OK this is about as simple as it gets. Millions of us were not misled by the lies that lead up to the war in Iraq. Any member of Congress who uses that as an excuse for their vote to authorize the war was at best stupid, and therefore not fit to hold office now, or they are using it as a convenient excuse now, for what was politically expedient then.
Unestimateable numbers of us protested, wrote to our representatives and otherwise said this war was a bad idea, but we were ignored. Not covered by the media, nor listened to by our represenitives. Our judgment proved to be correct. Our prediciton of the outcome was dead on. Hillary was wrong, so wrong in fact, that we should not trust her with any position of leadership.
Whatever she is doing now, is the same as she was doing in 2002 and 2003. She is being politically expedient, not what serves the best interests of the republic. She is going with the flow, not leading. If she makes decisions based upon expediency and not the possible and what is best, she is unfit to lead. Period.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Drinking the Same Kool-aid
Al Gore, and I must be drinking the same Kool aid. I wonder what you have heard about his latest book, The Assault on Reason? Probably not much, so great has been the main stream media's suppression of the content. Why is that? Perhaps because the MSM are one of the perpetrators of the assault Gore describes.
The Assault on Reason, is largely an indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration, book ended by essays on political philosophy. How we came to find ourselves in the current state of affairs, and our prospects for extracting ourselves and saving democracy in the United States of America.
I was astounded by this book. Not because it produced any revelations, but because it validated so many of my own feelings on the current state of our political economy. In a way I find this scary because it is often dangerous to have ones ideas validated. One’s thinking becomes less critical. However, in my case, as long time readers of my missives may recognize, my ideas are so far out of the box, so far from the main stream, any validation in any form can be profound, and to find someone as prominent as Gore, espousing thoughts that parallel my own is indeed scary.
I have certain central themes in my ideas about our political economy. Cardinal among these are that conservatives are neo feudalists, intent on dismantling our republic and re establishing an aristocracy, that mass marketing controls the vast majority of Americans, and that the confluence of the above have resulted in a marketplace that is no longer free as described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. These are Gore’s central themes as well.
Prior to the age of enlightenment, European society was controlled by 2 forces, Royalty and the Church. The power of both over the masses was by “divine” right, The relationship was symbiotic and self validating. The Church confirmed the divine right of Kings to rule, and the King confirmed the power of the Church. A convenient concentration of both wealth and power in the hands of very few. The invention of movable type resulted in the broad dissemination of ideas based upon reason. These ideas pushed royalty and organized religion from their preeminent positions in society. The idea that power (political and economic) resides in the individual is the fundamental thesis of the enlightenment.
Gore identifies the 4 members of the reactionary coalition who are the antithesis of the enlightenment. These are: Economic royalists (who fund the whole proposition), foreign policy hawks, a cabal of pundits (who enforce the dogma), and extreme religious conservatives and fundamentalists. Gore goes on the point out how successful this coalition has been. How in just 40 years they have brought us to the brink or past it. To a point where democracy in America no longer really works as the framers of the Constitution intended. From my perspective this is by design and has culminated in the reign of the Bush-Cheney regime.
At this point, I highly doubt very many of my tiny readership have bothered to read, let alone think about the above ideas. We have become so disinterested in civics, let alone political philosophy, that individuals like myself and Mr. Gore are branded as exceedingly strange. Even the best educated among us do not want to think about these issues. They feel their civic obligation begins and ends at the ballot box. Politics and political discourse are fine as infotainment, but taboo if there is any action or thought required. Again I would argue this is by design. This is the manipulation of the electorate through mass marketing to achieve outcome desired by Gore’s economic royalists. “If wealth can easily be exchanged for power, then the concentration of either can double the corrupting potential of both” (Pg. 73)
The bulk of The Assault on Reason, reminds me of the Declaration of Independence. As Jefferson did with George III, in a highly organized manner, Gore lays out the grievances against the George W. and then sets forth an indictment on a charge of violating our Constitution and the principals at the core of our republic.
Gore shows the courage of a leader. Something, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, lacking in our current crop of Democratic presidential candidates. Gore is very brave indeed. It has long been my contention that had he been president in 2001, the attacks of September 11, would never have happened. Gore concures. Gore states that the failure to connect the dots, pre 911, was due to incompetence rather than design, but in his categorical denial of this being by design, he is brave enough to state this possibility. Anything other than denial, exposure of this dirty secret, would bring down our system and foment revolution. At this time in our history, given the state of the public mind, a revolution would play into the hands of the neo feudalists and religious extremists.
Gore sees salvation of or democracy in the displacement of the medium of television by the more interactive medium of the internet. The viability of democracy in the United States is dependent upon the engagement and participation of the governed. Television and mass marketing create a system where influence can be spread far and wide though the use of propaganda based upon an intimate understanding of human psychology. The internet provides a means for individuals to reassert themselves. Time shifting is making television less effective, so the coercion of the the economic royalists has shifted from overt adverts to covert content as in the Fox program 24. As the internet becomes the dominant medium, Gore feels it will be more and more difficult for the neo feudalists to have such a one sided influence on the public. Providing of course that we prevent them from controlling this medium as they do television.
My only criticism of Gore’s work is that it is overly complex. The first step in systemic change is the dissatisfaction of the intellectuals. Perhaps this is Gore’s intended audience. It is certainly not a work that will interest a wider audience. The ideas presented are rooted in the philosophy of the enlightenment. Something it seems, very few people in the United States care to think about, or understand anymore. Again I would argue this is by design.
There is a Persian proverb that one can only be one step ahead of the people to lead them. If someone is two steps ahead the people cannot see the goal and will not follow. The conservatives / economic royalists have been very effective at using deceit and misdirection to push the public consent in a direction that does not serve the public interest. Until we learn to counter those deceits and misdirections in a way more compelling than those currently in control we will never put power back into the hands of the people.
The Assault on Reason, is largely an indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration, book ended by essays on political philosophy. How we came to find ourselves in the current state of affairs, and our prospects for extracting ourselves and saving democracy in the United States of America.
I was astounded by this book. Not because it produced any revelations, but because it validated so many of my own feelings on the current state of our political economy. In a way I find this scary because it is often dangerous to have ones ideas validated. One’s thinking becomes less critical. However, in my case, as long time readers of my missives may recognize, my ideas are so far out of the box, so far from the main stream, any validation in any form can be profound, and to find someone as prominent as Gore, espousing thoughts that parallel my own is indeed scary.
I have certain central themes in my ideas about our political economy. Cardinal among these are that conservatives are neo feudalists, intent on dismantling our republic and re establishing an aristocracy, that mass marketing controls the vast majority of Americans, and that the confluence of the above have resulted in a marketplace that is no longer free as described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. These are Gore’s central themes as well.
Prior to the age of enlightenment, European society was controlled by 2 forces, Royalty and the Church. The power of both over the masses was by “divine” right, The relationship was symbiotic and self validating. The Church confirmed the divine right of Kings to rule, and the King confirmed the power of the Church. A convenient concentration of both wealth and power in the hands of very few. The invention of movable type resulted in the broad dissemination of ideas based upon reason. These ideas pushed royalty and organized religion from their preeminent positions in society. The idea that power (political and economic) resides in the individual is the fundamental thesis of the enlightenment.
Gore identifies the 4 members of the reactionary coalition who are the antithesis of the enlightenment. These are: Economic royalists (who fund the whole proposition), foreign policy hawks, a cabal of pundits (who enforce the dogma), and extreme religious conservatives and fundamentalists. Gore goes on the point out how successful this coalition has been. How in just 40 years they have brought us to the brink or past it. To a point where democracy in America no longer really works as the framers of the Constitution intended. From my perspective this is by design and has culminated in the reign of the Bush-Cheney regime.
At this point, I highly doubt very many of my tiny readership have bothered to read, let alone think about the above ideas. We have become so disinterested in civics, let alone political philosophy, that individuals like myself and Mr. Gore are branded as exceedingly strange. Even the best educated among us do not want to think about these issues. They feel their civic obligation begins and ends at the ballot box. Politics and political discourse are fine as infotainment, but taboo if there is any action or thought required. Again I would argue this is by design. This is the manipulation of the electorate through mass marketing to achieve outcome desired by Gore’s economic royalists. “If wealth can easily be exchanged for power, then the concentration of either can double the corrupting potential of both” (Pg. 73)
The bulk of The Assault on Reason, reminds me of the Declaration of Independence. As Jefferson did with George III, in a highly organized manner, Gore lays out the grievances against the George W. and then sets forth an indictment on a charge of violating our Constitution and the principals at the core of our republic.
Gore shows the courage of a leader. Something, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, lacking in our current crop of Democratic presidential candidates. Gore is very brave indeed. It has long been my contention that had he been president in 2001, the attacks of September 11, would never have happened. Gore concures. Gore states that the failure to connect the dots, pre 911, was due to incompetence rather than design, but in his categorical denial of this being by design, he is brave enough to state this possibility. Anything other than denial, exposure of this dirty secret, would bring down our system and foment revolution. At this time in our history, given the state of the public mind, a revolution would play into the hands of the neo feudalists and religious extremists.
Gore sees salvation of or democracy in the displacement of the medium of television by the more interactive medium of the internet. The viability of democracy in the United States is dependent upon the engagement and participation of the governed. Television and mass marketing create a system where influence can be spread far and wide though the use of propaganda based upon an intimate understanding of human psychology. The internet provides a means for individuals to reassert themselves. Time shifting is making television less effective, so the coercion of the the economic royalists has shifted from overt adverts to covert content as in the Fox program 24. As the internet becomes the dominant medium, Gore feels it will be more and more difficult for the neo feudalists to have such a one sided influence on the public. Providing of course that we prevent them from controlling this medium as they do television.
My only criticism of Gore’s work is that it is overly complex. The first step in systemic change is the dissatisfaction of the intellectuals. Perhaps this is Gore’s intended audience. It is certainly not a work that will interest a wider audience. The ideas presented are rooted in the philosophy of the enlightenment. Something it seems, very few people in the United States care to think about, or understand anymore. Again I would argue this is by design.
There is a Persian proverb that one can only be one step ahead of the people to lead them. If someone is two steps ahead the people cannot see the goal and will not follow. The conservatives / economic royalists have been very effective at using deceit and misdirection to push the public consent in a direction that does not serve the public interest. Until we learn to counter those deceits and misdirections in a way more compelling than those currently in control we will never put power back into the hands of the people.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
We are All "Sicko"
I applaud Michael Moore. His latest movie "Sicko" is undoubtedly his best. In showing how our lousy health care system costs us more, and does not provide the treatment we need, Moore is able to demonstrate how we are more oppressed and less free than people of any other industrialized nation.
But we will not stand for this! We are brainwashed from birth to believe that the United States is the best. That our system provides the best for everyone. That in other countries people are far worse off. They pay higher taxes, wait in line, suffer rationing. Yes we do not want to hear anything that will contradict what we want to believe.
We want to believe that in Europe, because there is a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation, plus an additional 18 paid holidays per year they suffer high unemployment. We want to believe that because taxes are so high to pay for health care and other social services, people in Europe cannot afford decent housing, cars, or consumer goods. We want to believe that in Europe there is less opportunity to better oneself. In spite of free secondary education
We are delusional.
In a subtle way, Moore shows how our system is run for the benefit of the elites. The elites have been very clever with their propaganda. Because they control our elected officials with their campaign contributions, and control our media with their ownership, we only hear what they want us to hear. We want to believe we live in the greatest place on Earth. We want to believe we cannot make it better by changing the system, because that is the crap we are sold. Day in and day out.
We are the victims of a con game. We are the perfect marks, because in confidence games, the mark never wants to believe they have been conned. That would make them feel stupid, and no one wants to feel stupid, do they?
I applaud Michael Moore. Everyone should see his latest film. Change only comes with awareness. Sicko, provides 2 hours outside the conservative mind control beam.
Will it have any effect? Will it create a critical mass needed to effect change? I don’t think so. We are such sheep it is disgusting. We don’t what to think about this because it conflicts with what we want to believe. It makes our little heads hurt.
There is an old expression: “My country right or wrong.” The United States is my country and I love it even when it is so very wrong. What can I do to make it right? What can I do to change it? We should all be asking ourselves that question every day. Instead we do exactly what we are told to do. We are all Sicko.
But we will not stand for this! We are brainwashed from birth to believe that the United States is the best. That our system provides the best for everyone. That in other countries people are far worse off. They pay higher taxes, wait in line, suffer rationing. Yes we do not want to hear anything that will contradict what we want to believe.
We want to believe that in Europe, because there is a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation, plus an additional 18 paid holidays per year they suffer high unemployment. We want to believe that because taxes are so high to pay for health care and other social services, people in Europe cannot afford decent housing, cars, or consumer goods. We want to believe that in Europe there is less opportunity to better oneself. In spite of free secondary education
We are delusional.
In a subtle way, Moore shows how our system is run for the benefit of the elites. The elites have been very clever with their propaganda. Because they control our elected officials with their campaign contributions, and control our media with their ownership, we only hear what they want us to hear. We want to believe we live in the greatest place on Earth. We want to believe we cannot make it better by changing the system, because that is the crap we are sold. Day in and day out.
We are the victims of a con game. We are the perfect marks, because in confidence games, the mark never wants to believe they have been conned. That would make them feel stupid, and no one wants to feel stupid, do they?
I applaud Michael Moore. Everyone should see his latest film. Change only comes with awareness. Sicko, provides 2 hours outside the conservative mind control beam.
Will it have any effect? Will it create a critical mass needed to effect change? I don’t think so. We are such sheep it is disgusting. We don’t what to think about this because it conflicts with what we want to believe. It makes our little heads hurt.
There is an old expression: “My country right or wrong.” The United States is my country and I love it even when it is so very wrong. What can I do to make it right? What can I do to change it? We should all be asking ourselves that question every day. Instead we do exactly what we are told to do. We are all Sicko.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Why The Democrats Will Continue to be Losers
If you read these thoughts on the last debate by liberal blogger Digby you find this little gem:
“If I had to pick a winner, I think tonight was Obama's night. He seemed loose and comfortable and in charge. He certainly had the best laugh line ---“
Liberals and Democrats just don’t get it. They continue to choose based upon who looks best or who is the most “electable”, not based on the quality of ideas.
What the Republicans realized a long time ago, is the electorate prefers conviction over looks, and values over electability. It does not matter if 99% of it is crap. The electorate wants consistency. They want to know where a candidate stands. They equate this with leadership, even if they disagree with the position. They do not want a wishy washy, flip flopper, who gives a complicated answer they cannot follow or understand. Republicans are not dumb, they know how to speak in complete sentences. It is Democrats who are too stupid to realize they have to communicate to an audience with the attention span of a 5 year old, who has just downed a litre of caffeinated pop and needs to find a toilet fast
Democratic candidates need to learn how to speak in simple declarative sentences. Democratic voters need to listen to what candidates say, and not how they look. For gosh sake forget the Nixon-Kennedy debate already. That was almost 50 years ago.
Pay attention dammit! Democrats have only had the White House once in the past 27 years. It is because they need to act more like Republicans, not be more like Republicans.
I like Ted Rall’s take on this.
“If I had to pick a winner, I think tonight was Obama's night. He seemed loose and comfortable and in charge. He certainly had the best laugh line ---“
Liberals and Democrats just don’t get it. They continue to choose based upon who looks best or who is the most “electable”, not based on the quality of ideas.
What the Republicans realized a long time ago, is the electorate prefers conviction over looks, and values over electability. It does not matter if 99% of it is crap. The electorate wants consistency. They want to know where a candidate stands. They equate this with leadership, even if they disagree with the position. They do not want a wishy washy, flip flopper, who gives a complicated answer they cannot follow or understand. Republicans are not dumb, they know how to speak in complete sentences. It is Democrats who are too stupid to realize they have to communicate to an audience with the attention span of a 5 year old, who has just downed a litre of caffeinated pop and needs to find a toilet fast
Democratic candidates need to learn how to speak in simple declarative sentences. Democratic voters need to listen to what candidates say, and not how they look. For gosh sake forget the Nixon-Kennedy debate already. That was almost 50 years ago.
Pay attention dammit! Democrats have only had the White House once in the past 27 years. It is because they need to act more like Republicans, not be more like Republicans.
I like Ted Rall’s take on this.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Iranian Threat?
Iran has become the new cause of some conservatives. During Tuesday’s GOP Presidential debate, Duncan Hunter said he would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I hear other rumblings too. Last week heard one conservative say he prays that Bush will bomb Iran.
Well I don’t get it. Actually I do get it, but figure it is all a sham. What we are being told is not the reality of the situation. To a tin foil hat wearing nut case like me, the reality looks like this:
Iran is a democracy. Not one that follows the western model to be sure, but certainly more so than the former Soviet Union. Or our allies Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The religious fundamentalists have a lot of influence on the lives of Iranians, but there is an opposition and forces that would like to see a more liberal society in that country. This opposition is tolerated and given a chance might even be able to exert some influence. Would Iran become a secular state in a generation? Probably not, however remember that the country does have a democratic tradition that was squashed during the cold war.
The last thing the U.S. conservatives want is a liberal, secular Iran. This would present many problems for their allies in the region. Additionally, it eliminates an external enemy. The classic solution of a regime without a real base of support is to create external enemies to distract the populous from domestic issues. The conservatives need external enemies to distract us from the complete failure of conservative economic and social policies. Because conservatives need a threat, and Iran conveniently fills that role, they take actions that push Iran more and more toward the theocratic conservatives. I see this as a symbiosis of sorts. The external threat of the United States, helps to keep the theocratic conservatives in Iran in power.
It is useful to get beyond the domestic media when it comes to Iran. We only hear a very narrow party line in this country. This link to the BBC back ground page on Iran gives a more rational perspective here:
Be it Iran, or Chavez in Venezuela, we in the United States, get the line that these governments are somehow irrational. From what I observe, conservatives feel that anyone who does not completely and enthusiastically agree with them is dismissed as irrational or crazy. This is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, where not being completely happy with the “workers paradise” created by the fascists (no they were not any more socialists than the Chinese are today) in that country might land you in a mental institution.
So let’s just take a different perspective on Iran for a moment. It is hard, we are bombarded with a contrary perspective, and you may experience a bit of cognitive dissonance as in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon here:
Still suppose Iran has rational leaders, who, although they do not have the same core values as us, none the less want what is best for the people of Iran. Also suppose they see outside threats from a world and regional nuclear powers, and not without reason, fear attack or invasion by these powers. Anyone who has studied deterrence theory knows that when two parties have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of them being used diminishes. Nuclear weapons are additionally the best deterrent to ground invasion. In spite of what you may want to believe about the bomb, it really is an instrument of peace among rational actors. The latest example being India-Pakistan.
Now let’s take another wild leap. Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. The official line of the Iranian government is that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. All of the controversy is because we, the United States, say they are liars. As a result we have created a hostile environment where Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors complete access to their facilities. It is interesting that the IAEA report on this matter is restricted. I wonder what is so secret? I wonder what would happen if we just took Iran at their word and allowed them to have a nuclear energy program that did not violate the NPT?
There is a rub though. The capability to enrich Uranium is the key to being able to develop a bomb. An Iran with nuclear weapons threatens the hegemony of the only nuclear power in the region. It that a bad thing? Let’s take another baby step away from the conservative propaganda. If deterrence theory is correct, and nuclear weapons help to keep the peace, another nuclear power in the region would most likely make it more peaceful. The outcome might not be the most economically advantageous to the allies of our American conservatives, but it might actually be a good thing for both the majority of the people in the region and the world as a whole. Now, I am just a nut with a funny hat on, but I really don’t believe that the Iranians would give a bomb to “terrorists”. If you do a little research you will find the “suitcase bomb” as it is portrayed in the MSM is a myth. (Compact nuclear weapons take a lot of development, have low yields, and are still beyond the ability of a single person to practically lift and carry around) Giving a bomb to terrorists is irrational, and I just cannot for the life of me see the Iranian government as being any more irrational then our current administration.
But to a nut case like me the current strategy makes sense from the perspective on the conservatives. Even provoking Iran to build nuclear weapons makes sense. Attacking Iran makes sense. It all makes sense if your goal is to perpetuate a “long war” and insure conflict for years to come.
Well I don’t get it. Actually I do get it, but figure it is all a sham. What we are being told is not the reality of the situation. To a tin foil hat wearing nut case like me, the reality looks like this:
Iran is a democracy. Not one that follows the western model to be sure, but certainly more so than the former Soviet Union. Or our allies Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The religious fundamentalists have a lot of influence on the lives of Iranians, but there is an opposition and forces that would like to see a more liberal society in that country. This opposition is tolerated and given a chance might even be able to exert some influence. Would Iran become a secular state in a generation? Probably not, however remember that the country does have a democratic tradition that was squashed during the cold war.
The last thing the U.S. conservatives want is a liberal, secular Iran. This would present many problems for their allies in the region. Additionally, it eliminates an external enemy. The classic solution of a regime without a real base of support is to create external enemies to distract the populous from domestic issues. The conservatives need external enemies to distract us from the complete failure of conservative economic and social policies. Because conservatives need a threat, and Iran conveniently fills that role, they take actions that push Iran more and more toward the theocratic conservatives. I see this as a symbiosis of sorts. The external threat of the United States, helps to keep the theocratic conservatives in Iran in power.
It is useful to get beyond the domestic media when it comes to Iran. We only hear a very narrow party line in this country. This link to the BBC back ground page on Iran gives a more rational perspective here:
Be it Iran, or Chavez in Venezuela, we in the United States, get the line that these governments are somehow irrational. From what I observe, conservatives feel that anyone who does not completely and enthusiastically agree with them is dismissed as irrational or crazy. This is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, where not being completely happy with the “workers paradise” created by the fascists (no they were not any more socialists than the Chinese are today) in that country might land you in a mental institution.
So let’s just take a different perspective on Iran for a moment. It is hard, we are bombarded with a contrary perspective, and you may experience a bit of cognitive dissonance as in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon here:
Still suppose Iran has rational leaders, who, although they do not have the same core values as us, none the less want what is best for the people of Iran. Also suppose they see outside threats from a world and regional nuclear powers, and not without reason, fear attack or invasion by these powers. Anyone who has studied deterrence theory knows that when two parties have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of them being used diminishes. Nuclear weapons are additionally the best deterrent to ground invasion. In spite of what you may want to believe about the bomb, it really is an instrument of peace among rational actors. The latest example being India-Pakistan.
Now let’s take another wild leap. Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. The official line of the Iranian government is that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. All of the controversy is because we, the United States, say they are liars. As a result we have created a hostile environment where Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors complete access to their facilities. It is interesting that the IAEA report on this matter is restricted. I wonder what is so secret? I wonder what would happen if we just took Iran at their word and allowed them to have a nuclear energy program that did not violate the NPT?
There is a rub though. The capability to enrich Uranium is the key to being able to develop a bomb. An Iran with nuclear weapons threatens the hegemony of the only nuclear power in the region. It that a bad thing? Let’s take another baby step away from the conservative propaganda. If deterrence theory is correct, and nuclear weapons help to keep the peace, another nuclear power in the region would most likely make it more peaceful. The outcome might not be the most economically advantageous to the allies of our American conservatives, but it might actually be a good thing for both the majority of the people in the region and the world as a whole. Now, I am just a nut with a funny hat on, but I really don’t believe that the Iranians would give a bomb to “terrorists”. If you do a little research you will find the “suitcase bomb” as it is portrayed in the MSM is a myth. (Compact nuclear weapons take a lot of development, have low yields, and are still beyond the ability of a single person to practically lift and carry around) Giving a bomb to terrorists is irrational, and I just cannot for the life of me see the Iranian government as being any more irrational then our current administration.
But to a nut case like me the current strategy makes sense from the perspective on the conservatives. Even provoking Iran to build nuclear weapons makes sense. Attacking Iran makes sense. It all makes sense if your goal is to perpetuate a “long war” and insure conflict for years to come.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Leaders Inspire People to Follow
Al Gore in an interview with NY Times Columnist Bob Herbert: “But what politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I find I have in short supply”
Exactly! and what American voters want is someone who with cut through that crap. It is the difference between a person with ambition and a real leader. Someone who will tell reporters that they are idiots, and answer other questions with an equal degree of honesty. Someone who really will ignore the polls and the consultants and just be his or her self. Who will lay out what the believe and why and what they think we really ought to do as a nation.
The level of artifice in our politics has gotten to a point that people are numb. They buy into it, tolerate it, or quit participating all together. The elites like the third choice because it concentrates power, and invests more in those who are easily manipulated.
Al Gore could run the campaign of a contrarian. Be an anti candidate. Just get out there and talk to people. No polls, no consultants, limited adverts. Just Al Gore being the wooden, policy wonk, the MSM hates. He would get my vote, and a lot more. He would get my time my energy, and I’ll bet others would follow Al Gore. He is a leader.
Re-elect Gore in ’08!
Exactly! and what American voters want is someone who with cut through that crap. It is the difference between a person with ambition and a real leader. Someone who will tell reporters that they are idiots, and answer other questions with an equal degree of honesty. Someone who really will ignore the polls and the consultants and just be his or her self. Who will lay out what the believe and why and what they think we really ought to do as a nation.
The level of artifice in our politics has gotten to a point that people are numb. They buy into it, tolerate it, or quit participating all together. The elites like the third choice because it concentrates power, and invests more in those who are easily manipulated.
Al Gore could run the campaign of a contrarian. Be an anti candidate. Just get out there and talk to people. No polls, no consultants, limited adverts. Just Al Gore being the wooden, policy wonk, the MSM hates. He would get my vote, and a lot more. He would get my time my energy, and I’ll bet others would follow Al Gore. He is a leader.
Re-elect Gore in ’08!
Friday, June 1, 2007
Don't You Know? Global Warming is a Good Thing
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, on NPR May 31, 2007:
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
This is the new conservative line. In essence: Global warming is a good thing. Yeah I agree a good thing if your goal is to bring on the apocalypse. While I have no doubt this is the ultimate goal of some conservatives, it is not one I with which happen to agree.
As often happens, this leads me to question the underlying motives of the conservative movement. Aristocracy? Theocracy? I don’t know for sure, but I do know it involves the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. The penultimate goal is to show the American experiment in democracy to be a null hypothesis. Why do the conservatives hate America? Because in addition to economic liberty, to which they pay lip service, but support established interests who manipulate markets to concentrate wealth, it also offers social liberty. Conservatism is a movement based upon racism, and maintaining the long standing social order.
How does this relate to global warming? Controlling this man made phenomena will require a revolution. Changing all 7 aspects of society, in the classic definition of that term. This sort of change causes a reordering of things that displaces the status quo. The elites who now reap the majority of the benefits of our collective labor are worried. I doubt this has much to do with money. When you have that much it just becomes play money after a while. It is more about power, a sense of entitlement, a Calvinist view, and a feeling that they, the choosen, alone know what is best for the world.
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
This is the new conservative line. In essence: Global warming is a good thing. Yeah I agree a good thing if your goal is to bring on the apocalypse. While I have no doubt this is the ultimate goal of some conservatives, it is not one I with which happen to agree.
As often happens, this leads me to question the underlying motives of the conservative movement. Aristocracy? Theocracy? I don’t know for sure, but I do know it involves the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. The penultimate goal is to show the American experiment in democracy to be a null hypothesis. Why do the conservatives hate America? Because in addition to economic liberty, to which they pay lip service, but support established interests who manipulate markets to concentrate wealth, it also offers social liberty. Conservatism is a movement based upon racism, and maintaining the long standing social order.
How does this relate to global warming? Controlling this man made phenomena will require a revolution. Changing all 7 aspects of society, in the classic definition of that term. This sort of change causes a reordering of things that displaces the status quo. The elites who now reap the majority of the benefits of our collective labor are worried. I doubt this has much to do with money. When you have that much it just becomes play money after a while. It is more about power, a sense of entitlement, a Calvinist view, and a feeling that they, the choosen, alone know what is best for the world.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Gee, I Didn't Realize Insurance Companies Could Vote
Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics at Princeton University was talking about the various Presidential candidates health care reform proposals on APM "Marketplace" yesterday.
Reinhardt:..."and if they're smart — what they'll come forth with is versions of the Massachusetts-Arnold Schwarzenegger plan, which is a little bit of everything. You pay off the insurance industry by letting them be the vehicle through which people get third-party coverage."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/29/PM200705295.html
Hmmm. I wonder why we, or "our" government, would need to pay off the insurance industry to reform our health care mess? Aren't the insurance companies the reason we already pay triple the administrative costs for health care what the rest of the civilized world pays, for better care? Oh, and when did we amend the Constitution to give corporations the right to vote?
Just another example of how letting the marketplace decide, results in the worst solution for the majority. Is it any wonder some of us advocate class warfare? Or at least fighting back in the class war the elites have been waging on the middle and lower classes since 1981? ( I often am astounded at how many middle class people align themselves with the elite even though they are actually getting screwed worse than some of us with even lower incomes.)
It really comes down to reforming campaign finance doesn't it. While to not allow individuals to contribute to campaigns would clearly violate the 1st Amendment, it is only a court decision that gives corporations the same right. In the current election cycle, candidates are abandoning public funding because the rates for adverts during an election campaign are sky high. But don't we the people own the airwaves and the broadcast spectrum? It seems to me it would be in every candidates interest to regulate the costs and accessibility of air time during campaigns. This would promote democracy. Even if this does begin to tilt the scales more toward the less known candidates and parties. Competition in the marketplace of ideas is a good thing... Right?
Reinhardt:..."and if they're smart — what they'll come forth with is versions of the Massachusetts-Arnold Schwarzenegger plan, which is a little bit of everything. You pay off the insurance industry by letting them be the vehicle through which people get third-party coverage."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/29/PM200705295.html
Hmmm. I wonder why we, or "our" government, would need to pay off the insurance industry to reform our health care mess? Aren't the insurance companies the reason we already pay triple the administrative costs for health care what the rest of the civilized world pays, for better care? Oh, and when did we amend the Constitution to give corporations the right to vote?
Just another example of how letting the marketplace decide, results in the worst solution for the majority. Is it any wonder some of us advocate class warfare? Or at least fighting back in the class war the elites have been waging on the middle and lower classes since 1981? ( I often am astounded at how many middle class people align themselves with the elite even though they are actually getting screwed worse than some of us with even lower incomes.)
It really comes down to reforming campaign finance doesn't it. While to not allow individuals to contribute to campaigns would clearly violate the 1st Amendment, it is only a court decision that gives corporations the same right. In the current election cycle, candidates are abandoning public funding because the rates for adverts during an election campaign are sky high. But don't we the people own the airwaves and the broadcast spectrum? It seems to me it would be in every candidates interest to regulate the costs and accessibility of air time during campaigns. This would promote democracy. Even if this does begin to tilt the scales more toward the less known candidates and parties. Competition in the marketplace of ideas is a good thing... Right?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Is Rudy a Lunatic?
Paul Krugman: “Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.”
Why are so many Republicans so delusional? Because it serves their interests to be so. Fear can be a powerful motivator. But it is time those of us who retain our rationality start calling these ideas for what they really are. Do you recall how the neocons used the argument that poor people were poor because the Democrats, kept them that way to maintain their constituency? While that argument had little if any merit, this one does: The neocons secretly support terrorists, and promote terrorism with their polices, because the fear created keeps their constituency motivated and keeps them in power.
Why are so many Republicans so delusional? Because it serves their interests to be so. Fear can be a powerful motivator. But it is time those of us who retain our rationality start calling these ideas for what they really are. Do you recall how the neocons used the argument that poor people were poor because the Democrats, kept them that way to maintain their constituency? While that argument had little if any merit, this one does: The neocons secretly support terrorists, and promote terrorism with their polices, because the fear created keeps their constituency motivated and keeps them in power.
I'll Take the Weird Guy Please
In this morning’s New York Times, David Brooks, attacks and attempts to discredit Al Gore (again). Brooks:” “The Assault on Reason” is well worth reading. It reminds us that whatever the effects of our homogenizing mass culture, it is still possible for exceedingly strange individuals to rise to the top.” As if this were a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were exceedingly strange, and look at their legacy
To my mind we want visionaries as our leaders. People who can peer 20 years into the future and see that funding something like a distributed, node based, computer network, might have some value in the future. Thinkers who understand that carbon emissions might be a looming problem, long before the mass media accept this idea. Weird people, who see how mass advertising and mass psychology erode the underlying principals of our culture and democracy make the best people to make decisions about our collective lives.
People like that, are willing to make decisions based upon the future and the greater good. They make decisions and promote policies based upon what is right, not what is best for the short term interests of economic elites. I am sorry, but given the choice between a guy who might be great to go to a ball game with, a fun, rich, frat boy, who, while charming, and likable, does not have a clue, and a socially inept, weird, visionary, who thinks about the future in profound ways. I will take the weirdo. But I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. A weirdo myself.
Of course you realize, Al Gore, scares the bejesus out of the status quo. The main stream media hate him because he brings up real issues and makes them look bad. He threatens the current order of things. He has had a peek inside the machine and knows how it really works. He wants to not only change course but change how the machine works as well. Al Gore is a dangerous man.
Brooks, shrill of the conservative elites that he is, gives us an insight as to what a campaign against Gore, in ’08 might look like. Brooks wants us to believe that we should choose our leaders as we often do in grade school, or social organizations. Not based upon their competency, or vision, but based upon their social skills, and popularity based upon personality. This only plays into the hand of the economic elites and results in more of the same lousy policies we have had for the last 25 years.
To my mind we want visionaries as our leaders. People who can peer 20 years into the future and see that funding something like a distributed, node based, computer network, might have some value in the future. Thinkers who understand that carbon emissions might be a looming problem, long before the mass media accept this idea. Weird people, who see how mass advertising and mass psychology erode the underlying principals of our culture and democracy make the best people to make decisions about our collective lives.
People like that, are willing to make decisions based upon the future and the greater good. They make decisions and promote policies based upon what is right, not what is best for the short term interests of economic elites. I am sorry, but given the choice between a guy who might be great to go to a ball game with, a fun, rich, frat boy, who, while charming, and likable, does not have a clue, and a socially inept, weird, visionary, who thinks about the future in profound ways. I will take the weirdo. But I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. A weirdo myself.
Of course you realize, Al Gore, scares the bejesus out of the status quo. The main stream media hate him because he brings up real issues and makes them look bad. He threatens the current order of things. He has had a peek inside the machine and knows how it really works. He wants to not only change course but change how the machine works as well. Al Gore is a dangerous man.
Brooks, shrill of the conservative elites that he is, gives us an insight as to what a campaign against Gore, in ’08 might look like. Brooks wants us to believe that we should choose our leaders as we often do in grade school, or social organizations. Not based upon their competency, or vision, but based upon their social skills, and popularity based upon personality. This only plays into the hand of the economic elites and results in more of the same lousy policies we have had for the last 25 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
