Oh really? I think McCain must mean grassroots groups like MoveOn or People for the American Way, since he likes to bash those sorts of pesky libruls.
As for the special interests that have been in charge of the country for decades, those are his buddies -- I can hardly imagine he is going to repudiate them. And how could he, running, as he does, under the banner of the party that owes everything to the rich and powerful? And why is he complaining about special interests anyhow? After all, in the past 28 years Republicans have controlled Congress, the Presidency, or both quite a bit of the time. Is he dissatisfied with the job they did? Then why not run as an independant or a Democrat or a socialist (haha)? You certianly can't repudiate the direct consequences of Republican leadership while running as a Republican.
Oh, but, here in America, where politics are entertainment, you can do just that. You can espouse the principles of the Republican party, while pretending to condemn all the problems that lead from the application of those principles.
What does this say for the claim that "it's all over for the special interests"? As my mother would say, it's just a lot of hot air.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Beating the Repubs at their own game
My friend Michael sent me a link to an article about why Sarah Palin shouldn't be under-estimated. The aritcle discusses George Lakoff's assessment of Republican strategy. My reading of his argument is that , while the Democrats may have a better grasp of reality, the Republicans are able to connect to the hearts and minds of voters.
I think it's a brilliant analysis, but with fatally flawed conclusion, it seems to me. Having correctly I think diagnosed that the campaign is not about reality but rather about symbolism, he then posits what is essentially a reality-based response, which is encapsulated in his sentence --
Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney.
But that sort of reality-based, truth-invested approach is what he says doesn't work --- and it clearly doesn't where the populace is asleep in a shared dream of Reagan's hometown Amerika.
I don't think people like Lakoff or people like us can really accept what is necessary to nullify the Repubs -- and that is to be as dirty, unprincipled, dishonest, manipulative, sleazy, and generally uncaring about anything but winning as they are. And I don't advocate it either, because I think if you decide you can borrow the Devil as a kind of hired thug -- just for a short while -- the next thing you know you are the Devil.
What I realized last night -- just from hearing second-hand about the Repub convention -- I couldn't bear to watch it -- is that Amerikan conservatism, especially since Reagan, makes me feel ambivalent about the right of free speech and makes me empathize with how authoritarian governments can get themselves into the no-win battle of suppressing dissidents, sending them off to gulags, confiscating their writings, etc. What we have in the Repubs is what the Russkies used to call reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. I can't help feeling from time to time that a Jacobin-style purge would be a good thing. Much as I know it's wrong (do I?) there would be something at least temporarily satisfying about sending them all to the guillotine. But, then, of course, see my comment about the Devil above.
I think it's a brilliant analysis, but with fatally flawed conclusion, it seems to me. Having correctly I think diagnosed that the campaign is not about reality but rather about symbolism, he then posits what is essentially a reality-based response, which is encapsulated in his sentence --
Democrats, in addition, need to call an extremist an extremist: to shine a light on the shared anti-democratic ideology of McCain and Palin, the same ideology shared by Bush and Cheney.
But that sort of reality-based, truth-invested approach is what he says doesn't work --- and it clearly doesn't where the populace is asleep in a shared dream of Reagan's hometown Amerika.
I don't think people like Lakoff or people like us can really accept what is necessary to nullify the Repubs -- and that is to be as dirty, unprincipled, dishonest, manipulative, sleazy, and generally uncaring about anything but winning as they are. And I don't advocate it either, because I think if you decide you can borrow the Devil as a kind of hired thug -- just for a short while -- the next thing you know you are the Devil.
What I realized last night -- just from hearing second-hand about the Repub convention -- I couldn't bear to watch it -- is that Amerikan conservatism, especially since Reagan, makes me feel ambivalent about the right of free speech and makes me empathize with how authoritarian governments can get themselves into the no-win battle of suppressing dissidents, sending them off to gulags, confiscating their writings, etc. What we have in the Repubs is what the Russkies used to call reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries. I can't help feeling from time to time that a Jacobin-style purge would be a good thing. Much as I know it's wrong (do I?) there would be something at least temporarily satisfying about sending them all to the guillotine. But, then, of course, see my comment about the Devil above.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
All pandering, all the time
There's plenty of equine excrement flowing from the propaganda organs of both parties as the 2008 election grinds along. But honestly, what emanates from the Republicans seems to be nothing but pandering. There's not an original idea nor anything that smells like risk-taking (if you don't count McCain's choice for VP, which seems rather risky to me) in their various pronouncements.
Their ideas on foreign policy?
The war in Iraq was a good idea. We need more foreign policy based on waving the national dick in the air.
Their ideas on the economy?
* Americans are taxed too much. Even though, since 1980, American economic policy has been in the hands of neocon economists and the politicians who venerate them. Taxes on the rich have gone down steadily in that time and the economy has gotten weaker and weaker as our national debt has gotten larger and larger. Yet the Republicans still think taxes should be lower.
Their ideas on energy policy?
* Have a gas tax holiday. Even though this would encourage consumption and not make much difference to real people. And, even if it did, how come the public has to take a hit by losing gas tax revenue while the oil companies continue to rake in record profits? Instead of an 18c/gal gas tax holiday, why not an 18c/gal oil company discount? Why is big oil's "right" to make record profits protected by plundering the American people's tax revenue stream? After all, if lowering the cost of gasoline is such good policy, then let the oil companies chip in something, too.
* Drill for more oil in the few places we haven't raped and pillaged yet. Scientists and resource economists have been warning for decades that -- wonder of wonders -- petroleum is not an unlimted resource. Yet Republicans have blocked every effort at conservation or alternative energy development. Now that the stark reality of what should have been obvious for years is smacking them in the ballot box, their brilliant new idea is to drill for more and more of what we will have less and less of as time goes on.
* Improve automobile efficiency. A good idea finally - why then have Republicans blocked every effort over the past 50 years to force Detroit to build more efficient cars? Only when we are in the middle of a crisis do they grudgingly admit that maybe we might be able to have a fleet average mileage above 25 mpg. And, were the price of oil to drop suddenly, they would be back leading the fight against conservation and efficiency.
* Subsidize fuel-efficient cars with tax credits. A good idea, but one that has already been in place for several years.
* Build more nuclear power plants. I'm personally not averse to this, but the Republicans blithely refuse to acknowledge that there might be any risks or problems to solve (such as waste disposal) in doing this.
Their ideas on the unravelling of the American family?
* More religion, less abortion
What is worse than the low-brow, grinding stupidity of their ideas is the sanctimonious manner in which they are presented; any questioning is greeted with "You don't you care about the American family?!"
Do Republicans have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they say these things? Are they so cynical that they know it's all nonesense, but it's what's needed to motivate their voters? Or are they so stupid as to truly believe that ideas which have proven resoundingly to be bad public policy in the past are great ideas now?
I don't know which is worse -- the notion that the Republican party has been hijacked by cynical sleazebags or simply that they are well-meaning idiots.
Their ideas on foreign policy?
The war in Iraq was a good idea. We need more foreign policy based on waving the national dick in the air.
Their ideas on the economy?
* Americans are taxed too much. Even though, since 1980, American economic policy has been in the hands of neocon economists and the politicians who venerate them. Taxes on the rich have gone down steadily in that time and the economy has gotten weaker and weaker as our national debt has gotten larger and larger. Yet the Republicans still think taxes should be lower.
Their ideas on energy policy?
* Have a gas tax holiday. Even though this would encourage consumption and not make much difference to real people. And, even if it did, how come the public has to take a hit by losing gas tax revenue while the oil companies continue to rake in record profits? Instead of an 18c/gal gas tax holiday, why not an 18c/gal oil company discount? Why is big oil's "right" to make record profits protected by plundering the American people's tax revenue stream? After all, if lowering the cost of gasoline is such good policy, then let the oil companies chip in something, too.
* Drill for more oil in the few places we haven't raped and pillaged yet. Scientists and resource economists have been warning for decades that -- wonder of wonders -- petroleum is not an unlimted resource. Yet Republicans have blocked every effort at conservation or alternative energy development. Now that the stark reality of what should have been obvious for years is smacking them in the ballot box, their brilliant new idea is to drill for more and more of what we will have less and less of as time goes on.
* Improve automobile efficiency. A good idea finally - why then have Republicans blocked every effort over the past 50 years to force Detroit to build more efficient cars? Only when we are in the middle of a crisis do they grudgingly admit that maybe we might be able to have a fleet average mileage above 25 mpg. And, were the price of oil to drop suddenly, they would be back leading the fight against conservation and efficiency.
* Subsidize fuel-efficient cars with tax credits. A good idea, but one that has already been in place for several years.
* Build more nuclear power plants. I'm personally not averse to this, but the Republicans blithely refuse to acknowledge that there might be any risks or problems to solve (such as waste disposal) in doing this.
Their ideas on the unravelling of the American family?
* More religion, less abortion
What is worse than the low-brow, grinding stupidity of their ideas is the sanctimonious manner in which they are presented; any questioning is greeted with "You don't you care about the American family?!"
Do Republicans have their fingers crossed behind their backs when they say these things? Are they so cynical that they know it's all nonesense, but it's what's needed to motivate their voters? Or are they so stupid as to truly believe that ideas which have proven resoundingly to be bad public policy in the past are great ideas now?
I don't know which is worse -- the notion that the Republican party has been hijacked by cynical sleazebags or simply that they are well-meaning idiots.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Confederate Flag is not the Canadian Flag
An AP story of 8/13/08 details the efforts by Tennessee teen Tommy Defoe to be allowed to wear his confederate belt buckle and other confederate memorabilia to school, which would be currently a violuation of the school's written dress code. Naturally, the plaintiff alleges that it is a straightforward matter of freedom of speech. According to the AP article,
"DeFoe's lawsuit questions why other symbols aren't banned, including the Mexican flag, the Canadian flag, political campaign buttons and images of Martin Luther King Jr."
This is the sort of sophistry that, it seems to me, is an insult to freedom of speech and its preservation. In what context is there any reasonable juxtaposition of the Confederate and the Canadian or Mexican flags? Does the plaintiff really want to contend that the Confederate flag was just the flag of a country and not, in fact, the symbol of an arrogance and a way of life that arguably have left a legacy of poisonous relations between blacks and whites in this country to this day?
And the comparison to images of Dr. King?! Dr. King stood for non-violent resistance to racism, for the right to peaceful assembly to redress grievances, for the individual rights of the disenfranchised. Can anyone with a functioning conscience dare to stand up and say "the Confederacy and Dr. King -- it's really the same thing"?
A part of me agrees with what the hate speech apologists say: freedom of speech is freedom of speech; you can't pick and choose. And yet is there not a type of symbol and a kind of speech that is so dedicated purely to hate that we as a society can and should ban its use? Nazism and the Swastika come immediately to mind: both are banned in Germany. Does anyone doubt that freedom of expression is alive and well in Germany? Is the quality of German life diminished by the ban of something that seems to most of us to be emblematic of pure hatred?
Similarly, does the Conferderate flag not represent a most shameful past -- a time when white human beings could and did own black human beings and a time, after the emancipation proclamation, when white human beings could and did terrorize black human beings (activities which continue today in some parts of the south, no doubt by people who would love to see the Conferederate flag on every belt buckle in America)? And, more to the point, does it not represent racism today?
Perhaps that is the crux of the matter: both the Swastika and the Conferederate flag are of more than just historical significance; they both represent unfinished business in our societies: just as there are neo-nazis today who venerate and would like to see the return of nazi policies, there are confederacy worshippers here and now who yearn for the good ole days of the old south, when whites were in charge and darkies knew their place.
This is why it seems to me that these symbols belong in history books and museums, but not as part of anyone's personal adornment, nor flying above anyone's statehouse. In books and museums, they can enlighten and inform us about some of our less savory past, a past which deserves not to be swept under the rug, but not to be celebrated either. On someone's belt buckle -- or on a T-shirt or an armband, or a poster, or as graffitti -- the symbol is not "educational;" rather it is a proclamation of intent to keep alive the evil of racism and race hatred.
"DeFoe's lawsuit questions why other symbols aren't banned, including the Mexican flag, the Canadian flag, political campaign buttons and images of Martin Luther King Jr."
This is the sort of sophistry that, it seems to me, is an insult to freedom of speech and its preservation. In what context is there any reasonable juxtaposition of the Confederate and the Canadian or Mexican flags? Does the plaintiff really want to contend that the Confederate flag was just the flag of a country and not, in fact, the symbol of an arrogance and a way of life that arguably have left a legacy of poisonous relations between blacks and whites in this country to this day?
And the comparison to images of Dr. King?! Dr. King stood for non-violent resistance to racism, for the right to peaceful assembly to redress grievances, for the individual rights of the disenfranchised. Can anyone with a functioning conscience dare to stand up and say "the Confederacy and Dr. King -- it's really the same thing"?
A part of me agrees with what the hate speech apologists say: freedom of speech is freedom of speech; you can't pick and choose. And yet is there not a type of symbol and a kind of speech that is so dedicated purely to hate that we as a society can and should ban its use? Nazism and the Swastika come immediately to mind: both are banned in Germany. Does anyone doubt that freedom of expression is alive and well in Germany? Is the quality of German life diminished by the ban of something that seems to most of us to be emblematic of pure hatred?
Similarly, does the Conferderate flag not represent a most shameful past -- a time when white human beings could and did own black human beings and a time, after the emancipation proclamation, when white human beings could and did terrorize black human beings (activities which continue today in some parts of the south, no doubt by people who would love to see the Conferederate flag on every belt buckle in America)? And, more to the point, does it not represent racism today?
Perhaps that is the crux of the matter: both the Swastika and the Conferederate flag are of more than just historical significance; they both represent unfinished business in our societies: just as there are neo-nazis today who venerate and would like to see the return of nazi policies, there are confederacy worshippers here and now who yearn for the good ole days of the old south, when whites were in charge and darkies knew their place.
This is why it seems to me that these symbols belong in history books and museums, but not as part of anyone's personal adornment, nor flying above anyone's statehouse. In books and museums, they can enlighten and inform us about some of our less savory past, a past which deserves not to be swept under the rug, but not to be celebrated either. On someone's belt buckle -- or on a T-shirt or an armband, or a poster, or as graffitti -- the symbol is not "educational;" rather it is a proclamation of intent to keep alive the evil of racism and race hatred.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Punishing the Russians
The suggestion this week, after Russia's thuggish smackdown of the Republic of Georgia, that "we" (meaning the other imperialist powers, incl the USA and Britain) should punish the Russians is laughable.
First, from a practical standpoint, just what does Bush, Brown, et al think they can do that is meaningful, short of starting WWIII?
More to the point, especially as regards the USA and Great Britain, is the lack of moral authority we have to condemn anyone these days. Is Russia's behavior more thuggish than that of our ally Israel when she bombed the crap out of Lebanon over the kidnapping of a soldier? Is Russia more of a scoflaw than the USA, which started a war in Iraq over nothing, resulting in the deaths of of least 10s of thousands of Iraquis?
At least the Russians can claim a couple of facts (whether these facts are justifications is a matter of opinion): first, Georgia was part of the Russian/Soviet empire for 2 centuries. Second, Georgia is on Russia's doorstep and in a very critical and strategic location, made more so by US military presence in the region and by our inflammatory invitiation for Georgia to join NATO. Last (although this is as yet unproven) Georgia started it by invading South Ossetia.
What amazes me is how rank-and-file Americans can work themselves into a righteous frenzy over Russia's bad behavior, while ignoring our own indiscretions as well as the larger context of our involvement in their back yard. Why is our imperialism OK, but theirs isn't? If you are an imperialist, stepping on other people is part of your job description. If you want to condemn imperialism, you need to quit your job as the world's chief imperialist first.
First, from a practical standpoint, just what does Bush, Brown, et al think they can do that is meaningful, short of starting WWIII?
More to the point, especially as regards the USA and Great Britain, is the lack of moral authority we have to condemn anyone these days. Is Russia's behavior more thuggish than that of our ally Israel when she bombed the crap out of Lebanon over the kidnapping of a soldier? Is Russia more of a scoflaw than the USA, which started a war in Iraq over nothing, resulting in the deaths of of least 10s of thousands of Iraquis?
At least the Russians can claim a couple of facts (whether these facts are justifications is a matter of opinion): first, Georgia was part of the Russian/Soviet empire for 2 centuries. Second, Georgia is on Russia's doorstep and in a very critical and strategic location, made more so by US military presence in the region and by our inflammatory invitiation for Georgia to join NATO. Last (although this is as yet unproven) Georgia started it by invading South Ossetia.
What amazes me is how rank-and-file Americans can work themselves into a righteous frenzy over Russia's bad behavior, while ignoring our own indiscretions as well as the larger context of our involvement in their back yard. Why is our imperialism OK, but theirs isn't? If you are an imperialist, stepping on other people is part of your job description. If you want to condemn imperialism, you need to quit your job as the world's chief imperialist first.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
How Free-market capitalists clean up their disaster
In a Washington Post article of today's date entitled Credit crisis triggers unprecedented response, the paper discusses the supposed conflict that free-market capitalists such as Treasury Secy Paulson are feeling as they are "forced" by circumstances to take "unprecedented" action to shore up the ailing credit system.
But the article misses the point entirely, as do the free-market capitalists who got us into this mess in the first place. What Secy. Paulson and Ben Bernake are doing to "fix" the crisis is simply strong-arming the taxpayer into underwriting all the bad debt floating around the economy so that the large, sleazy institutions whose rapacious lending practices caused the problems will be protected from the conequences of their actions.
Nowhere in the article nor in the actions and speeches of the people involved do we hear plans to seriously re-regulate and/or enforce regulation of the institutions and the practices that have arguably led to the great depression of 2008, 2009, 2010, who knows how long!
The approach by the Fed and Treasury is completely consistent with the behavior of free-market capitalism: de-regulate everything so that cowboy capitalists can get rich and then, when the imbalances that result are too large to ignore, get the poor taxpayer -- the majority of whom are middle class and who, I point out, have already suffered financially from the scams of these cowboys -- to pay the bill.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
But the article misses the point entirely, as do the free-market capitalists who got us into this mess in the first place. What Secy. Paulson and Ben Bernake are doing to "fix" the crisis is simply strong-arming the taxpayer into underwriting all the bad debt floating around the economy so that the large, sleazy institutions whose rapacious lending practices caused the problems will be protected from the conequences of their actions.
Nowhere in the article nor in the actions and speeches of the people involved do we hear plans to seriously re-regulate and/or enforce regulation of the institutions and the practices that have arguably led to the great depression of 2008, 2009, 2010, who knows how long!
The approach by the Fed and Treasury is completely consistent with the behavior of free-market capitalism: de-regulate everything so that cowboy capitalists can get rich and then, when the imbalances that result are too large to ignore, get the poor taxpayer -- the majority of whom are middle class and who, I point out, have already suffered financially from the scams of these cowboys -- to pay the bill.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Why I hate American fundamentalism
It seems to me that true religious belief derives from a sense that there may be something greater than oneself. This can manifest while you are sitting quietly in a beautiful church or a beautiful hill of flowers in the Vermont countryside. Or by contemplating the utter wierdness of quantum physics. Or the miracle of DNA. Or when you visit an art museum or hear a Bach fugue or a late Beethoven quartet. Or visit the Alhambra, where you will see beauty so exquisite as to be almost unbearable. Or a million other experiences that lead to that most personal of moments, a sense -- however brief -- of the divine.
On the other hand, fundamentalism - at least the American, protestant version -- seems to be almost completely disconnected from this sense of wonder, beauty, and joy and to be more of a thought-control movement with a rigid moralistic agenda, enforced by flogging a literal reading of the New Testament (or sometimes the Old Testament if it serves their needs). No beauty, no joy, no kindness, no tolerance -- just rules of behavior, which even the leaders of these fundamentalist movements seem unable to follow, if the number of scandals plaguing the highest levels of the fundy leadership is anything to go by.
From their suburban-looking houses of worship, which often seem more like malls than churches, to their saccharine nouveau-Christian elevator music, there is little or no beauty. Do they forsake stained glass and Bach cantatas because of alack of funds? Or do they fundamentally distrust beauty and feel that their buildings and their music should serve only the utilitiarian purpose of selling Jesus as personal savior? (Or could they simply be so suburbanized in their basic asthetics as to be unaware of an unmoved by beauty?)
Fundy's have replaced real religious contemplation by the blind worship of Jesus Christ superstar as the path to personal salvation, a notion so patronizing, so "look at how much better I am than you" as to be more related to the reason people stand in line for the latest Apple iPhone than to anything reognizable as spiritualty.
And then there is their attitude toward science: while it seems to me that science leads one closer to the divine -- and, historically, science has often been the province of priests -- American fundy's are fiercely anti-science, many of them denying the reality of natural selection, for example. Though their Bible tells them that God created us in his image, apparently he did so with the caveat that we are not supposed to use our brains.
Non of which would matter - everyone can go to hell in his own way - if it weren't for the fact that these fundamentalist organizations -- of which there are now thousands -- enjoy non-profit IRS status and 1st amendment protection -- the same as real religions -- and use these public benefits to amass large amounts of tax-free money, which they use to support political causes directly inimical to civil rights and social justice.
From their attempts to pollute public discourse about the teaching of science in schools to their unrelenting campaigns against civil rights for gay people, to their so-called "pro-life" stance(which has condemned at least tens of thousands of children to lives of poverty and ignorance), to their obstructionism with respect to stem-cell research (thereby blocking research into life-saving treatments for horrible diseases), fundys are hiding behind freedom of religion to prosecute an agenda that has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with intolerance.
Were we as a nation to amend the Consitiution, I would strongly suggest we need a freedom from religion amendment to protect us from the small-minded bigotry which is the big business of fundamentalism.
On the other hand, fundamentalism - at least the American, protestant version -- seems to be almost completely disconnected from this sense of wonder, beauty, and joy and to be more of a thought-control movement with a rigid moralistic agenda, enforced by flogging a literal reading of the New Testament (or sometimes the Old Testament if it serves their needs). No beauty, no joy, no kindness, no tolerance -- just rules of behavior, which even the leaders of these fundamentalist movements seem unable to follow, if the number of scandals plaguing the highest levels of the fundy leadership is anything to go by.
From their suburban-looking houses of worship, which often seem more like malls than churches, to their saccharine nouveau-Christian elevator music, there is little or no beauty. Do they forsake stained glass and Bach cantatas because of alack of funds? Or do they fundamentally distrust beauty and feel that their buildings and their music should serve only the utilitiarian purpose of selling Jesus as personal savior? (Or could they simply be so suburbanized in their basic asthetics as to be unaware of an unmoved by beauty?)
Fundy's have replaced real religious contemplation by the blind worship of Jesus Christ superstar as the path to personal salvation, a notion so patronizing, so "look at how much better I am than you" as to be more related to the reason people stand in line for the latest Apple iPhone than to anything reognizable as spiritualty.
And then there is their attitude toward science: while it seems to me that science leads one closer to the divine -- and, historically, science has often been the province of priests -- American fundy's are fiercely anti-science, many of them denying the reality of natural selection, for example. Though their Bible tells them that God created us in his image, apparently he did so with the caveat that we are not supposed to use our brains.
Non of which would matter - everyone can go to hell in his own way - if it weren't for the fact that these fundamentalist organizations -- of which there are now thousands -- enjoy non-profit IRS status and 1st amendment protection -- the same as real religions -- and use these public benefits to amass large amounts of tax-free money, which they use to support political causes directly inimical to civil rights and social justice.
From their attempts to pollute public discourse about the teaching of science in schools to their unrelenting campaigns against civil rights for gay people, to their so-called "pro-life" stance(which has condemned at least tens of thousands of children to lives of poverty and ignorance), to their obstructionism with respect to stem-cell research (thereby blocking research into life-saving treatments for horrible diseases), fundys are hiding behind freedom of religion to prosecute an agenda that has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with intolerance.
Were we as a nation to amend the Consitiution, I would strongly suggest we need a freedom from religion amendment to protect us from the small-minded bigotry which is the big business of fundamentalism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)