. Wade overturned, seeing my chances of marrying my partner disappear, and watching a new theocracy take over and likely follow Israel into war against Iran and anyone else brown and muslim, I know that even if I were swallowing sand in the desert and Romney offered me a glass of water (which would, given who he is, be a glass of piss), I'd STILL vote for Obama over Romney.
What about you?
YES. I am better off today than I was four years ago.
--Four years ago, I was being denied a car loan, despite my high credit score, little knowing that within a few days the markets would crash and we'd teeter on the brink of another Great Depression.
--Three years ago, I was trying to find a job in a California where unemployment was over 13 percent; I couldn't stay out there and had to move back from the land of dreams I always thought California would be.
--Today, I'm working for a company that's hiring and that's paying people good wages and providing great benefits. I'm working hard, but I'm making more than I've ever made.
--Today, I'm better off -- and feeling better now about life -- than I was back when we were all still reeling from eight years of Chimpy's dick-tater-shit.
Things aren't perfect, but when I think about the possibility of seeing Roe v. Wade overturned, seeing my chances of marrying my partner disappear, and watching a new theocracy take over and likely follow Israel into war against Iran and anyone else brown and muslim, I know that even if I were swallowing sand in the desert and Romney offered me a glass of water (which would, given who he is, be a glass of piss), I'd STILL vote for Obama over Romney.
What about you?
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Contrast: Michelle Obama vs Ann Romney
Half-watching the DNC
One of the biggest differences I've noticed between the dems' convention and the repubs' convention is that the speakers tonight have been talking about President Obama, not themselves.
One of the biggest differences between this year's dem convention and past ones is that these dems aren't afraid to say President Obama is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-women, and pro-gressive. It's about time.
No speeches to empty chairs by crazy old guys who used to be cool.
No self-centered assholes spending three-quarters of their time talking about themselves.
No strings of outright lies.
I may not be an ardent Obama supporter, but I'd support just about ANY democrat over Romney and Ryan. I don't want drone wars, or any wars. But I REALLY don't want to see the end of reproductive rights, the continuation of the war-theocracy state that Bush II started, a renewed campaign of tax cuts for the super-wealthy, or an affirmation of the racist and classist hatred of the 99% that Romney/Ryan espouse.
One of the biggest differences between this year's dem convention and past ones is that these dems aren't afraid to say President Obama is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-women, and pro-gressive. It's about time.
No speeches to empty chairs by crazy old guys who used to be cool.
No self-centered assholes spending three-quarters of their time talking about themselves.
No strings of outright lies.
I may not be an ardent Obama supporter, but I'd support just about ANY democrat over Romney and Ryan. I don't want drone wars, or any wars. But I REALLY don't want to see the end of reproductive rights, the continuation of the war-theocracy state that Bush II started, a renewed campaign of tax cuts for the super-wealthy, or an affirmation of the racist and classist hatred of the 99% that Romney/Ryan espouse.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
New lows
Is there anything these crazy wingnuts won't do? No low they won't stoop to?
Apparently not.
First, Mittens has pretty much flat-out refused to release his tax returns, as is the custom when a person is running for public office. Whether or not he's done anything on them that will bite him in the ass is, to my mind, irrelevant. The plain truth is that the guy doesn't think he HAS to release them. He's arrogant enough to believe that he doesn't play by the same rules other people do, even those in that rarified air of presidential politics. But hey, I'm sure that arrogance will serve him well if he's elected (read: appointed) president and he's responsible for helping the 99% he claims so unconvincingly to give a shit about.
Second, Crazy-eyes Jr. Michelle Bachmann (Laura will always be Crazy-eyes Sr.) has been channeling McCarthy and claiming Huma Abedin is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and is thus affecting US foreign policy for the terr-ists. Her bat-shit crazy accusations are completely unsubstantiated and will likely ruffle plenty of feathers in the Middle East as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to push for peace and democracy in Egypt and Israel. I'm sure they're really jazzed about being accused of having a mole in the US government.
Finally, the irrelevant Donald Trump is making a mountain of the molehill of President Obama's college transcripts, demanding the White House release said documents and that, if they don't, then it's obviously a cover-up. Why? To distract from the Romney tax returns, for one, and to highlight the fact that these repug jackasses obviously don't believe a black man could've done all that President Obama did -- graduated from Harvard with an MBA, been the head of the Harvard Law Review, etc. Typical racially motivated bullshit, meant to distract and discredit -- tactics they wouldn't employ against a white president, I'm sure.
Apparently not.
First, Mittens has pretty much flat-out refused to release his tax returns, as is the custom when a person is running for public office. Whether or not he's done anything on them that will bite him in the ass is, to my mind, irrelevant. The plain truth is that the guy doesn't think he HAS to release them. He's arrogant enough to believe that he doesn't play by the same rules other people do, even those in that rarified air of presidential politics. But hey, I'm sure that arrogance will serve him well if he's elected (read: appointed) president and he's responsible for helping the 99% he claims so unconvincingly to give a shit about.
Second, Crazy-eyes Jr. Michelle Bachmann (Laura will always be Crazy-eyes Sr.) has been channeling McCarthy and claiming Huma Abedin is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and is thus affecting US foreign policy for the terr-ists. Her bat-shit crazy accusations are completely unsubstantiated and will likely ruffle plenty of feathers in the Middle East as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to push for peace and democracy in Egypt and Israel. I'm sure they're really jazzed about being accused of having a mole in the US government.
Finally, the irrelevant Donald Trump is making a mountain of the molehill of President Obama's college transcripts, demanding the White House release said documents and that, if they don't, then it's obviously a cover-up. Why? To distract from the Romney tax returns, for one, and to highlight the fact that these repug jackasses obviously don't believe a black man could've done all that President Obama did -- graduated from Harvard with an MBA, been the head of the Harvard Law Review, etc. Typical racially motivated bullshit, meant to distract and discredit -- tactics they wouldn't employ against a white president, I'm sure.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Let's go for 34!
As you probably already know, the repubs in the House of "Representatives" tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act AGAIN yesterday -- for the (depending on whom you believe; it varied by news source) perhaps 33rd time yesterday. They were, as they had been the last 30-odd times, unsuccessful, despite their blustering about how it's what Amurkans want, and how it's unconstitutional, and every other lie they could think of.They spent three hours "debating" (read: lying) about the ACA, but in the end they didn't get the votes. AGAIN. Again and again and again.
Meanwhile, what else COULD they have done in those three hours?
I heard someone on a lefty talkshow interviewing a senator from Vermont, where they're doing the ACA one better, going for single-payer at the state level and other such progressive (and smart) ideas. The interviewer asked about places like Texas, where pRick Erry is already saying Texas will opt out of the ACA. The interviewer added that it will likely cost Texas MORE to opt out than it will to just participate in the federal program. Such logic has never stopped Perry from making stupid-ass decisions before, though, so Texans will get screwed because they were naive and stupid enough to elect that moron.
Then I started to think about all the old talk about "Texas Secede!" (that was a popular bumpersticker when I was a kid in Texas) and the times Perry has brought up secession. I wonder if it would ever really happen, and not just for Texas but for other states stuck with morons for governors. Think back to pre-Civil War America, with some states deciding they needed to break off from the union. Would that ever happen again?
Imagine a U.S. divided into sane states and teabag states, where red states all join together, with liberty, insanity, and injustice for all those dirty illegals; and blue states could just join together and continue as the United States of America. And if I found myself living in a red teabag moron state, what would it take for me to move? (besides fear for my life)
Could it happen? I almost wish it would, so the teabaggers would just get the hell out and stop fucking everything up. We'd elect Jed Bartlett president, and everything would be awesome.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
A win is a win - for now
Somehow, some way, President Obama got a huge win today when the Supremes upheld his health care act and the individual mandate, which survived as a "tax," per Chief Justice John Roberts. This language, of course, gave the republicans all the ammunition they needed to launch their renewed war against the law.
Mere hours after the announcement, I heard a republican on Thom Hartmann's radio show (thank you, satellite radio!) state that they've already set a date -- July 11, he swore -- to repeal the law, "because that's what the American people want."
Funny, the American people I know actually LIKE this health care law. My parents are thrilled that they're not having to pay through the nose for their prescriptions anymore. A friend told me she'd heard about all the new provisions for women's healthcare that will go into effect -- pregnancy will no longer be a pre-existing condition that insurance companies don't have to cover, and insurance companies will no longer be allowed to charge women and men different rates for the same coverage (hint: some of us -- the ones with vaginas -- were paying more for the exact same shit), among other changes. Another friend, who's never actually held a job that provided health benefits, was practically jumping for joy, thinking that maybe now she can finally afford to get regular health care.
Yeah, Americans really hate it when we can go to the doctor when we're sick and not have to put up our left arms for collateral.
Assuming the health care survives this threatened repeal vote, we'll also have to hope President Obama is reelected, as RobotMittens has threatened to repeal the law on his first day in office should he become president.
Glad to know he's got his priorities straight -- that old job-creator. He's just so focused.
Mere hours after the announcement, I heard a republican on Thom Hartmann's radio show (thank you, satellite radio!) state that they've already set a date -- July 11, he swore -- to repeal the law, "because that's what the American people want."
Funny, the American people I know actually LIKE this health care law. My parents are thrilled that they're not having to pay through the nose for their prescriptions anymore. A friend told me she'd heard about all the new provisions for women's healthcare that will go into effect -- pregnancy will no longer be a pre-existing condition that insurance companies don't have to cover, and insurance companies will no longer be allowed to charge women and men different rates for the same coverage (hint: some of us -- the ones with vaginas -- were paying more for the exact same shit), among other changes. Another friend, who's never actually held a job that provided health benefits, was practically jumping for joy, thinking that maybe now she can finally afford to get regular health care.
Yeah, Americans really hate it when we can go to the doctor when we're sick and not have to put up our left arms for collateral.
Assuming the health care survives this threatened repeal vote, we'll also have to hope President Obama is reelected, as RobotMittens has threatened to repeal the law on his first day in office should he become president.
Glad to know he's got his priorities straight -- that old job-creator. He's just so focused.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Pick-a-mix: Repug VP candidate shuffle!
It's getting close -- we'll be voting in the presidential election in less than six months! It's almost time for Mittens to make the biggest choice of his life: his veep! The guy who will run alongside him, serve as his attack dog, stand there and look interested during speeches, and pretty much do the dirty work.
Let's scope out the contenders for our little Mittens:
1. The hispanic angle: ¡Si Si Señor! Pick Marco "but my feelings aren't hurt!"Rubio and dozens of clueless hispanic republicans (you'd have to be clueless to be hispanic and vote republican) will vote for you, Mitéo! Sure, tiene sólo diez años, but you could use a little youth on the ticket! And he's definitely a little youth! (Badabing! I'm here all week!)
2. Plenty of Pawlenty! Yes, Tim Pawlenty is actually still alive and some people think he could bring Mitt a vote or three. Admittedly, he's about as exciting as, well, cottage cheese, but when you're a robot, do you really want a flashy (read: human) running mate? Or do you just want someone who looks okay in a suit? Actually, now that I look at his official photo, I'm not that sure he isn't a robot too. It does compute!
3. Rob Portman -- um, isn't he the hitman Whitney Houston's sister hires in The Bodyguard? Do you really want a felon as your running mate? If so, hell -- you might as well get the undead Dick Cheney and go all in, Mittens.
4. Chris Christie: Full-on Buffet to the White House! This guy is the certainly the biggest candidate, but would he even help Mittens win New Jersey? He didn't even have the energy to run for president, despite the republican money machine begging him to.
Pluses and minuses on all these guys. What to do, what to do?
I know: Let's look at some female potentials; after all, that really worked for Gramps McCain last time!
1. Going Rogue! Last time I checked, Sarah Palin hadn't been on TV for a
whole five minutes; she's obviously got nothing else going on. Besides,
it's not like she'd say no; once a media whore, always a media whore.
(I think Voltaire said that, no?)
2. No one could have predicted! A piano-playing, educated, experienced African-American woman on the ticket! Get outta here! No effing way!
No, seriously. No effing way. This would never happen.
Sad thing is, much as I can't stand Condi, she'd probably win him more votes than any of these other clowns. She actually has experience, credentials,a gravitas these other wannabes don't even know how to pretend to have.
Which is one of the many reasons Mitt would never even think of her.
Let's scope out the contenders for our little Mittens:
1. The hispanic angle: ¡Si Si Señor! Pick Marco "but my feelings aren't hurt!"Rubio and dozens of clueless hispanic republicans (you'd have to be clueless to be hispanic and vote republican) will vote for you, Mitéo! Sure, tiene sólo diez años, but you could use a little youth on the ticket! And he's definitely a little youth! (Badabing! I'm here all week!)
3. Rob Portman -- um, isn't he the hitman Whitney Houston's sister hires in The Bodyguard? Do you really want a felon as your running mate? If so, hell -- you might as well get the undead Dick Cheney and go all in, Mittens.
4. Chris Christie: Full-on Buffet to the White House! This guy is the certainly the biggest candidate, but would he even help Mittens win New Jersey? He didn't even have the energy to run for president, despite the republican money machine begging him to.
Pluses and minuses on all these guys. What to do, what to do?
I know: Let's look at some female potentials; after all, that really worked for Gramps McCain last time!
No, seriously. No effing way. This would never happen.
Sad thing is, much as I can't stand Condi, she'd probably win him more votes than any of these other clowns. She actually has experience, credentials,a gravitas these other wannabes don't even know how to pretend to have.
Which is one of the many reasons Mitt would never even think of her.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
in a nutshell
Whenever I get annoyed with someone -- workmates, bosses, teachers, students, friends, whoever -- I play a little mental game with myself; I call it "in a nutshell." It's pretty much what it sounds like, the "in a nutshell" explanation that encapsulates something in a short phrase or sentence. In my case, I use a short phrase or sentence to encapsulate someone's personality or qualities.
A simple example: I once had a boss who would tell me to do one thing and then, later, she'd ask me why the hell I'd done whatever it was she'd told me to. This happened on an almost daily basis. When I'd say, "I did it because you told me to," she would reply, "obviously, you misunderstood." So her "in a nutshell" was "Obviously, you misunderstood." That pretty much summed her stupid ass up. Oh, OBVIOUSLY it was my fault that despite my perfectly good ears, educated brain, and more than adequate qualifications for the job I was doing, I am the one who misunderstood her, rather than her forgetting what the hell she was talking about. I took to emailing her for instructions so that I could capture her shit in writing. She still claimed I misunderstood.
So ... the game is simple, but it helps me keep my mouth closed when someone really pisses me off -- in work situations especially, when one must often keep one's mouth shut when one is confronted by a stupid boss or coworker, lest one get fired for screaming "ARE YOU A FUCKING IDIOT?" at them. In short, the game amuses me and makes it possible to go on living. I used to keep a little notebook of in-a-nutshells at my old job. I found the notebook the other night and was cackling for hours, to the confusion of AB.
Anyway, I've recently added an entry for Mittens:
"I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Pretty much sums up everything that's Mittens is about, doesn't it? He's not going to worry about what his supporters say or do; he's not going to worry about the facts or anything else. He could pretty much be saying his in-a-nutshell in response to any question, which is why it is so perfect. The guy has no moral center; there's no issue or past statement he won't completely kick to the curb if he thinks he'll get more votes for it.
For example, let's just plug it into some imaginary but quite plausible media questions:
Reporter: "Governor Romney, are you concerned about Iran's getting nuclear capability anytime soon?"
Mittens: "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Because what he'll do about defense or tensions in the Middle East are irrelevant to Mittens; he simply will do ANYTHING to get elected, and his statement pretty much proves it. If he'll go to bed with Trump -- a delusional reality-tv star and the symbol for everything that is wrong with real estate speculation and capitalism -- for a few bucks and some headlines, he'll go to bed with anyone for a few bucks and some headlines.
Reporter: What's on the agenda today, sir?
Mittens: "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Because as I type this, Mittens is whoring himself to Trump and his fellow rich freaks in Vegas. Need I say more?
Reporter: Governor, you've been known to change positions on several important issues: a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, government-run healthcare, even whether you're really a hunter. What are your true and heartfelt views on these issues?
Mittens: "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Again, it fits. The guy will say or do whatever he thinks he needs to in order to get elected. Has anyone ever wanted anything more? Like a kid who wants so badly to be popular in school that he'll buy other kids' lunches, do others' homework, or whatever. You know the type.
What Mittens doesn't understand is that when you completely hollow yourself out in order to be everyman for everyone, you end up losing everything. Look at McCain. The guy used to have some principles; he used to be a true maverick. He finally sniffed the chance - the tiniest chance! - that he might be president, and he sold out on everything and everybody he every believed in. The guy let his handlers put Palin on the ticket with him, for god's sake. How low can anyone go?
So Romney can claim all he wants about understanding everyday Americans, but one look at the people he's using to get votes -- Ted Nugent, Donald Trump, anyone on Faux Nooz -- tells you that this guy is about one thing: "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Heaven help us if he does.
A simple example: I once had a boss who would tell me to do one thing and then, later, she'd ask me why the hell I'd done whatever it was she'd told me to. This happened on an almost daily basis. When I'd say, "I did it because you told me to," she would reply, "obviously, you misunderstood." So her "in a nutshell" was "Obviously, you misunderstood." That pretty much summed her stupid ass up. Oh, OBVIOUSLY it was my fault that despite my perfectly good ears, educated brain, and more than adequate qualifications for the job I was doing, I am the one who misunderstood her, rather than her forgetting what the hell she was talking about. I took to emailing her for instructions so that I could capture her shit in writing. She still claimed I misunderstood.
So ... the game is simple, but it helps me keep my mouth closed when someone really pisses me off -- in work situations especially, when one must often keep one's mouth shut when one is confronted by a stupid boss or coworker, lest one get fired for screaming "ARE YOU A FUCKING IDIOT?" at them. In short, the game amuses me and makes it possible to go on living. I used to keep a little notebook of in-a-nutshells at my old job. I found the notebook the other night and was cackling for hours, to the confusion of AB.
Anyway, I've recently added an entry for Mittens:
"I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Pretty much sums up everything that's Mittens is about, doesn't it? He's not going to worry about what his supporters say or do; he's not going to worry about the facts or anything else. He could pretty much be saying his in-a-nutshell in response to any question, which is why it is so perfect. The guy has no moral center; there's no issue or past statement he won't completely kick to the curb if he thinks he'll get more votes for it.
For example, let's just plug it into some imaginary but quite plausible media questions:
Reporter: "Governor Romney, are you concerned about Iran's getting nuclear capability anytime soon?"
Mittens: "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Because what he'll do about defense or tensions in the Middle East are irrelevant to Mittens; he simply will do ANYTHING to get elected, and his statement pretty much proves it. If he'll go to bed with Trump -- a delusional reality-tv star and the symbol for everything that is wrong with real estate speculation and capitalism -- for a few bucks and some headlines, he'll go to bed with anyone for a few bucks and some headlines.
Reporter: What's on the agenda today, sir?
Mittens: "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Because as I type this, Mittens is whoring himself to Trump and his fellow rich freaks in Vegas. Need I say more?
Reporter: Governor, you've been known to change positions on several important issues: a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, government-run healthcare, even whether you're really a hunter. What are your true and heartfelt views on these issues?
Mittens: "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Again, it fits. The guy will say or do whatever he thinks he needs to in order to get elected. Has anyone ever wanted anything more? Like a kid who wants so badly to be popular in school that he'll buy other kids' lunches, do others' homework, or whatever. You know the type.
What Mittens doesn't understand is that when you completely hollow yourself out in order to be everyman for everyone, you end up losing everything. Look at McCain. The guy used to have some principles; he used to be a true maverick. He finally sniffed the chance - the tiniest chance! - that he might be president, and he sold out on everything and everybody he every believed in. The guy let his handlers put Palin on the ticket with him, for god's sake. How low can anyone go?
So Romney can claim all he wants about understanding everyday Americans, but one look at the people he's using to get votes -- Ted Nugent, Donald Trump, anyone on Faux Nooz -- tells you that this guy is about one thing: "I need to get 50.1 percent or more."
Heaven help us if he does.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Oscar special!
Have you seen The Artist? Has anyone you know seen it? I can't find anyone who's seen the damned thing.
What the hell is so great about a silent movie that looks like every silent movie from the pre-talkies age?
Overemphatic gesturing and soundless mouthing of words, all set to music and filmed in black-and-white? In 2012? I'm not all into 3D and crazy special effects, but REALLY? A silent black-and-white movie is the best movie of 2012?
I don't get it.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, February 04, 2012
"Of course" moments
When reading the news, I often have "of course" moments, where my suspicions or misgivings or fears are confirmed, the worst turns out to happen or to be true, and I just say, "of course." The latest moments:
1. pRick Santorum insults gays YET AGAIN by saying that only straight marriages benefit society and are "an intrinsic good." OF COURSE. I knew it had been too long since this asshole spewed his hate. This is, after all, the guy who compared gay marriage to incest. I was so happy when he lost his Senate seat and his little family cried and cried and I laughed and laughed.
2. Former Chimpy crony Ari Fleischer has been helping the Susan G Komen foundation out, and then OF COURSE, SGK cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood. So what looked like a charity to help women ends up bowing to reich-wingers and anti-choice assholes.
3. Unemployment is down YET AGAIN, but repugs keep saying the economy sucks and don't believe what your eyes are seeing! OF COURSE, if Newtie (Nudie?) were in charge, all these stats would be dead on and unimpeachable FACT!
1. pRick Santorum insults gays YET AGAIN by saying that only straight marriages benefit society and are "an intrinsic good." OF COURSE. I knew it had been too long since this asshole spewed his hate. This is, after all, the guy who compared gay marriage to incest. I was so happy when he lost his Senate seat and his little family cried and cried and I laughed and laughed.
2. Former Chimpy crony Ari Fleischer has been helping the Susan G Komen foundation out, and then OF COURSE, SGK cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood. So what looked like a charity to help women ends up bowing to reich-wingers and anti-choice assholes.
3. Unemployment is down YET AGAIN, but repugs keep saying the economy sucks and don't believe what your eyes are seeing! OF COURSE, if Newtie (Nudie?) were in charge, all these stats would be dead on and unimpeachable FACT!
Friday, December 30, 2011
Court okays Bush's telecom spying
So a federal appeals court has upheld immunity for the telecoms -- among them, AT&T and Verizon -- that helped the Bush administration spy on U.S. citizens without a warrant.
I guess it's still true what Nixon said: "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal."
Which, I guess, excuses Obama's administration too, right? After all, no one seems in any hurry to bring charges of murder for the civilians killed by our drone strikes in Pakistan; just like no one prosecuted Darth Cheney and Chimpy for the Iraqi civilians killed in that debacle.
I know I'll sleep better at night knowing that what Nixon (of all people) said is still true today.
Monday, December 19, 2011
It's a party! It's a lark!
Come on along, kids! It's not too
late to whore for more publicity!
late to whore for more publicity!
Hey, it's "still not too late for folks to jump in" to the presidential race, according to Mooselini Failin'.
It's staggering to see the flippancy with which she regards the office of the presidency of the United States -- as though it's a club or a field trip.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
It's final: I'm writing in Kucinich
Whether it's ordering drone attacks all over the Middle East and Pakistan and killing indiscriminately, or sending death squads to kill bin Laden, or keeping an attorney general who's possibly been caught perjuring himself in front of Congress -- Obama is doing nothing to earn my vote.
I realize that he's had to fight an uphill battle to do anything to help the economy or any of us 99%ers, thanks to a determined repug strategy to defeat pretty much every little thing Obama wants to do. They just want to make him look bad and keep the power in their own hands; I understand that.
But he's doing plenty all on his own to make me feel like maybe we SHOULD let a repug take over. This whole troop withdrawal thing is nothing but smoke and mirrors; he'll pull the fighting men and women out and send in the "advisors" and the "trainers" and every other contractor who wants to earn mad money for risking life and limb and blowing away a few random Iraqis. There's no way the Pentagon lets go of their little toys in the Middle East.
God knows the repugs are not going to do any better, as they have no ideas and no consideration for anyone but themselves. Still, it's hard to see how things could get much worse, as I commented on I Can't Believe It's Not a Democracy after reading GMB's comment about letting the repugs take this shit over for a while and see how they like it.
This idea intrigued me; think how little Mittens or (oh gees) Herman Cain (as if) could do to right this ship. It couldn't be any worse than the little that Obama's done, thanks to the repugs blocking his every move, could it?
So while I had been thinking that I would have to hold my nose and vote Obama, I'm starting to wonder if maybe I should just write in Kucinich (aka "waste" my vote) and be done with it.
I realize that he's had to fight an uphill battle to do anything to help the economy or any of us 99%ers, thanks to a determined repug strategy to defeat pretty much every little thing Obama wants to do. They just want to make him look bad and keep the power in their own hands; I understand that.
But he's doing plenty all on his own to make me feel like maybe we SHOULD let a repug take over. This whole troop withdrawal thing is nothing but smoke and mirrors; he'll pull the fighting men and women out and send in the "advisors" and the "trainers" and every other contractor who wants to earn mad money for risking life and limb and blowing away a few random Iraqis. There's no way the Pentagon lets go of their little toys in the Middle East.
God knows the repugs are not going to do any better, as they have no ideas and no consideration for anyone but themselves. Still, it's hard to see how things could get much worse, as I commented on I Can't Believe It's Not a Democracy after reading GMB's comment about letting the repugs take this shit over for a while and see how they like it.
This idea intrigued me; think how little Mittens or (oh gees) Herman Cain (as if) could do to right this ship. It couldn't be any worse than the little that Obama's done, thanks to the repugs blocking his every move, could it?
So while I had been thinking that I would have to hold my nose and vote Obama, I'm starting to wonder if maybe I should just write in Kucinich (aka "waste" my vote) and be done with it.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The ecstacy and the agony
With apologies to Irving Stone. But not to Charleton Heston, because he's a dick.
Though it's not a recent film, I only just watched Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do; it's a sharp and insightful piece, and it reminded me of the beginnings of the financial crisis and how perfectly executed was the complete sellout of the American people by our government, leading up to the bailout in the waning days of Chimpy's administration. In light of what's happening now with the Occupy movement, this film is more relevant than ever.
Still, there's one section--on the uprising of the people that led to Obama's victory--that stirred memories of one of the happiest nights of my life, as well as brought up a bitter reflux of betrayal. Moore chronicled the almost complete buyout of Congress and the administration by Goldman-Sachs execs (Paulsen, Geithner), senators who got loans from Countrywide (Dodd) before they crashed and burned, the fear-mongering that forced the passing of the TARP bailout -- but a lot of those people stayed in Obama's cabinet. Obama, whose top campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs, ended up being their bitch -- the very thing we elected him NOT to do. I watched the joy on people's faces as they watched Obama's rise, and I remembered the many many many times Obama has furthered the Bush-Cheney administration's many corrupt aims.
As I said, Moore didn't spend too much time on Obama; at the time Moore was making the movie (2007-2008, released in 2009), Obama was just starting to gain traction as a man for change, a man who was http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giffor the people -- in short, a http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifsocialist. I was glad Moore didn't spend much time making Obama into the savior of the people, or he would've had to make a whole other movie just to eat his words.
Watch this movie sometime; it'll remind you of just how corrupt most of Washington is and how it got that way.
P.S.--the movie also brings up the subject of companies purchasing life insurance policies on their employees and how they profit when those employees die. Check to see if your employer is on this list. Gotta tell you that I breathed a sigh of relief that my current employer isn't on the list.
Though it's not a recent film, I only just watched Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story. If you haven't seen it, I suggest you do; it's a sharp and insightful piece, and it reminded me of the beginnings of the financial crisis and how perfectly executed was the complete sellout of the American people by our government, leading up to the bailout in the waning days of Chimpy's administration. In light of what's happening now with the Occupy movement, this film is more relevant than ever.Still, there's one section--on the uprising of the people that led to Obama's victory--that stirred memories of one of the happiest nights of my life, as well as brought up a bitter reflux of betrayal. Moore chronicled the almost complete buyout of Congress and the administration by Goldman-Sachs execs (Paulsen, Geithner), senators who got loans from Countrywide (Dodd) before they crashed and burned, the fear-mongering that forced the passing of the TARP bailout -- but a lot of those people stayed in Obama's cabinet. Obama, whose top campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs, ended up being their bitch -- the very thing we elected him NOT to do. I watched the joy on people's faces as they watched Obama's rise, and I remembered the many many many times Obama has furthered the Bush-Cheney administration's many corrupt aims.
As I said, Moore didn't spend too much time on Obama; at the time Moore was making the movie (2007-2008, released in 2009), Obama was just starting to gain traction as a man for change, a man who was http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.giffor the people -- in short, a http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifsocialist. I was glad Moore didn't spend much time making Obama into the savior of the people, or he would've had to make a whole other movie just to eat his words.
Watch this movie sometime; it'll remind you of just how corrupt most of Washington is and how it got that way.
P.S.--the movie also brings up the subject of companies purchasing life insurance policies on their employees and how they profit when those employees die. Check to see if your employer is on this list. Gotta tell you that I breathed a sigh of relief that my current employer isn't on the list.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Must-see TV
Wilderness: “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” - The 1964 Wilderness ActI just watched a program on our WPSU World station (a super-PBS station which rocks) called "Wilderness: The Great Debate." You can watch the entire video here. A point-counterpoint between everyone from Utah politicians to Robert Redford, the film documents the growing debate between environmentalists who want to preserve American wilderness as wilderness, and those whose main concerns appeared to be jobs, energy, and personal "rights." The emphasis was on the Colorado Plateau of the American West, mainly southern Utah's many wild areas.
Here's a nice summary from Utah's KUED, the creator of the film:
The core of the debate is reflected in the film’s open. “Is the West going to be reduced to just photos and films to show young people how it used to be, or are there going to be places where they can go and see the way it used to be, like wilderness and like national parks?” Redford asks. On the other hand, Mark Habbeshaw- Kane County Commissioner, says, “This is a war for rural people, for state and local sovereignty, to protect what little sovereignty we have left as a rural people; to protect our traditions, our culture[,] our ability to manage our lives with a diversified economy.”It's an interesting film, and it gave me insight into the teabagger types with their "don't tread on me" flags, whining about how government is trying to take away their land and their rights by daring to attempt to preserve our beautiful natural places from their ATVs, their cattle, their oil rigs, and their development.
Of course you know I was yelling at the oil and coal industry types, the ranchers, the "rural people" who are "puttin' protein back into the economy and feedin' people, puttin' out bales o' hay, and takin' care o' God's creation" (also known as overgrazing, corporate-controlled ranching and farming, and CAFOs). But after it was all over, I decided to look at an image:
The original image is from here. Even the areas discussed in the documentary are largely lit up or surrounded completely by cities. Development has overtaken almost every bit of land in this country. Perhaps the line in the film that hit me the most was the assertion from a Utah politician that politicians from New York and Illinois should "clean up their own states" before they try to tell people in Utah how they can handle their public lands issues.My point is this: As this photograph illustrates, it's too late for people in New York and Illinois to deal with their own states, their own wilderness. It's gone. Gone. So, although it might cost some people their "sovereignty" or their family livelihoods or their economic prosperity, we have to choose the wilderness. We can either preserve our wilderness as it is, with no development and extremely limited access, or we can have an entire country that looks like this:
This is the continent of Europe lit up at night. Teabaggers and pro-Amurka types are constantly railing against Europe over issues like public healthcare and other such "socialist" policies. Remember how repugs starting talking about "freedom fries" when the French pissed kick-ass Amurkans off by actually speaking against the first Iraq war?Yes, Europe is filled with socialist pansies who basically know nothing. Yet, if we allow development wherever it is economically expedient, profitable, and desired by whoever decides such questions, we will end up looking like a version of Europe.
Of course, it would only be "a version," a pale version at that. Where Europe has the remains of civilization's beginnings -- Greek temples, Roman colliseums, and other architectural wonders -- our development in America doesn't look anything like that.
No, our development looks like this:
Europe's wilderness is pretty much gone, the victim of thousands of years of development. America's development began only a few hundred years ago, yet we hurry to plaster our sprawl and our footprint all over everything.And the American West? The sweeping vistas of Utah, Montana, the Badlands? Forget it! Let's just fence it off and put cows on it, let ATV riders hotdog all over it, criss-cross it with networks of roads, put oil derricks and shale-oil fracking operations all over it, and focus on what the land can yield financially instead of what it gives to our souls and our imaginations.
"...what are you going to have left to develop if you don't preserve something, and also what are you going to preserve for the dignity and the stature of your country in terms of its heritage?” --Robert Redford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
