hello technorati
here is your claim code
PXX6BDWGXNWK
now what do i do?
la la la la
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
I Heart Ralph, and I am not Ashamed to Admit it
Fuck it, I'm coming out of the closet: I love Ralph Nader. I think he is this country's only hope, and all the Dems screaming bloody murder at him for getting Bush elected eight years ago need to take a chill pill and think clearly for a second.
The two party system in this country is a facade. As Arundhati Roy said a few years ago, "It's not a real choice. It's an apparent choice. Like choosing a brand of detergent. Whether you buy Ivory Snow or Tide, they're both owned by Proctor and Gamble."
How clearly this has been illustrated over the past few weeks, if not over the past few decades!
Exhibit A: The House HealthCare Bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment
All of us pro-choicers would have believed that if anyone was going to throw abortion rights under the bus, it would be the Republicans with their threats to overturn Roe v Wade. But here you have a DEMOCRAT, Bart Stupak, introduce an amendment to the Health Bill which would ban insurance companies from covering elective abortions to anyone receiving a subsidy. Err...so basically if you're POOR and you receive government assistance because you are POOR and can't afford ANOTHER kid, well, too bad. You have two options: Coat Hangers, or another baby. Nice.
Meanwhile, an article today illustrates that employees of the RNC are covered by Cigna, and that their plan COVERS ABORTION!
So for anyone that thought that the Democrats were the good guys and the lesser evil and all that, maybe it's time to think again. Lesser evil? I don't know. The jury's out on that one.
Exhibit B: The Mandate
This one really gets my blood boiling. When Obama proclaims, "health care for all", what he means is, "You have to buy it or you face a penalty." So now, not only do you have to worry about how you're going to make sure you can go to the doctor, you also face a lovely little fine for not buying into the system. This mandate, a la Fascism, will guarantee insane profits for the very criminals that have ruined the health care system. My math is not so good, but just think of how much extra they can make with a guaranteed consumer base of those currently uninsured, AND with a government subsidy to boot. Sounds like a GREAT deal. Evil Corporate-mongering repubs!! Oh, wait! Yeah - most Republicans are oddly against this proposal. This mandatory consumerism is being proffered by the lesser evil.
Exhibit C: The Glass-Steagall Act
Now, my knowledge of economics and finance may perhaps be limited (yes, my innocent brain can't comprehend derivatives and credit default swaps and all that, it reminds me of Las Vegas and then I need a drink), BUT I think I understand the Glass-Steagall Act and what happened when it was repealed ten years ago, under the Clinton Administration! The Glass-Steagall Act provided a necessary boundary between Investment Banks and Commercial Banks, meaning that money deposited into a commercial bank by an average consumer COULD NOT be used to gamble on high-risk investments. When this was repealed by Tim Geithner et al in 1999, Wall Street became a free-for-all. Yes, it's true that Bush and Co. benefited the most from said deregulation, but please let's not forget that it was orchestrated by the same crew who brought you TARP, the Mortgage Crisis, etc. And whether this crew is batting for Bush & Co, Clinton & Co, or Obama and Co, THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WITH THE SAME INTERESTS!! Tide and Ivory Snow are both owned by Proctor and Gamble, remember?
Which brings me to Ralph.
Now here's a guy that has spent his whole life defending consumer rights and actually standing up to the corporations that have enslaved this nation, and yet he's called a spoiler for putting Bush in office instead of Gore?
Here's a guy who is one of the only truthful voices speaking out about the healthcare debate circus sideshow. And he, along with Dennis Kucinich and other heroes, are the only powerful political voices that see clearly WHAT has caused this financial meltdown.
There is a chance that Nader will compete for the Connecticut Senate seat in 2010, pitting him against Chris Dodd. I'm sure people are going to try and derail his campaign again, crying that they're only trying to keep the big, bad Republican out of the senate. Well...Dodd was instrumental in the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Maybe it's time for progressives and liberals to stop this two-party bullshit and start campaigning hard for the Independent candidates. If there is enough of a base, consistently, over time there will be real debate. For all my pessimism, of this, I am hopeful.
And enough of this lesser evil stuff. Evil is Evil.
The two party system in this country is a facade. As Arundhati Roy said a few years ago, "It's not a real choice. It's an apparent choice. Like choosing a brand of detergent. Whether you buy Ivory Snow or Tide, they're both owned by Proctor and Gamble."
How clearly this has been illustrated over the past few weeks, if not over the past few decades!
Exhibit A: The House HealthCare Bill and the Stupak-Pitts amendment
All of us pro-choicers would have believed that if anyone was going to throw abortion rights under the bus, it would be the Republicans with their threats to overturn Roe v Wade. But here you have a DEMOCRAT, Bart Stupak, introduce an amendment to the Health Bill which would ban insurance companies from covering elective abortions to anyone receiving a subsidy. Err...so basically if you're POOR and you receive government assistance because you are POOR and can't afford ANOTHER kid, well, too bad. You have two options: Coat Hangers, or another baby. Nice.
Meanwhile, an article today illustrates that employees of the RNC are covered by Cigna, and that their plan COVERS ABORTION!
So for anyone that thought that the Democrats were the good guys and the lesser evil and all that, maybe it's time to think again. Lesser evil? I don't know. The jury's out on that one.
Exhibit B: The Mandate
This one really gets my blood boiling. When Obama proclaims, "health care for all", what he means is, "You have to buy it or you face a penalty." So now, not only do you have to worry about how you're going to make sure you can go to the doctor, you also face a lovely little fine for not buying into the system. This mandate, a la Fascism, will guarantee insane profits for the very criminals that have ruined the health care system. My math is not so good, but just think of how much extra they can make with a guaranteed consumer base of those currently uninsured, AND with a government subsidy to boot. Sounds like a GREAT deal. Evil Corporate-mongering repubs!! Oh, wait! Yeah - most Republicans are oddly against this proposal. This mandatory consumerism is being proffered by the lesser evil.
Exhibit C: The Glass-Steagall Act
Now, my knowledge of economics and finance may perhaps be limited (yes, my innocent brain can't comprehend derivatives and credit default swaps and all that, it reminds me of Las Vegas and then I need a drink), BUT I think I understand the Glass-Steagall Act and what happened when it was repealed ten years ago, under the Clinton Administration! The Glass-Steagall Act provided a necessary boundary between Investment Banks and Commercial Banks, meaning that money deposited into a commercial bank by an average consumer COULD NOT be used to gamble on high-risk investments. When this was repealed by Tim Geithner et al in 1999, Wall Street became a free-for-all. Yes, it's true that Bush and Co. benefited the most from said deregulation, but please let's not forget that it was orchestrated by the same crew who brought you TARP, the Mortgage Crisis, etc. And whether this crew is batting for Bush & Co, Clinton & Co, or Obama and Co, THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WITH THE SAME INTERESTS!! Tide and Ivory Snow are both owned by Proctor and Gamble, remember?
Which brings me to Ralph.
Now here's a guy that has spent his whole life defending consumer rights and actually standing up to the corporations that have enslaved this nation, and yet he's called a spoiler for putting Bush in office instead of Gore?
Here's a guy who is one of the only truthful voices speaking out about the healthcare debate circus sideshow. And he, along with Dennis Kucinich and other heroes, are the only powerful political voices that see clearly WHAT has caused this financial meltdown.
There is a chance that Nader will compete for the Connecticut Senate seat in 2010, pitting him against Chris Dodd. I'm sure people are going to try and derail his campaign again, crying that they're only trying to keep the big, bad Republican out of the senate. Well...Dodd was instrumental in the 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Maybe it's time for progressives and liberals to stop this two-party bullshit and start campaigning hard for the Independent candidates. If there is enough of a base, consistently, over time there will be real debate. For all my pessimism, of this, I am hopeful.
And enough of this lesser evil stuff. Evil is Evil.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Hope is just a Four-Letter word
I forgot to wish Obama a happy anniversary on Tuesday.
And while I might be forgetful, I've been noticing that his progressive base is suddenly turning critical! This is the title of an article by Ariana Huffington: The Audacity of Winning vs. the Timidity of Governing. Here is one by Bill Maher: Is This as Good as it Gets From Obama?
All this criticism is lining up well for me with the release of Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, "Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America." I haven't read the book yet, but it's been a while since I've so eagerly anticipated reading anything. For years now this whole Positive Thinking movement has made me truly sick to my stomach. I lived in LA when 'The Secret' was hitting it big and I had one idiotic friend tell me that if I stopped thinking negatively, I would get checks in the mail instead of bills. I was also told that Bad Things Happen to those who Think them, and that great movements of activism are only drawing negative forces - meaning that Fighting for civil rights or peace or justice is actually only causing the evil. This line of thinking has effectively negated the works of people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Suffragettes, the Peace Activists, to name a few.
Needless to say, when Obama came along with his "Yes, we Can" and the "Audacity of Hope," a large part of me cringed. I wanted to like him, I really did! But all around me I was seeing people being swept up like a wave into his cult of hope, and it made me very, very nervous. The progressive movement stopped reading between the lines! They stopped being critical. They had all joined a cult that looked like the discount happy-face from the Walmart commercials. I asked a friend once why she liked Obama, and she said because he was running on an anti-war platform. I then proceeded to ask her what she thought about the fact that he planned to escalate the war in Afghanistan and perhaps even move more troops into Pakistan. "I didn't know about that," she replied. Others said they liked him because he advocated health care for all, but when I watched the debates early on, he seemed to be talking about a mandate, NOT about Single-Payer.
So, why were all these smart people ignoring these very basic discrepancies? Were they blind-sided by his charm, and the hope for something better?
Hope. That brings me to the point of my post. Hope is a bad word. It leads to disappointment. It is ephemeral and, frankly, quite corny. I do not like Hope. I personally prefer Despair. Had he run on a platform of Despair, I would've been his biggest fan. Hope and positive thinking is simply not enough.
But all that said, the truth is that I respect Obama far more now than I did during the campaign. I had no expectations for this man. I was aware of the campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs and other financial companies. I had no doubts that his advisers and cabinet members would be of the same Bushy establishment. I did not expect change. I, sad though it may be, had no hope. So these days I find myself pretty cheerful! I think that given everything, he's doing much better than I expected!
There is a lesson here for us all. Chuck the positive thinking out the window, shed the sanctity of cultishness, and break free from the chains of sheep-like thinking. Be open-minded to the despair around us, and know that hope is just a four letter word.
And while I might be forgetful, I've been noticing that his progressive base is suddenly turning critical! This is the title of an article by Ariana Huffington: The Audacity of Winning vs. the Timidity of Governing. Here is one by Bill Maher: Is This as Good as it Gets From Obama?
All this criticism is lining up well for me with the release of Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, "Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America." I haven't read the book yet, but it's been a while since I've so eagerly anticipated reading anything. For years now this whole Positive Thinking movement has made me truly sick to my stomach. I lived in LA when 'The Secret' was hitting it big and I had one idiotic friend tell me that if I stopped thinking negatively, I would get checks in the mail instead of bills. I was also told that Bad Things Happen to those who Think them, and that great movements of activism are only drawing negative forces - meaning that Fighting for civil rights or peace or justice is actually only causing the evil. This line of thinking has effectively negated the works of people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Suffragettes, the Peace Activists, to name a few.
Needless to say, when Obama came along with his "Yes, we Can" and the "Audacity of Hope," a large part of me cringed. I wanted to like him, I really did! But all around me I was seeing people being swept up like a wave into his cult of hope, and it made me very, very nervous. The progressive movement stopped reading between the lines! They stopped being critical. They had all joined a cult that looked like the discount happy-face from the Walmart commercials. I asked a friend once why she liked Obama, and she said because he was running on an anti-war platform. I then proceeded to ask her what she thought about the fact that he planned to escalate the war in Afghanistan and perhaps even move more troops into Pakistan. "I didn't know about that," she replied. Others said they liked him because he advocated health care for all, but when I watched the debates early on, he seemed to be talking about a mandate, NOT about Single-Payer.
So, why were all these smart people ignoring these very basic discrepancies? Were they blind-sided by his charm, and the hope for something better?
Hope. That brings me to the point of my post. Hope is a bad word. It leads to disappointment. It is ephemeral and, frankly, quite corny. I do not like Hope. I personally prefer Despair. Had he run on a platform of Despair, I would've been his biggest fan. Hope and positive thinking is simply not enough.
But all that said, the truth is that I respect Obama far more now than I did during the campaign. I had no expectations for this man. I was aware of the campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs and other financial companies. I had no doubts that his advisers and cabinet members would be of the same Bushy establishment. I did not expect change. I, sad though it may be, had no hope. So these days I find myself pretty cheerful! I think that given everything, he's doing much better than I expected!
There is a lesson here for us all. Chuck the positive thinking out the window, shed the sanctity of cultishness, and break free from the chains of sheep-like thinking. Be open-minded to the despair around us, and know that hope is just a four letter word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
