Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Poor Blog
I've been busier with another blog this year, publishing poetry at least once a week. I was kinda surprised how long it had been since I'd given this page any attention... Reckon that's how life works, though, at least in this great demockeryacy.
Joe Lieberman killed the public option. Oral Roberts died. The Buddha sez you can only get to transcendent ex-stasis by putting yourself in another's situation and practicing compassion for their position.
Hmmm.
Funny. I can do that much easier with Oral Roberts. Joe Lieberman, not so much. Guess I have a lot to learn. Or something.
Joe Lieberman killed the public option. Oral Roberts died. The Buddha sez you can only get to transcendent ex-stasis by putting yourself in another's situation and practicing compassion for their position.
Hmmm.
Funny. I can do that much easier with Oral Roberts. Joe Lieberman, not so much. Guess I have a lot to learn. Or something.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Share Far and Wide My Friends
AT&T's Net neutrality doublethink
By Bill Snyder
Created 2009-12-10 03:00AM
George Orwell would be proud of AT&T's latest series of ads.
The company is attempting to convince us that it favors Net neutrality and an open Internet, when in fact it is lobbying hard for the opposite result. The strategy was foreshadowed in October when Sen. John McCain, the recipient of more telco money [1] in the last two years than anybody in the U.S. Senate, authored a bill disingenuously labeled "The Internet Freedom Act of 2009." But if McCain and AT&T were being honest, they would have called it "The Internet Robber Baron Act."
More than semantics are at stake here. The new chairman of the FCC is moving to put teeth into a series of rules [2] that would do much to guarantee real Net neutrality. Naturally, the big carriers oppose this. But given the political climate in the country and their companies' record of alienating consumers and businesses that need an open Internet, AT&T's spinmeisters know that it can't just come out and say what it really means.
[ Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality [3] at InfoWorld. | Paul Venezia reveals "Digital tyranny in the U.K. -- is the U.S. next? [4]" ]
Instead, the company cleverly disguises its real intent with a campaign aimed at convincing the public that, as Orwell put it in "1984," ignorance is strength. OK, that's a bit harsh. But there is going to be a big fight about this in 2010, and whether we are IT professionals, consumers, or both, we need to know exactly what's going on.
What Net neutrality really means
Early on, the debate about Net neutrality centered on the issue of tiered or metered pricing. Carriers argued with some justification that customers who use more bandwidth -- and, thus, more network resources -- should pay accordingly. That's not too different than charging by the gallon for water service or by the kilowatt-hour for electricity.
That debate is largely over, though it's not clear which carriers will implement tiered pricing and how much it will cost consumers. (AT&T recently moved to start such tiered pricing for data services [5].)
The argument now is much more complex and centers on control of content and applications on both the wired and wireless Internet. If a carrier can pick and choose among different types of content and different types of applications, its competitors (and, ultimately, the users) are severely disadvantaged.
The FCC has for some time favored Net neutrality in principle, but it has never turned those principles into enforceable rules. But in October, Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the FCC, proposed to codify the four existing principles and added two more. (Here's a complete list of the six pending rules [6].)
Most significantly, rule no. 5 says broadband service providers "would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner." The other new rule would make ISPs disclose relevant information concerning network management and other practices.
It's probably easier to understand what Net neutrality means by looking at its opposite. Suppose AT&T decided that customers who want to reach their Gmail accounts would get slower connection speeds than customers who were using its own U-verse service or its partner's Yahoo Mail. Or what if AT&T had a partnership with say, Amazon.com, and allowed its transactions to move faster than those on the Barnes & Noble site? Talk about anticompetitive. If rule no. 5 takes effect, those scenarios are illegal.
Two years ago, Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and backed down only when the FCC started making noises about new rules. Comcast may indeed have been experiencing network issues because of the heavy BitTorrent traffic. But instead of acting openly, it acted like a hacker, using a technique called packet forgery [7] to slow the traffic. Such behavior would be stopped by rule No. 6.
When AT&T, Verizon, and other carriers say they want the Internet to be free and competitive, what they really want to do is maintain the status quo: They want to be free of regulation so that they can set the rules, not let you be free to do what you want. As long as Net neutrality is upheld by unenforceable "principles" instead of actual rules with consequences for violation, life is good -- for them.
At the same time and in the same misleading ads, AT&T trumpets its desire to extend broadband to everyone in the country. Sure, that sounds great, but read the fine print. AT&T is asking asking the government to define broadband as anything over 768Kbps downstream and 200Kbps upstream [8]. That low-speed level hasn't been considered "broadband" in years. Comcast reportedly set the bar even lower, defining broadband as 256Kbps upstream or downstream. So much for VoIP, streaming video, or any new applications that may need relatively high speeds. And did I mention there would likely be a whopping subsidy to carriers that provide this crippled version of "broadband" service?
McCain's bill would stifle innovation
When the FCC was in Republican hands, McCain and friends had no need to push a legislative agenda. Now that Genachowski and other Obama appointees are in the majority, the carriers' buddies have to do something.
That something was the Internet Freedom Act McCain sponsored in the fall. The bill says the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."
Aside from the utterly misleading title of the bill, there's a rather large irony here. Conservatives generally believe, or at least claim to believe, that the market works best when competition is allowed to flourish. And they argue that government regulation will stifle innovation.
But the McCain bill would do exactly the opposite. It would give the largest players -- the biggest service providers -- an even greater advantage over new and potentially more innovative competitors. After all, if a startup faces especially high tariffs because its application is seen as competitive with that of a carrier or its partner, it's likely to fail. That sounds like the robber-baron era of the late 1800s and early 1900s to me.
By contrast, the FCC's new rules would keep the Internet open for consumers, businesses, and innovators. AT&T, Verizon, and the politicians carrying their water want to lock it up, in the name of freedom. It's not hard to see who's on the right side of this one.
I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here so all our readers can share them; or reach me at bill.snyder@sbcglobal.net [9].
This article, "AT&T's Net neutrality doublethink [10]," was originally published at InfoWorld.com [11]. Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality [12] at InfoWorld.com.
By Bill Snyder
Created 2009-12-10 03:00AM
George Orwell would be proud of AT&T's latest series of ads.
The company is attempting to convince us that it favors Net neutrality and an open Internet, when in fact it is lobbying hard for the opposite result. The strategy was foreshadowed in October when Sen. John McCain, the recipient of more telco money [1] in the last two years than anybody in the U.S. Senate, authored a bill disingenuously labeled "The Internet Freedom Act of 2009." But if McCain and AT&T were being honest, they would have called it "The Internet Robber Baron Act."
More than semantics are at stake here. The new chairman of the FCC is moving to put teeth into a series of rules [2] that would do much to guarantee real Net neutrality. Naturally, the big carriers oppose this. But given the political climate in the country and their companies' record of alienating consumers and businesses that need an open Internet, AT&T's spinmeisters know that it can't just come out and say what it really means.
[ Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality [3] at InfoWorld. | Paul Venezia reveals "Digital tyranny in the U.K. -- is the U.S. next? [4]" ]
Instead, the company cleverly disguises its real intent with a campaign aimed at convincing the public that, as Orwell put it in "1984," ignorance is strength. OK, that's a bit harsh. But there is going to be a big fight about this in 2010, and whether we are IT professionals, consumers, or both, we need to know exactly what's going on.
What Net neutrality really means
Early on, the debate about Net neutrality centered on the issue of tiered or metered pricing. Carriers argued with some justification that customers who use more bandwidth -- and, thus, more network resources -- should pay accordingly. That's not too different than charging by the gallon for water service or by the kilowatt-hour for electricity.
That debate is largely over, though it's not clear which carriers will implement tiered pricing and how much it will cost consumers. (AT&T recently moved to start such tiered pricing for data services [5].)
The argument now is much more complex and centers on control of content and applications on both the wired and wireless Internet. If a carrier can pick and choose among different types of content and different types of applications, its competitors (and, ultimately, the users) are severely disadvantaged.
The FCC has for some time favored Net neutrality in principle, but it has never turned those principles into enforceable rules. But in October, Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the FCC, proposed to codify the four existing principles and added two more. (Here's a complete list of the six pending rules [6].)
Most significantly, rule no. 5 says broadband service providers "would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner." The other new rule would make ISPs disclose relevant information concerning network management and other practices.
It's probably easier to understand what Net neutrality means by looking at its opposite. Suppose AT&T decided that customers who want to reach their Gmail accounts would get slower connection speeds than customers who were using its own U-verse service or its partner's Yahoo Mail. Or what if AT&T had a partnership with say, Amazon.com, and allowed its transactions to move faster than those on the Barnes & Noble site? Talk about anticompetitive. If rule no. 5 takes effect, those scenarios are illegal.
Two years ago, Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and backed down only when the FCC started making noises about new rules. Comcast may indeed have been experiencing network issues because of the heavy BitTorrent traffic. But instead of acting openly, it acted like a hacker, using a technique called packet forgery [7] to slow the traffic. Such behavior would be stopped by rule No. 6.
When AT&T, Verizon, and other carriers say they want the Internet to be free and competitive, what they really want to do is maintain the status quo: They want to be free of regulation so that they can set the rules, not let you be free to do what you want. As long as Net neutrality is upheld by unenforceable "principles" instead of actual rules with consequences for violation, life is good -- for them.
At the same time and in the same misleading ads, AT&T trumpets its desire to extend broadband to everyone in the country. Sure, that sounds great, but read the fine print. AT&T is asking asking the government to define broadband as anything over 768Kbps downstream and 200Kbps upstream [8]. That low-speed level hasn't been considered "broadband" in years. Comcast reportedly set the bar even lower, defining broadband as 256Kbps upstream or downstream. So much for VoIP, streaming video, or any new applications that may need relatively high speeds. And did I mention there would likely be a whopping subsidy to carriers that provide this crippled version of "broadband" service?
McCain's bill would stifle innovation
When the FCC was in Republican hands, McCain and friends had no need to push a legislative agenda. Now that Genachowski and other Obama appointees are in the majority, the carriers' buddies have to do something.
That something was the Internet Freedom Act McCain sponsored in the fall. The bill says the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."
Aside from the utterly misleading title of the bill, there's a rather large irony here. Conservatives generally believe, or at least claim to believe, that the market works best when competition is allowed to flourish. And they argue that government regulation will stifle innovation.
But the McCain bill would do exactly the opposite. It would give the largest players -- the biggest service providers -- an even greater advantage over new and potentially more innovative competitors. After all, if a startup faces especially high tariffs because its application is seen as competitive with that of a carrier or its partner, it's likely to fail. That sounds like the robber-baron era of the late 1800s and early 1900s to me.
By contrast, the FCC's new rules would keep the Internet open for consumers, businesses, and innovators. AT&T, Verizon, and the politicians carrying their water want to lock it up, in the name of freedom. It's not hard to see who's on the right side of this one.
I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here so all our readers can share them; or reach me at bill.snyder@sbcglobal.net [9].
This article, "AT&T's Net neutrality doublethink [10]," was originally published at InfoWorld.com [11]. Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality [12] at InfoWorld.com.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do
By Robert Reich
June 5, 2009, 10:19PM
I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.
You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.
So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.
Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they're killing it. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy and his staff are still pushing for a full public option, but with Kennedy ailing, he might not be able to round up the votes. (Kennedy's health committee released a draft of a bill today, which contains the full public option.)
Enter Olympia Snowe. Her move is important, not because she's Republican (the Senate needs only 51 votes to pass this) but because she's well-respected and considered non-partisan, and therefore offers some cover to Democrats who may need it. Last night Snowe hosted a private meeting between members and staffers about a new proposal Pharma and Insurance are floating, and apparently she's already gained the tentative support of several Democrats (including Ron Wyden and Thomas Carper). Under Snowe's proposal, the public option would kick in years from now, but it would be triggered only if insurance companies fail to bring down healthcare costs and expand coverage in he meantime.
What's the catch? First, these conditions are likely to be achieved by other pieces of the emerging legislation; for example, computerized records will bring down costs a tad, and a mandate requiring everyone to have coverage will automatically expand coverage. If it ever comes to it, Pharma and Insurance can argue that their mere participation fulfills their part of the bargain, so no public option will need to be triggered. Second, as Pharma and Insurance well know, "years from now" in legislative terms means never. There will never be a better time than now to enact a public option. If it's not included, in a few years the public's attention will be elsewhere.
Much the same dynamic is occurring in the House. Two members who had originally supported single payer told me that Pharma and Insurance have launched the same strategy there, and many House members are looking to see what happens in the Senate. Snowe's "trigger" is already buzzing among members.
All this will be decided within days or weeks. And once those who want to kill the public option without their fingerprints on the murder weapon begin to agree on a proposal -- Snowe's "trigger" or any other -- the public option will be very hard to revive. The White House must now insist on a genuine public option. And you, dear reader, must insist as well.
This is it, folks. The concrete is being mixed and about to be poured. And after it's poured and hardens, universal health care will be with us for years to come in whatever form it now takes. Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do. Don't wait until the concrete hardens and we've lost this battle.
AWD writes: I've only copied and pasted this from a link via Facebook. We need to reverse Kaiser Permanente and Nixon's policies. Healthcare for all!
June 5, 2009, 10:19PM
I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.
You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.
So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.
Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they're killing it. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy and his staff are still pushing for a full public option, but with Kennedy ailing, he might not be able to round up the votes. (Kennedy's health committee released a draft of a bill today, which contains the full public option.)
Enter Olympia Snowe. Her move is important, not because she's Republican (the Senate needs only 51 votes to pass this) but because she's well-respected and considered non-partisan, and therefore offers some cover to Democrats who may need it. Last night Snowe hosted a private meeting between members and staffers about a new proposal Pharma and Insurance are floating, and apparently she's already gained the tentative support of several Democrats (including Ron Wyden and Thomas Carper). Under Snowe's proposal, the public option would kick in years from now, but it would be triggered only if insurance companies fail to bring down healthcare costs and expand coverage in he meantime.
What's the catch? First, these conditions are likely to be achieved by other pieces of the emerging legislation; for example, computerized records will bring down costs a tad, and a mandate requiring everyone to have coverage will automatically expand coverage. If it ever comes to it, Pharma and Insurance can argue that their mere participation fulfills their part of the bargain, so no public option will need to be triggered. Second, as Pharma and Insurance well know, "years from now" in legislative terms means never. There will never be a better time than now to enact a public option. If it's not included, in a few years the public's attention will be elsewhere.
Much the same dynamic is occurring in the House. Two members who had originally supported single payer told me that Pharma and Insurance have launched the same strategy there, and many House members are looking to see what happens in the Senate. Snowe's "trigger" is already buzzing among members.
All this will be decided within days or weeks. And once those who want to kill the public option without their fingerprints on the murder weapon begin to agree on a proposal -- Snowe's "trigger" or any other -- the public option will be very hard to revive. The White House must now insist on a genuine public option. And you, dear reader, must insist as well.
This is it, folks. The concrete is being mixed and about to be poured. And after it's poured and hardens, universal health care will be with us for years to come in whatever form it now takes. Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do. Don't wait until the concrete hardens and we've lost this battle.
AWD writes: I've only copied and pasted this from a link via Facebook. We need to reverse Kaiser Permanente and Nixon's policies. Healthcare for all!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
From Puggle's Diary
Daily Kos-- Puggle's Diary
AWD writes: I couldn't have expressed this sentiment any better myself. Until we all understand that the shit sandwiches we eat are from the same fucking asshole, this world will not be a better place. Article is copied and pasted in full. I didn't have anything to do with the writing- all due credit to Puggle. And my thanks for the sublime eloquence.
So you want to get married. Guess what - me too. I know just how much state recognition makes our relationships seem 'more real' to our families and str8 friends. And I want to adopt kids and, you know, the adoption laws not only suck - with many states and countries around the world making it difficult for 'single men' to adopt, not to mention openly LGBT folks - but the whole process makes it really difficult to adopt unless you have a lot of extra cash, whereas str8 folks can just have an accident one night and a baby shows up, even without parenting classes and home inspections. So I get it.
But I'm pissed - at you, young gay activists, who are coming out of the woodwork now for Gay Marriage rights. I know, cause I've had you in my classes, when I teach queer studies to college students. Its sexy to appear beaten down by the man, and then go shopping for Burberry. But when I try to teach you a text on Latina Lesbians that's half in Spanglish, you get pissed off that you can't understand all of it.
But we're gonna get our marriage rights, its just a matter of time. And I worry that you're not going to have learned anything from all this. So many of you all, even during the worst of the Bush years, would say things like, 'oh, I'm not into politics.' But you are into America's Next Top Model, or Ani DiFranco. And I admit, this is more the gay guys than the girls, to be honest. Gay men are the center of the gay dollar, and in the gay cities within cities throughout the West, we have more disposable income than most women - queer or otherwise, could ever get. Cause we're men. You forget that sometimes, living in NYC or SF. And let's not forget DC, where half of the Repubs have gay men on their staff. So generally, the queer women 'get' it more than the guys, who are now so politically conscious because they're pissed about gay marriage.
How fucking easy. But when Bush invaded Iraq, it was all, 'oh, I'm not political.' But now you like protests! But where were you during the protests against that war, but all of a sudden you're at marriage equality rallies? Those of you who were too young get a free pass, but if you're slightly older, well, where were you?
And don't get me wrong, I KNOW how much marriage would mean to my family. But you know, the 'illegal' immigrant who works 90 hour weeks to send money home to his family in Central America, and who has no medical coverage, and who can't speak a word of English but built your house or cooked your food -when was the last time you said anything in support of him or her?
And you didn't grow up in the ghetto, did you? I mean, you had to move to the city, likely from boring suburbia, because nobody else in middle America understood you, and now you live in a 'gay ghetto' - full of gay boutique stores. But did you grow up in a neighborhood with drug dealers on every corner, a school that the government selectively didn't give a shit about, in a neighborhood they 'forgot' to plant trees in, only selectively police, with crappy social services that republicans keep cutting to make sure you're not being 'lazy,' while they get huge bonuses for playing with numbers in front of a computer all day, while your mom slaves doing food service just so you can try to get to college without the benefit of the SAT prep courses all the gay kids in the suburbs get? I didn't think so. So, you're into marriage rights - but have you ever talked to your friends about why they need to agitate for prison reform, or more pell grants, or funding head start, or repealing drug laws?
Granted, if your parents threw you out of the house for being queer, you get a free pass. If you've ever been homeless for being queer, you get a free pass. If you have to deal with all sorts of emotional and anxiety issues for being queer, you get a free pass. And which of us doesn't have that. And if you're a queer of color, you sure had a ton more to deal with.
I didn't say its easy being queer. But its a lot easier than it used to be. Our parents generation had it HARD. They fought for what we have now. So you could have your Burberry and Ani.
But if all you give a shit about now is marriage equality, you're not an activist. You lose nothing, cause its sexy now to be for marriage equality, its cool now to be 'political' - when its in your immediate best interest, and doesn't cost too much.
But there were lots of whites who went down on the buses to the south to fight for civil rights when it wasn't their fight. THEY understood what you don't. THOSE were activists, who put their own bodies on the line for someone ELSE's freedom.
You know who gets marriage equality? Charlize Theron. Cause she's marrying her MALE fiance, and is coming out for marriage equality. Y'all could learn a thing or two from the str8s sometimes. But for all you str8s reading this (and I don't mean heteros allies, I mean str8s) who haven't joined the marriage equality, yeah, you could all learn a thing from Charlize. But I'm talking to the young gays and lesbians right now (though my point is bigger than that too).
But what if a million screaming queers showed up at immigrant rights rallies? And yes, in some places, the immigrant and queer communities have worked together - particularly in the Bay Area. But if we start showing up to 'their' protests, guess who might start showing up to 'ours'? Cross-activism is what I call it. Or just simply solidarity, as they called it in the old days. The right wins every time we're divided.
Boohoo, you can't get married. You know, I wanna get married too. But I think the guy from Ecuador doing the dishes for peanuts at my local restaurant has it a hell of a lot harder. And I think he deserves healthcare and social services for all the work he does in this country. I think he deserves those things BEFORE WE GET MARRIAGE. Or at least, I think that's where our priorities should be. And what if this immigrant is queer? Can't even legally drive a car. And you just wanna pick out matching place settings for the reception.
I'm glad you're all political now. Its a real improvement. But any idiot can march for their own cause - at least when there's nothing to lose. Heck, take something away from G.W. Bush, and I bet he'd be at some protests too! But you ain't no Rosa Parks or Cesar Chavez, I'll tell you that.
So until you raise awareness about the plight of our 'illegal immigrants' - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you draw attention to conditions people of color are subjected to continually in this country - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you start talking to your friends about what global capital does to the poor around the world, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you start working to get transgender folks some rights too, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you try to get your family to see how American military might fucks up other countries in the world, or how our penal system and drug laws work to create a cycle of perpetual poverty and disempowerment to whole swaths of our society, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And until you see this fight as yours, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Cause you ain't political, and you haven't learned a damn thing from being oppressed.
AWD writes: I couldn't have expressed this sentiment any better myself. Until we all understand that the shit sandwiches we eat are from the same fucking asshole, this world will not be a better place. Article is copied and pasted in full. I didn't have anything to do with the writing- all due credit to Puggle. And my thanks for the sublime eloquence.
So you want to get married. Guess what - me too. I know just how much state recognition makes our relationships seem 'more real' to our families and str8 friends. And I want to adopt kids and, you know, the adoption laws not only suck - with many states and countries around the world making it difficult for 'single men' to adopt, not to mention openly LGBT folks - but the whole process makes it really difficult to adopt unless you have a lot of extra cash, whereas str8 folks can just have an accident one night and a baby shows up, even without parenting classes and home inspections. So I get it.
But I'm pissed - at you, young gay activists, who are coming out of the woodwork now for Gay Marriage rights. I know, cause I've had you in my classes, when I teach queer studies to college students. Its sexy to appear beaten down by the man, and then go shopping for Burberry. But when I try to teach you a text on Latina Lesbians that's half in Spanglish, you get pissed off that you can't understand all of it.
But we're gonna get our marriage rights, its just a matter of time. And I worry that you're not going to have learned anything from all this. So many of you all, even during the worst of the Bush years, would say things like, 'oh, I'm not into politics.' But you are into America's Next Top Model, or Ani DiFranco. And I admit, this is more the gay guys than the girls, to be honest. Gay men are the center of the gay dollar, and in the gay cities within cities throughout the West, we have more disposable income than most women - queer or otherwise, could ever get. Cause we're men. You forget that sometimes, living in NYC or SF. And let's not forget DC, where half of the Repubs have gay men on their staff. So generally, the queer women 'get' it more than the guys, who are now so politically conscious because they're pissed about gay marriage.
How fucking easy. But when Bush invaded Iraq, it was all, 'oh, I'm not political.' But now you like protests! But where were you during the protests against that war, but all of a sudden you're at marriage equality rallies? Those of you who were too young get a free pass, but if you're slightly older, well, where were you?
And don't get me wrong, I KNOW how much marriage would mean to my family. But you know, the 'illegal' immigrant who works 90 hour weeks to send money home to his family in Central America, and who has no medical coverage, and who can't speak a word of English but built your house or cooked your food -when was the last time you said anything in support of him or her?
And you didn't grow up in the ghetto, did you? I mean, you had to move to the city, likely from boring suburbia, because nobody else in middle America understood you, and now you live in a 'gay ghetto' - full of gay boutique stores. But did you grow up in a neighborhood with drug dealers on every corner, a school that the government selectively didn't give a shit about, in a neighborhood they 'forgot' to plant trees in, only selectively police, with crappy social services that republicans keep cutting to make sure you're not being 'lazy,' while they get huge bonuses for playing with numbers in front of a computer all day, while your mom slaves doing food service just so you can try to get to college without the benefit of the SAT prep courses all the gay kids in the suburbs get? I didn't think so. So, you're into marriage rights - but have you ever talked to your friends about why they need to agitate for prison reform, or more pell grants, or funding head start, or repealing drug laws?
Granted, if your parents threw you out of the house for being queer, you get a free pass. If you've ever been homeless for being queer, you get a free pass. If you have to deal with all sorts of emotional and anxiety issues for being queer, you get a free pass. And which of us doesn't have that. And if you're a queer of color, you sure had a ton more to deal with.
I didn't say its easy being queer. But its a lot easier than it used to be. Our parents generation had it HARD. They fought for what we have now. So you could have your Burberry and Ani.
But if all you give a shit about now is marriage equality, you're not an activist. You lose nothing, cause its sexy now to be for marriage equality, its cool now to be 'political' - when its in your immediate best interest, and doesn't cost too much.
But there were lots of whites who went down on the buses to the south to fight for civil rights when it wasn't their fight. THEY understood what you don't. THOSE were activists, who put their own bodies on the line for someone ELSE's freedom.
You know who gets marriage equality? Charlize Theron. Cause she's marrying her MALE fiance, and is coming out for marriage equality. Y'all could learn a thing or two from the str8s sometimes. But for all you str8s reading this (and I don't mean heteros allies, I mean str8s) who haven't joined the marriage equality, yeah, you could all learn a thing from Charlize. But I'm talking to the young gays and lesbians right now (though my point is bigger than that too).
But what if a million screaming queers showed up at immigrant rights rallies? And yes, in some places, the immigrant and queer communities have worked together - particularly in the Bay Area. But if we start showing up to 'their' protests, guess who might start showing up to 'ours'? Cross-activism is what I call it. Or just simply solidarity, as they called it in the old days. The right wins every time we're divided.
Boohoo, you can't get married. You know, I wanna get married too. But I think the guy from Ecuador doing the dishes for peanuts at my local restaurant has it a hell of a lot harder. And I think he deserves healthcare and social services for all the work he does in this country. I think he deserves those things BEFORE WE GET MARRIAGE. Or at least, I think that's where our priorities should be. And what if this immigrant is queer? Can't even legally drive a car. And you just wanna pick out matching place settings for the reception.
I'm glad you're all political now. Its a real improvement. But any idiot can march for their own cause - at least when there's nothing to lose. Heck, take something away from G.W. Bush, and I bet he'd be at some protests too! But you ain't no Rosa Parks or Cesar Chavez, I'll tell you that.
So until you raise awareness about the plight of our 'illegal immigrants' - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you draw attention to conditions people of color are subjected to continually in this country - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you start talking to your friends about what global capital does to the poor around the world, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you start working to get transgender folks some rights too, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you try to get your family to see how American military might fucks up other countries in the world, or how our penal system and drug laws work to create a cycle of perpetual poverty and disempowerment to whole swaths of our society, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And until you see this fight as yours, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Cause you ain't political, and you haven't learned a damn thing from being oppressed.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
An Evil Inc. Sample...
This is from one of my fave online comics, Evil Inc. I just dig his message today...
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
LMGDMFAO
It's about time someone finally made this picture..... This asshole is a fucking hypocrite. I am happy that his rants are killing the GOP. Keep up the good work, Ru$h!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Better Hurry Up and Blog...
Just posting something to post something. Haven't logged in here in a couppla weeks and thought it would be nice to show some love to the Blogger Community.
Bought a new bike- I'm very happy to have it. Wish I could afford a Harley, but looks like I'm on my 4th Zook. It's a pretty bike, silver and white, and a cruiser. Should be fun to ride for a couple of years, anyway. Gonna go on a group ride Sunday. Praying (to whatever deity will listen and can control the elements) for good weather.
Looks like Blogger will be going down at 4pm, PDT. Still some time away, so I guess my title might be somewhat un-appropriate. Very glad to see spring return! Guess it was another successful trip around the sun; hope to have a whole bunch more of 'em.
Take care of yourself and each other. I'm off to find (or make) another cup of coffee to see me through this afternoon of Web 2.0 addiction.
Bought a new bike- I'm very happy to have it. Wish I could afford a Harley, but looks like I'm on my 4th Zook. It's a pretty bike, silver and white, and a cruiser. Should be fun to ride for a couple of years, anyway. Gonna go on a group ride Sunday. Praying (to whatever deity will listen and can control the elements) for good weather.
Looks like Blogger will be going down at 4pm, PDT. Still some time away, so I guess my title might be somewhat un-appropriate. Very glad to see spring return! Guess it was another successful trip around the sun; hope to have a whole bunch more of 'em.
Take care of yourself and each other. I'm off to find (or make) another cup of coffee to see me through this afternoon of Web 2.0 addiction.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Senator Buttars compares some gays to radical Muslims
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Utah state senator Chris Buttars is now comparing some in the gay community to radical Muslims.
Buttars makes this strong comment in an upcoming documentary about Prop 8.
And they come just a year after remarks by Buttars greatly offended many African-Americans.
In late January of this year, Senator Buttars sat down for an interview with documentary maker and former ABC 4 reporter Reed Cowan.
Cowan’s documentary is called, "8: The Mormon Proposition. "
In it, Buttars not only makes the comparison to radical Muslims, but also suggests that gays could pose the greatest threat to America.
Because the documentary has not yet aired, we can't show you the video of senator Buttars speaking.
But ABC 4 has seen it.
And in the audio clips which ABC 4 received permission to broadcast from Reed Cowan Productions, Buttars makes several equally strong comments.
Sen. Chris Buttars: "Homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts. But I don't care."
Just one year ago, Buttars found himself in hot water locally and nationally for this comment on the senate floor.
"This baby is black...this is a dark, ugly thing."
And even though Buttars says in the documentary interview,..."the ACLU - bless their black hearts...," it’s his other comments which may get the strongest reaction.
Like this one which the documentary maker confirms is about gays.
"They're mean. They want to talk about being nice. They're the meanest buggers I have ever seen."
And just seconds later, Buttars draws a comparison between some gays and radical Muslims.
“It's just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side.”
Buttars also claims he's "killed" every gay rights bill in the legislature for the last 8 years.
He also talks about gay marriage being the beginning of the end.
Buttars: "What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes."
And finally, this is how senator Buttars refers to the "radical gay movement."
"They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."
Now, in the interview, senator Buttars also talks about a certain type of reported gay sexual activity which he claims is taking place.
But ABC 4 does not consider that appropriate for its news content.
(All audio copyrighted by Reed Cowan Productions)
Copyright 2009 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved.
AWD writes: Yeah, all of us queer folks are out to make sure that Buttars doesn't get to have a productive, peaceful life with constitutional rights. This guy is stupid. Really fucking stupid, and he makes me angry with his narrow-minded viewpoints. What I can't really understand is why people are still (ALLEGEDLY) voting his stupid ass into office???
Buttars makes this strong comment in an upcoming documentary about Prop 8.
And they come just a year after remarks by Buttars greatly offended many African-Americans.
In late January of this year, Senator Buttars sat down for an interview with documentary maker and former ABC 4 reporter Reed Cowan.
Cowan’s documentary is called, "8: The Mormon Proposition. "
In it, Buttars not only makes the comparison to radical Muslims, but also suggests that gays could pose the greatest threat to America.
Because the documentary has not yet aired, we can't show you the video of senator Buttars speaking.
But ABC 4 has seen it.
And in the audio clips which ABC 4 received permission to broadcast from Reed Cowan Productions, Buttars makes several equally strong comments.
Sen. Chris Buttars: "Homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts. But I don't care."
Just one year ago, Buttars found himself in hot water locally and nationally for this comment on the senate floor.
"This baby is black...this is a dark, ugly thing."
And even though Buttars says in the documentary interview,..."the ACLU - bless their black hearts...," it’s his other comments which may get the strongest reaction.
Like this one which the documentary maker confirms is about gays.
"They're mean. They want to talk about being nice. They're the meanest buggers I have ever seen."
And just seconds later, Buttars draws a comparison between some gays and radical Muslims.
“It's just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side.”
Buttars also claims he's "killed" every gay rights bill in the legislature for the last 8 years.
He also talks about gay marriage being the beginning of the end.
Buttars: "What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes."
And finally, this is how senator Buttars refers to the "radical gay movement."
"They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."
Now, in the interview, senator Buttars also talks about a certain type of reported gay sexual activity which he claims is taking place.
But ABC 4 does not consider that appropriate for its news content.
(All audio copyrighted by Reed Cowan Productions)
Copyright 2009 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved.
AWD writes: Yeah, all of us queer folks are out to make sure that Buttars doesn't get to have a productive, peaceful life with constitutional rights. This guy is stupid. Really fucking stupid, and he makes me angry with his narrow-minded viewpoints. What I can't really understand is why people are still (ALLEGEDLY) voting his stupid ass into office???
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Bailing out Rich People with Socialism
What the Amerikan Gooberment is about to do is a travesty. Socialism for those who can afford it. Marx never dreamt of these things, even in his nightmares.
This is disgusting. LET THE MOTHA FUCKAS FAIL. That's what capitalism is all about, ain't it? Sink or swim?
JEEBUS FUCK!!!! These leaders are so rich and so out of touch of what it's like to be a Normal American that they have no clue. They are just wanting to bail out their buddies. If so, why don't they donate one of their extra houses and private jets and wait staff???
Godsdammit, I'm pissed off. And to sum it all up, here is a snippet from somewhere else in my tabbed browsing experience this morning:
According to an analysis by the independent Tax Policy Center, the tax plan Obama has proposed during the campaign would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent.
Hells yes. This is what we need. Not more straps on my back, stupid fuckers.
This is disgusting. LET THE MOTHA FUCKAS FAIL. That's what capitalism is all about, ain't it? Sink or swim?
JEEBUS FUCK!!!! These leaders are so rich and so out of touch of what it's like to be a Normal American that they have no clue. They are just wanting to bail out their buddies. If so, why don't they donate one of their extra houses and private jets and wait staff???
Godsdammit, I'm pissed off. And to sum it all up, here is a snippet from somewhere else in my tabbed browsing experience this morning:
According to an analysis by the independent Tax Policy Center, the tax plan Obama has proposed during the campaign would increase taxes in 2009 on the wealthiest 20 percent of households, while offering tax cuts for the other 80 percent.
Hells yes. This is what we need. Not more straps on my back, stupid fuckers.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
This is why McCain canceled the debates. Watch Sarah Palin on CBS tonight. Utter disaster.
John Aravosis (DC) · 9/24/2008 07:49:00 PM ET · Link
A grander pattern is emerging as to what was motivating McCain's Hail Mary publicity stunt today. For starters, we now have the first look at Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. Palin is in so far over her head, it isn't even funny. Watch especially at 4 minutes 30 seconds into the interview (video is below) when they have the following exchange after Couric asks Palin for examples of John McCain leading the charge for oversight of Wall Street:
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.
A grander pattern is emerging as to what was motivating McCain's Hail Mary publicity stunt today. For starters, we now have the first look at Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric. Palin is in so far over her head, it isn't even funny. Watch especially at 4 minutes 30 seconds into the interview (video is below) when they have the following exchange after Couric asks Palin for examples of John McCain leading the charge for oversight of Wall Street:
Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Just Say No to Corporate Bailouts
The world financial markets were rocked to their foundation this week by the news of the collapse of one of the oldest Wall Street Investment firms in American history, preceded by two of the largest bailouts in American history. If that was not news enough, the market was then knocked around again in round two when American Insurance Group (AIG) was given a 24 hours notice to raise $85 billion dollars to cover debt tied to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Once again the federal treasury decided to bail out another corporation in the name of the American people and the stability of the marketplace. Then the mother of all bailouts was announced just before the close of business Thursday when Secretary of the Treasury announced a $700 billion dollar bailout of all remaining investment firms, banks and insurance groups. President Bush proudly proclaimed that the American people had been saved by the quick thinking and decisive actions of the US Treasury and anticipated quick passage of the trillion-dollar bailout by the House and Senate this week.
The reality of the situation is that the American taxpayers are being held responsible for the irresponsible investment decisions and speculative actions of private corporations and private investors. When the economy was booming and Wall Street was raking in record profits on fraudulent business dealings taxpayers saw none of the benefits, but when it is time to save those same corporations and their investors from the brink of irrelevance then the taxpayers are expected to foot the bill. The end result is that the investors reap all of the profits when times are good but when times are bad the American taxpayers pay the bills. This time the price tag is too high. In addition to the $650 billion dollars the federal treasury is paying annually for the defense budget plus the costs of the war in Iraq, the general public is now expected to foot a trillion dollar bill based on speculation.
Americans do not understand what the cost of the proposed bailout is in real terms, and many Americans do not realize the amount of debt that the federal government has already accrued, which is a burden to be passed on to our future generations. In real dollars, the proposal by the treasury department will cost the average taxpayer five thousand dollars and ten thousands dollars for a household of four. That is ten thousand dollars of debt that President Bush and his cabinet will leave as a legacy to compete with the shared cost of the war in Iraq, which will cost the average household nearly an additional ten thousand dollars in debt. That is a total of twenty thousand dollars in debt per household multiplied by millions of Americans equals nearly two trillion dollars that we are deeper in debt as a result of the war in Iraq and the recent proposed bailout which will in all likelihood sail through Congress this week.
It is time to say no to more corporate bailouts. The United States is already almost nine trillion dollars in debt as a result of decades of over spending on the US military combined with twenty-five years of Reagan era tax cuts for the wealthy and private corporations. Now is the time to invest in real priorities for the future by fully funding health care and education. By saying no to corporate bailouts for Wall Street we will ensure real economic opportunity for Main Street. As a candidate for federal office I oppose further corporate bailouts and I support strict regulation of Wall Street and a federal investigation into fraud and abuse of the trading system, which led to the current financial crisis. The results of decades deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy and privileged has led to the decimation of the middle class and brought us to the edge of ruin for future generations.
There is hope for the future, and it involves electing candidates who will look out for the interest of working people and the middle class, rather than selling out every federal office to the highest bidder. By supporting campaign finance reform, progressive taxation, universal health care, a drastically reduced military budget and by placing the highest priority on funding education we can begin to move this country in the right direction. Through strict regulation of markets and a tough but conservative approach to finance and investment we can begin to regain the trust of both investors and the general public. By withdrawing our troops from the Middle East and reducing the military budget we will gain the trust and good faith of people around the world. It is time for us to invest in the people and we must begin by saying to to any further bailouts for private corporations and Wall Street and insure that our tax dollars go to real human needs and domestic priorities that benefit everyone
Chris Lugo for US Senate
9 Music Sq So #164
Nashville, TN 37203
615-593-0304
chris4senate@gmail.com
www.voteforpeace.info
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Psychology of Palin
Obama and The Palin Effect
From: Deepak Chopra | Posted: Friday, September 5th, 2008
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.
Look at what she stands for:
--Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out
corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who
doesn't fit your ideology.
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
AWD writes:
The backlash of the backlash of the 1960's is still upon us. I believe this essay clearly brings us back around to that reality. I will expound upon this idea sometime later.
From: Deepak Chopra | Posted: Friday, September 5th, 2008
Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure. Palin's pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.
She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of "the other." For millions of Americans, Obama triggers those feelings, but they don't want to express them. He is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.)
I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message. In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision.
Look at what she stands for:
--Small town values -- a denial of America's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism.
--Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America's image abroad.
--Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded.
--Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree.
--Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war.
--"Reform" -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out
corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who
doesn't fit your ideology.
Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from "us" pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat. The radical right marches under the banners of "I'm all right, Jack," and "Why change? Everything's OK as it is." The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.
Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum. The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict. The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
AWD writes:
The backlash of the backlash of the 1960's is still upon us. I believe this essay clearly brings us back around to that reality. I will expound upon this idea sometime later.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Delegates ‘proud’ of Bush
Posted: 11:45 PM ET
From CNN.com Senior Political Producer Scott J. Anderson
Bush addressed the GOP convention Tuesday.
ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) – His popularity may be at an all-time low, but President Bush’s comments at the Republican National Convention were warmly received by many of the delegates.
“His speech basically passed the baton to John McCain,” Mark Quandahl, chairman of the Nebraska state party said.
Bush addressed the convention via satellite from the White House. Bush was originally scheduled to speak on the opening night of the convention. But he was forced to cancel as Hurricane Gustav bore down on the Gulf Coast. Quandahl said, “delegates would have preferred to have him here, but he did the right thing.”
NO! This is a complete fucking untruth! God said "GEE-ORGY, YOU FUCKING SUCK SO BAD, I'M SENDING A HURRICANE TO PROTECT INNOCENT AMERIKANTS' STUPID ASSES FROM THE HORROR OF YOURSELF IN PERSON."
Bush spent much of Monday visiting hurricane response centers in Texas.
Kathi Thompson, the wife of a retired Army officer from Hawaii, said whatever you think of President Bush’s administration, “He never wavered, and what you see is what you get.”
“[Bush] is a man of conviction,” she added.
Liz Tait from Houston, Texas, said “We’re extremely proud of him.”
“He kept us safe, and he fought for the values we believe in,” she said.
(If by 'safe', you mean that he's taking away our rights to privacy and self-governance. And, if that means endangering all of us by stirring up shit in the Midd1e East, and leaving TWO fucking wars going when he "retires" to his Port Hyannis or whatever it's called, playground to live out the rest of his days watching softcore porn cleverly disguised as, ahem, Women's Beach Volleyball....)
From CNN.com Senior Political Producer Scott J. Anderson
Bush addressed the GOP convention Tuesday.
ST. PAUL, Minnesota (CNN) – His popularity may be at an all-time low, but President Bush’s comments at the Republican National Convention were warmly received by many of the delegates.
“His speech basically passed the baton to John McCain,” Mark Quandahl, chairman of the Nebraska state party said.
Bush addressed the convention via satellite from the White House. Bush was originally scheduled to speak on the opening night of the convention. But he was forced to cancel as Hurricane Gustav bore down on the Gulf Coast. Quandahl said, “delegates would have preferred to have him here, but he did the right thing.”
NO! This is a complete fucking untruth! God said "GEE-ORGY, YOU FUCKING SUCK SO BAD, I'M SENDING A HURRICANE TO PROTECT INNOCENT AMERIKANTS' STUPID ASSES FROM THE HORROR OF YOURSELF IN PERSON."
Bush spent much of Monday visiting hurricane response centers in Texas.
Kathi Thompson, the wife of a retired Army officer from Hawaii, said whatever you think of President Bush’s administration, “He never wavered, and what you see is what you get.”
“[Bush] is a man of conviction,” she added.
Liz Tait from Houston, Texas, said “We’re extremely proud of him.”
“He kept us safe, and he fought for the values we believe in,” she said.
(If by 'safe', you mean that he's taking away our rights to privacy and self-governance. And, if that means endangering all of us by stirring up shit in the Midd1e East, and leaving TWO fucking wars going when he "retires" to his Port Hyannis or whatever it's called, playground to live out the rest of his days watching softcore porn cleverly disguised as, ahem, Women's Beach Volleyball....)
Thursday, August 28, 2008
W00t! Numero 200 Post Hits the Blogger Today!
This is a nice 200-ish pic. And here's an easy cheesecake pie recipe that you would thank me for.....
Cherry-O Cream Pie
* 1 graham cracker crust (either homemade or already prepared)
* 1 pkg (8oz) cream cheese, softened
* 1 can sweetened condensed milk
* 1/3 cup Real Lemon lemon juice
* 1 tsp. vanilla
* 1 can cherry pie filling, chilled
o Whip cream cheese until fluffy
o Gradually beat in sweetened condensed milk and blend
o Blend in Real Lemon lemon juice and vanilla
o Pour into pie crust and chill until firm
o Top with chilled cherry pie filling and chill for at least 2 hours
Enjoy, darlings! I'm off to try and love and learn and live some more. Impending camping trip for myself in another state. OOOoooo.... Crossing the northern borders. Haven't done that since last year. Take it sleazy, if you can get it at all.
~AWD
Dammit.
Just when I think I might be getting somewhere, all I see are STOP signs. Sheesh. I'm so exasperated with the wimmins I've been meeting of late. Gods! How can so many lusciouslickable babes be so damn cold and un-in-touch with themselves? I just don't get it, really I don't.
It's like, they're all around me, plotting. For what? I do not know. But I know they don't mean to share emotions or experience, that's for damn sure. ::sigh::
And hells, this might not be a safe forum for me to express my feelings; I don't know who reads this stuff, anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm dating a totally fucking hot lady right now. She is smart, and did I mention beautiful? We have a lot of things in common and I can see a future with her.
But we're not exclusive and I keep running into so many broken people. But I don't mind the broken people; it's just when they find out I can't fix 'em, even with multiple orgasms, something fundamental, down deep, switches off. It's very sad.
Just bitchin'. And doing something with this blog that I haven't done in awhile. This looks like it will be post #199. I will post something special for #200 today, maybe a cheesecake recipe. Definitely off of the political rants for awhile; politics tires me out and they're not really *doing* anything anyway besides spend money and that just pisses me off.
It's like, they're all around me, plotting. For what? I do not know. But I know they don't mean to share emotions or experience, that's for damn sure. ::sigh::
And hells, this might not be a safe forum for me to express my feelings; I don't know who reads this stuff, anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm dating a totally fucking hot lady right now. She is smart, and did I mention beautiful? We have a lot of things in common and I can see a future with her.
But we're not exclusive and I keep running into so many broken people. But I don't mind the broken people; it's just when they find out I can't fix 'em, even with multiple orgasms, something fundamental, down deep, switches off. It's very sad.
Just bitchin'. And doing something with this blog that I haven't done in awhile. This looks like it will be post #199. I will post something special for #200 today, maybe a cheesecake recipe. Definitely off of the political rants for awhile; politics tires me out and they're not really *doing* anything anyway besides spend money and that just pisses me off.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Some T-Shirts That I Need
"Not a Straight Converter! Tho I'm not completely opposed to it...."
"Why yes, it appears that I *can* haz ur straight chick."
"Caution: Makes women question their sexual orientation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
