Hoy! Today, what a day. Tons of unexpected problems, and plenty of amazing people to help me out with them. Vaguely, the agenda of my trip to the Windy City: acquire passport photos for my visa; finish the visa application, perfect and copy; get some sleep; get to N. Michigan avenue and turn everything in at ten thirty en la manjana; get on a bus back home at noon or five. No problem right?
I arrived in Chicago last night by megabus - the purpose of the trip, a visit to the Spanish Consulate to apply for my student visa - after the ride, I spent a little too long wandering around in the cold looking for an open Walgreens for my liking, but I lived. Earlier I'd tried at my local Walgreens but their photo-making-machine was broken and I was forced to delay my passport photos accordingly, I figured, hell, it's downtown Chicago, there's a Wallgreens on every corner, this shouldn't be a problem. Much to my surprise, at seven forty en la noche, when I arrived most were closed and the closest open one was closing at eight. So I walked, in the wrong direction for a bit, then got in touch with one in Greek Town, and turned around accordingly. Forty minutes of walking and bam, photos in my hands in less than five minutes, things are looking up (or so I thought!).
After wandering past some pretty fancy hotels, I found a Holiday Inn and warmed up with a nicely made Chicago pizza. I cozied up in my room while the Pats whooped the Jets, texting back and forth with friends about football and politics. After, I finished my Visa application. I got some pretty dark complimentary copies of my important documents from the Holiday Inn, and then headed off to dreamland after an extra-long and exceptionally warm shower (this is by my standards, so it was probably still not as hot or lengthy as the one you're imagining - but it's the archetype, the experience that counts - not the exact details).
I woke up at 1:30, 3:47, 4:45, 6:34 and 7:35 (two minutes before my second alarm - I apparently slept through the first at 7:00). Each wake-up was preceded by a dream where I was irreparably late for my appointment at the consulate. So, I just got up, packed up, and then called my Mom for some advice in booking my flight. At this point in the morning, my biggest concern was whether or not I had to have the flight booked to apply for the visa. After the call, I checked my email on a whim, something had gone wrong, the first of what would be many troubles raised its ugly head. My loan didn't come through as planned and my tuition check bounced. A few phone-calls to the bank and some extra legwork (thanks again to my Ma and Jessica at my bank) and it was worked out, but I wouldn't find out until after the solution to problem three presented itself.
I had planned to take a train and walk to the consulate, but there was a cab outside the hotel as I was leaving, thinking perhaps this is providential, I took it. The cab driver tried to tell me that the consulate wasn't on Michigan, but on Ashland, that it had recently moved. I said, Sir, I respectfully request that you take me to Michigan - and if it's not there, then you can take me to Ashland. I let my smart phone do some finding, and sure enough, the Mexican consulate had recently moved from Michigan to Ashland, I explained that we were both right, and we had a nice chuckle about the mixup - Spain, Mexico, I mean, what's the difference (plenty more than just the distance from Michigan Ave to Ashland). Dodged a bullet there.
I arrived at the Spanish consulate about an hour early for my appointment, but was glad that I saw the sign inside that said I needed copies of ALL my documents (not just the Visa application itself). OMG, this is my fear, am I dodging another bullet? I hope so, I'm doing everything I can to be prepared. With a little help from the doorman (my first excellent person of the day), I was off to Kinko's, where I also acquired an envelope that was a little too small, but with a little help from my second excellent person of the day, I also got a free, slightly damaged envelope that was much larger (but not too oversized as to be useless). I stopped for a Mocha across the street from the consulate and tried to kill about half an hour.
About ten minutes earlier than my appointment I headed to the consulate and I was immediately seen, an outright contradiction to the consulate's website. The website makes it sound like a cold, hard, unfeeling bureaucracy, but I met excellent people three and four here. I also came into my second problem of the morning. See, my dog chewed up my passport when I moved at the end of this past summer, not much, just a little, but it was enough to qualify my passport for "mutilated" status and by law this brings "null-and-void" status (it says so right in the passport, though of course I'd never read that before it was pointed it out to me). My passport is rendered useless, except to get another passport and the people at the consulate are optimistic, I might even be able to get it today, they say. In my little country world, a passport takes weeks (even when expedited) - fortunately this is not so in the Windy City where the State department keeps an office. Excellent persons three and four let me know I should go and do this now, and I might even be able to get back by two (when they close).
So, I book it down to the State Department offices. My "Last Supper" belt buckle gets a few good laughs out of the security guards, "I would definitely wear this," one of them says, to which I reply, Does this mean I'm going away? We all had a nice laugh - I wish airports had this kind of sense of humor, but it might be better that they don't. I get upstairs, I wait in line for the better part of an hour - the whole time, hoping and praying that I get a kind hearted person on a good day, like a mantra, kind hearted person on a good day, kind hearted person on a good day... I have no appointment, I have no travel itinerary - this is a problem, this is problem three. After a little cajoling and a lot of puppy dog eyes, excellent person number five decides that my letter of acceptance IS enough to qualify for the intention to travel, and that I can get an emergency passport replacement. But I don't have passport photos, or the proper paperwork filled out and I still might not be able to get it today. Minor problems, we'll combine them as problem four. She gives me the proper paperwork, and sends me on my way, "Just come right up to my window when you're done."
I get two sets of slightly overpriced but very quick passport photos from a specialty business across the street, fly through the application, including frantic phone calls to both of my parents (I needed both of their locations of birth for the passport application), and I'm back at the State department. At this point, I have no idea if I'll be able to get my emergency passport today, tomorrow or next week in the mail. Excellent person number five shuffles me down to excellent person number six, who checks me out and tells me to come back and pick it up at three - after we make some jokes about Dogs/cuteness, the cost of chewing up passports, and that even though I didn't list it on my list of countries I intend to visit, that I should check out Morocco. I nervously agreed, hoping it wasn't a trick question, So I've heard, I said. After raising my right hand and signing a hurtfully large receipt, I was back on my way to the consulate - which of course, closes at two. It was one.
I opt for a cab, because it is cold and I'm sick of walking and sweating, there is no middle ground for me in the winter, I am too hot or I am cold, period. We get back to Michigan avenue and my card is declining. SRSLY? I'm calling the bank to find out what's going on while the cabbie is telling me that I'm declined again, and again, I try to explain, I tell him to keep the meter running - I know I've got money, maybe it's because I'm in Chicago (out of my town) and I've spent a few hundred dollars in the past twenty four hours. He "lets" me out after about five minutes, says forget about it. He's been speaking in Afrikaans or Arabic on a bluetooth since I got in, so I give him some nice blessings in Arabic, maybe it assuaged the burn I accidentally gave him. Turns out, when I finally get ahold of someone at the bank, it must have been his machine because there was no record of the transactions on their end. I decide I've got to get some cash, silly me - when I changed pants before I left the night before I didn't transfer my twenty two dollars in small bills.
Upon my return to the consulate, excellent persons three and four remain amenable, helpful and nice. They help me get my papers in order, and tell me to just bring the passport and slip it in the mail slot after I pick it up from the State department at three pm. I make a quick trip to the post office to get a return envelope for the passport that I don't even have, and voila, all that's left is to make it back to the state department and then back to the consulate. Turns out, that smaller envelope that I bought at Kinko's is going to be needed after all. And all the while, I've got Gogol Bordello running through my head. I stop at an ATM and pay a crazy stupid fee to pull out some cash for later emergencies. At this point, I'm beginning to suspect that this is in fact, "just one of those days."
I hate eating corporate in a place like Chicago, I mean, there's so many options. Still, I opt for a chain because I need some normalcy and I'm craving a mozzarella and basil sandwich. I killed about an hour for lunch with a wi-fi connection, doing some correspondence, writing a little, helping a friend with his sociology woes and finally booking my return bus for 4:55 pm. My smart phone tells me that It'll take me seventeen minutes to walk to the State department building. At 2:17 I start the walk, after a couple of short detours, it's twenty to three and I'm checking through security for the third time. I get up stairs, I show them that my phone is off (NO phones allowed in the State department) again, they send me to the room to wait.
In the room, I see many of the same people I saw earlier, just grumpier, more excitable and looking pretty worn out. I wait my turn at the window. My passport isn't finished, it is in process, just wait, thirty/forty minutes - max, he says. My heart sinks, I see my bus-ride slipping away and I start to feel stupid for not buying the refundable ticket. I cheer myself up, plenty of time I think to myself, I'll still be at the terminal by four thirty, NBD. Besides, without access to my phone I probably couldn't cancel the ticket anyway.
At four, the gentleman calls my name, my heart leaps for joy but when I get to the window he's not holding one of the blue passport envelopes that he's been handing out. They misspelled your name, he tells me, they're remaking it, just a few minutes longer. He then, disappears for an indeterminate amount of time and people start packing up behind the windows. There is no clock in the passport room, and you're not allowed to turn your phone on - too bad my phone is my watch. After what feels like an eternity, the huffy woman at the next window over calls my name. She seems pretty flummoxed by this turn of overtime events for her - I'm not even the last one in the room. I sign for the passport, I grab my mighty selection of winter wear that I've been alternating between wearing and carrying all day, and head for the door.
By the time I get my phone turned on it says four thirty four. I have twenty minutes to make it ten blocks, take a fifteen story elevator ride up and then back down, and then make it twenty five blocks to the bus-station. Cripes. Whatever hope I have is looking like fumes on a gas gage. Taxi time! 180 N. Michigan please. Elevator ride up. Brand-new passport into the undersized envelope from earlier, slipped into the mail slot so that it falls with my name and purpose face up - success. Call the elevator, it takes forever (or about ten seconds), it stops on the way down and floods with ladies, positive, jubilant ladies. We make a couple of quick jokes - I told them they might not want to get on the elevator with me, they told me they'd been stuck in THIS exact elevator just hours earlier. I'm thrilled when we touch down. I yog past them through the revolving door, apologizing, but they seemed to understand that I was hurried. It is 4:47, my bus is twenty five blocks away and leaves in eight minutes.
The first cab passes me by, the second cab passes me by - one full, one empty. The third cab brings me excellent person number seven and is the nicest cab I've been in all day, a Mercury Sable? who knew. I've got twenty dollars if you can get me to the greyhound station by 4:50, or just before 4:55. It's 4:48 and in as thick an Eastern-European accent as I've ever heard from an immigrant, he says, "Woy - maybe in eight minute. You got your ticket?" Nope, it's will-call, gotta pick it up. He "Woys" again. We get cut off by the same car three times, we get stuck behind two out of service busses, we hit the first four possible red lights, but then traffic broke and lights were green for a mile. We laughed the entire time, I told him my story - or at least an abridged version - and by no small miracle, in Chicago rush-hour traffic, he got me to the terminal at 4:54. He got the twenty.
I ran in. I mixed up the young woman at the counter's prompt for "Your credit card or confirmation number," and I started reading her my credit card... What number are you giving me? My credit card - No, I need your card OR your confirmation number. Woy. I give her the card, flash my ID, sign my ticket and I'm off again. Sir, Sir, she calls after me, I look back, It's that side. I was running to the wrong exit. I shift direction like a young Fred Taylor, and somehow maintain my momentum, only to have my exuberance noted by a guard - Woah there he says to me. 4:55 to Madison? I say. I can see the bus. Oh, he says. Ok, you almost missed it. He signs me off, walks me out (I swear I'm still yogging at this point, like I never stopped) and says to the driver, "We got a runner." And we're all laughing again. This is how my entire day has gone, I clue them both in. I can't believe how hard I had to work to make this happen, but it's even harder to believe that it all actually worked out.
Going into this, all I could think about was how perfect my paperwork needed to be and how scared I was about being turned away for not having everything correct. It turns out, perfect as it was, my paperwork was barely glanced at and most of what I've had to do involved legwork, sweat and the kindness of others. I never imagined that my day would end with a race to the bus depot, a brand-new passport with my information sitting in an envelope on the floor of the Spanish consulate waiting to be discovered en la manjana, and me blogging about my day in Chicago on the Wi-Fi connection of a Greyhound bus - but it is out of my hands now and it's over. Dio mediante, إن شاءالله , there's nothing more for me to do but book my flight... (And the adventure begins again? Woy, I hope not.)
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, November 15, 2010
Dear Scott Walker
You have made it apparent that you're very interested in cutting our high-speed rail project. By all accounts, you're looking into what it would take to give the money back, and you've said so much as well. Your emphasis, and I'm guessing impetus in cutting the rail project has to do with cutting government spending - in and of itself a noble goal, but nothing in life is free.
I fear that there is an idea that is gnawing at our American identity, this idea that things can just be had for free. It manifests in people who look to the government to provide for them without any, or with only limited personal involvement in the process. Welfare is a prime example of this, the government providing for the people (whether or not they deserve it is not up for debate, that's not my purpose), and in this last election, this idea was fostered by Republican across the country, including but not limited to this state. These candidates told us (the people) that they would bring the government budget(s) back into line with reality. Focusing on an ideology of independence and individual liberty, and tying big budgets to big government and high taxes. Americans are wary at the least of big, progressive government and the inherent loss of liberty that sort of forced taxation brings. But that is only one side of this coin.
The other side has to do with outsourcing, because you can't just cut from the budget without losing services - nature abhors a vacuum - what the government drops is either directly or indirectly outsourced to the private sector. Either civil programs that aid the underprivileged are cut never to return, which indubitably presents a raised cost to these hard-working, underprivileged, poor, tax-payers - or - other programs become privatized.
If you cut the Federal government funding from the train program, if you kill the train program, are you working in Wisconsin's best interests or are you working for the Federal government's best interests or are you looking out for the contractors who may pick up that cross and simply change the price-tag instead?
My point is this, you cannot outsource government programs to the private sector and claim any sort of aid to the taxpayer. Services that were once subsidized by tax dollars increase in price - possibly out of the range of those who would use them. Let's take a bus for example, or perhaps a high-speed train. If tax dollars, state or federal, are keeping a bus-fare low and that subsidy is taken away, the price to ride the bus increases (and people would demand more of the bus service accordingly - we already have non-public transportation in the form of personal automobiles and taxis) and the people who need it most are denied. In turn, the bus sees less business and less funding, then as though a miracle of the market, the bus folds and there is not public transportation. Obviously, because it is not profitable it is not beneficial - hopefully you can see through my sarcasm and recognize that as the bold-faced lie it is.
This is the myth of corporatism, of privatization, this is the cold, unfeeling hand of the market. It is dis-compassionate and it is based in an American mythology of the individual - even you sir could not have gotten to where you are (as an elected official) without the votes of people. You may be our face and you may be a very hard worker, but you are not the machine without us. Perhaps you could take the time out of your busy schedule to reevaluate your agenda.
You are the governor of our state, your duty is to the people of Wisconsin. Not to the upper classes, not to the privileged elites, not to the business interests who bankrolled you into office, not even to the Federal government - you are OUR governor and we are asking you to take notice of that. You were elected by less than a five percent margin, you have anything but a carte blanche to do what you will with this state and it's inhabitants. Your constituents include an incredible amount of working poor that transcends ethnic and racial lines.
And besides, wouldn't a high-speed train make your Milwaukee to Madison and back commute a little easier, I mean, you can afford it. Let the federal government worry about how much money they're going to give you or not, don't say no to help. This train isn't going to break the country, but your cuts into Wisconsin just might destroy the state - whether or not you can balance the budget because of them.
sincerely,
SAM
I fear that there is an idea that is gnawing at our American identity, this idea that things can just be had for free. It manifests in people who look to the government to provide for them without any, or with only limited personal involvement in the process. Welfare is a prime example of this, the government providing for the people (whether or not they deserve it is not up for debate, that's not my purpose), and in this last election, this idea was fostered by Republican across the country, including but not limited to this state. These candidates told us (the people) that they would bring the government budget(s) back into line with reality. Focusing on an ideology of independence and individual liberty, and tying big budgets to big government and high taxes. Americans are wary at the least of big, progressive government and the inherent loss of liberty that sort of forced taxation brings. But that is only one side of this coin.
The other side has to do with outsourcing, because you can't just cut from the budget without losing services - nature abhors a vacuum - what the government drops is either directly or indirectly outsourced to the private sector. Either civil programs that aid the underprivileged are cut never to return, which indubitably presents a raised cost to these hard-working, underprivileged, poor, tax-payers - or - other programs become privatized.
If you cut the Federal government funding from the train program, if you kill the train program, are you working in Wisconsin's best interests or are you working for the Federal government's best interests or are you looking out for the contractors who may pick up that cross and simply change the price-tag instead?
My point is this, you cannot outsource government programs to the private sector and claim any sort of aid to the taxpayer. Services that were once subsidized by tax dollars increase in price - possibly out of the range of those who would use them. Let's take a bus for example, or perhaps a high-speed train. If tax dollars, state or federal, are keeping a bus-fare low and that subsidy is taken away, the price to ride the bus increases (and people would demand more of the bus service accordingly - we already have non-public transportation in the form of personal automobiles and taxis) and the people who need it most are denied. In turn, the bus sees less business and less funding, then as though a miracle of the market, the bus folds and there is not public transportation. Obviously, because it is not profitable it is not beneficial - hopefully you can see through my sarcasm and recognize that as the bold-faced lie it is.
This is the myth of corporatism, of privatization, this is the cold, unfeeling hand of the market. It is dis-compassionate and it is based in an American mythology of the individual - even you sir could not have gotten to where you are (as an elected official) without the votes of people. You may be our face and you may be a very hard worker, but you are not the machine without us. Perhaps you could take the time out of your busy schedule to reevaluate your agenda.
You are the governor of our state, your duty is to the people of Wisconsin. Not to the upper classes, not to the privileged elites, not to the business interests who bankrolled you into office, not even to the Federal government - you are OUR governor and we are asking you to take notice of that. You were elected by less than a five percent margin, you have anything but a carte blanche to do what you will with this state and it's inhabitants. Your constituents include an incredible amount of working poor that transcends ethnic and racial lines.
And besides, wouldn't a high-speed train make your Milwaukee to Madison and back commute a little easier, I mean, you can afford it. Let the federal government worry about how much money they're going to give you or not, don't say no to help. This train isn't going to break the country, but your cuts into Wisconsin just might destroy the state - whether or not you can balance the budget because of them.
sincerely,
SAM
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Veteran's Day Redoux
This was written as a response to a lengthy Facebook comments feed on Veteran's day. A friend of mine (Jeff, a devoted and sincere pacifist and anarchist) said, "Soldiers are murderers, every single one signed up to kill. They sacrifice their own morality on the false altar of our corrupt government for lies of glory or desperation for money and education. Many of them don't have a choice in becoming soldiers, and for that I pity them. But I do not, and will not, respect anyone who CHOOSES to kill and die at the beck and call of the immoral fatcats." Needless to say, many of his friends took offense to this and responded in various ways - some personal, some with simply differing opinions. (the feed can be found here, or at least it was at one time.) I missed the entire conversation, but felt compelled to write the following - which I in turn much abbreviated and added as my two cents to the conversation.
I wrote,
Killers a killer. I know soldiers who are proud killers or at least like to say they are. Our military is being misused. Aggression and hegemony are not appropriate uses of military might.
My dad's birthday is Veterans day, he's the only one of his brothers who never served a day in the military. My Grandad was a sailor in the Navy during World War Two, he lied about his age to join up, he was sixteen. After the war he joined the Air Force, and served until he reached retirement. Neither of my Dad's older brothers were sent to Vietnam, my dad was too young to serve anyway. Rumor in my family is that Papa made a deal with the military, somehow. He had pretty high top-secret clearance, so my guess is he had some leverage. Wild conjecture but a good story nonetheless.
My step-brother is in the Army, he's been to Iraq four times. In his own words, he kills bad guys. I was socialized to love America, and in my own way I still do. As a child I read every history book about war I could get my hands on. I grew up wanting to be a soldier, but then when I was given the opportunity to break codes for Marine Intelligence, I decided I couldn't be a part of the machine that kills people. Jeff and I share the same month and day of birth in different years so I find that similarity to be an interesting correlation.
My Papa died of cancer when I was three. I barely remember it. Some of my earliest memories have to do with visiting him in the VA hospital with my parents, aunts, uncles and cousins. There's a good possibility that he died because of, or in relation to exposure to agent orange. I don't believe my Grandmother was ever able to be a part of the agent orange settlement, either because she chose not to participate, because my Papa's security level denied her access to his records, or perhaps one of uncountable other reasons.
Needless to say, my opinion of soldiers and soldiering is nuanced and mostly unimportant, and although I love the anarchist ideals that Jeff purports, they are not the way of the world and whether or not they should be is not what this discussion seemed to be about. I read all these comments and there are many good points that have been made - as well as an unfortunate amount of personal involvement. Something John Stewart said comes to mind, "We can have animus and not be enemies." You're friends, don't let THIS be what comes between you. Our differences are what make us strong, balanced. So the Jeff's are balanced out by the Killers, and vice versa.
That said, it's nice to bring up the the founding myth of the American Revolutionary war, and it's regular-fare to talk about Vietnam, but nobody talks about the US Civil War, which killed over six hundred thousand American soldiers. The north fought against the slaving south in as honorable a war for freedom as can be - and the south fought for their way of life, which they also described as freedom (just not for Blacks), but without Sherman's march to the sea, in which horrible atrocities were committed against the south, the victory of the Union, the country as we know it, history as we recall it would be very different. Horrible things are done to achieve and maintain.
After the revolution, we slaughtered the natives, then fought Mexicans, then each other, then the Spanish, then Mexicans again, then World War One, then World War Two, which ushered in the Nuclear age and the cold war. Then the hegemony and posturing against the communist menace - America as the world's savior. And! we won. But we didn't bring the troops home from Europe, we didn't bring them home from anywhere, we kept our military stationed worldwide; regardless of whether or not we want to admit it, we're acting as if the world is completely within our hegemony.
With the invention of the atomic bomb came the invention of National Security - nothing had ever been that big of a deal, and with good reason. What if the Nazi's had the bomb? (Some dude makes a mint writing about that.) The bomb put the President in charge of war, which is unconstitutional. One man isn't to be in charge of war, that's a king's duty or (a) God(s)'(s). It was extra-unconstitutional for our congress to give Bush II the right to declare war on Iraq, the pre-approved, pre-emptive strike (against a third world country that wouldn't admit they didn't have any WMD because they were worried they'd be invaded by Iran if they admitted it). Afghanistan, though much closer to a retributive strike for the attacks of 9/11 was still a violation of international law and the sanctity of Afghanistan as a nation - Afghanistan didn't declare war on the US, some people who happened to be hiding out there did. Now, we're still fighting in both places, eight and ten years after the fact. Struggles longer than either of the World Wars, longer than the US Civil War, and almost as long as the US involvement in Vietnam.
The grander point that I am trying to reach here is that regardless of how one feels about what happened on 9/11, our wars in the Middle East and Western Asia are not "just" wars - they are wars of hegemony. We decided that these other countries (or more accurately, what was going on in these countries) were (was) problematic for our interests, regardless of their national sovereignty. This is practically a dictionary definition of hegemony. This would be reverse of the situation regarding Switzerland and Nazi Germany - if the Nazi's had gone decided that the correct answer wasn't to bypass Switzerland to get to France, but instead to just simply invade Switzerland. Or if the rest of Europe had decided that Nazi Germany was to be stopped - which is the rhetoric that was used to whip up the pro-war frenzy in the wake of 9/11. The fundamental difference between the rhetoric and reality is the difference between a nation invading another nation and a nation invading a nation to get at a group of people hiding-out in that other nation. That'd be like Mexico invading the US to get at drug dealers hiding out here - or vice versa. But I think it's important to note the difference in feeling to our country being invaded vs. our country invading another country. One makes us the victim, the other the hero. By that same logic, that makes Afghanistan the victim, though we still like to imagine that we're the hero. The foil to a victim isn't a hero but a perpetrator of Evil.
Lastly, I think it's difficult to say who would do what, when x and/or y variable occurs. Reality makes, and history has a record of unlikely and awkward heroes, strange bedfellows and surprise killers for better and for worse. People complain about the media and a slanted message, they should turn that directly on the slanted lens of history. In a way I find it hard not to see this nation as a self important bully with a long and violent history of same, but we've stood against (what have been portrayed as) more-evil-states that could have otherwise shaped the world, for better or for worse, but we're writing the history books, because we're winning.
But the unfortunate side effect of our victories has left an unbalance - there's no ONE, clear enemy anymore, or at least not a NATION - and we're not willing to put down our dukes, even though we're drained like an aging punch-drunk champion fighting against shadows. It's just sad that though what lurks behind some shadows is genuinely unhappy and possibly willing to kill us, and behind the rest are innocent bystanders.
It takes a lot to kill but if you pay your taxes you're suporting it. So if you don't agree with it, either stop paying your taxes (in which case you go to jail and basically wind up a ward of the state who winds up contributing in other ways) or as some love to remind those who feel differently than they do about love of country and freedom, maybe it's best to just leave - but where does one go? Perhaps to a democratic-socialist state, like Switzerland, or anywhere in Scandinavia. No where's really perfect, because we're not, but if America wants to continue to see itself as the hero and savior of the planet, her people, liberty and freedom, we've got much harder work ahead of us that doesn't involve anything remotely akin to invading countries and waging war. We need to wage a war against our selves and see our own faults and flaws.
Killing is killing, a person who kills is a killer. Sometimes, killing can be done in the best interests of a large amount of people, but it is never in the best interests of the killed or their relations. If we don't change our methods and our ideologies, we are going to create a world that is hardly worth living in, let alone killing for, and far too many people are going to die. But then again, sooner or later, there's going to be too many of us for this lil'blue planet and we're going to have to figure something else out or we're all going to die.
I wrote,
Killers a killer. I know soldiers who are proud killers or at least like to say they are. Our military is being misused. Aggression and hegemony are not appropriate uses of military might.
My dad's birthday is Veterans day, he's the only one of his brothers who never served a day in the military. My Grandad was a sailor in the Navy during World War Two, he lied about his age to join up, he was sixteen. After the war he joined the Air Force, and served until he reached retirement. Neither of my Dad's older brothers were sent to Vietnam, my dad was too young to serve anyway. Rumor in my family is that Papa made a deal with the military, somehow. He had pretty high top-secret clearance, so my guess is he had some leverage. Wild conjecture but a good story nonetheless.
My step-brother is in the Army, he's been to Iraq four times. In his own words, he kills bad guys. I was socialized to love America, and in my own way I still do. As a child I read every history book about war I could get my hands on. I grew up wanting to be a soldier, but then when I was given the opportunity to break codes for Marine Intelligence, I decided I couldn't be a part of the machine that kills people. Jeff and I share the same month and day of birth in different years so I find that similarity to be an interesting correlation.
My Papa died of cancer when I was three. I barely remember it. Some of my earliest memories have to do with visiting him in the VA hospital with my parents, aunts, uncles and cousins. There's a good possibility that he died because of, or in relation to exposure to agent orange. I don't believe my Grandmother was ever able to be a part of the agent orange settlement, either because she chose not to participate, because my Papa's security level denied her access to his records, or perhaps one of uncountable other reasons.
Needless to say, my opinion of soldiers and soldiering is nuanced and mostly unimportant, and although I love the anarchist ideals that Jeff purports, they are not the way of the world and whether or not they should be is not what this discussion seemed to be about. I read all these comments and there are many good points that have been made - as well as an unfortunate amount of personal involvement. Something John Stewart said comes to mind, "We can have animus and not be enemies." You're friends, don't let THIS be what comes between you. Our differences are what make us strong, balanced. So the Jeff's are balanced out by the Killers, and vice versa.
That said, it's nice to bring up the the founding myth of the American Revolutionary war, and it's regular-fare to talk about Vietnam, but nobody talks about the US Civil War, which killed over six hundred thousand American soldiers. The north fought against the slaving south in as honorable a war for freedom as can be - and the south fought for their way of life, which they also described as freedom (just not for Blacks), but without Sherman's march to the sea, in which horrible atrocities were committed against the south, the victory of the Union, the country as we know it, history as we recall it would be very different. Horrible things are done to achieve and maintain.
After the revolution, we slaughtered the natives, then fought Mexicans, then each other, then the Spanish, then Mexicans again, then World War One, then World War Two, which ushered in the Nuclear age and the cold war. Then the hegemony and posturing against the communist menace - America as the world's savior. And! we won. But we didn't bring the troops home from Europe, we didn't bring them home from anywhere, we kept our military stationed worldwide; regardless of whether or not we want to admit it, we're acting as if the world is completely within our hegemony.
With the invention of the atomic bomb came the invention of National Security - nothing had ever been that big of a deal, and with good reason. What if the Nazi's had the bomb? (Some dude makes a mint writing about that.) The bomb put the President in charge of war, which is unconstitutional. One man isn't to be in charge of war, that's a king's duty or (a) God(s)'(s). It was extra-unconstitutional for our congress to give Bush II the right to declare war on Iraq, the pre-approved, pre-emptive strike (against a third world country that wouldn't admit they didn't have any WMD because they were worried they'd be invaded by Iran if they admitted it). Afghanistan, though much closer to a retributive strike for the attacks of 9/11 was still a violation of international law and the sanctity of Afghanistan as a nation - Afghanistan didn't declare war on the US, some people who happened to be hiding out there did. Now, we're still fighting in both places, eight and ten years after the fact. Struggles longer than either of the World Wars, longer than the US Civil War, and almost as long as the US involvement in Vietnam.
The grander point that I am trying to reach here is that regardless of how one feels about what happened on 9/11, our wars in the Middle East and Western Asia are not "just" wars - they are wars of hegemony. We decided that these other countries (or more accurately, what was going on in these countries) were (was) problematic for our interests, regardless of their national sovereignty. This is practically a dictionary definition of hegemony. This would be reverse of the situation regarding Switzerland and Nazi Germany - if the Nazi's had gone decided that the correct answer wasn't to bypass Switzerland to get to France, but instead to just simply invade Switzerland. Or if the rest of Europe had decided that Nazi Germany was to be stopped - which is the rhetoric that was used to whip up the pro-war frenzy in the wake of 9/11. The fundamental difference between the rhetoric and reality is the difference between a nation invading another nation and a nation invading a nation to get at a group of people hiding-out in that other nation. That'd be like Mexico invading the US to get at drug dealers hiding out here - or vice versa. But I think it's important to note the difference in feeling to our country being invaded vs. our country invading another country. One makes us the victim, the other the hero. By that same logic, that makes Afghanistan the victim, though we still like to imagine that we're the hero. The foil to a victim isn't a hero but a perpetrator of Evil.
Lastly, I think it's difficult to say who would do what, when x and/or y variable occurs. Reality makes, and history has a record of unlikely and awkward heroes, strange bedfellows and surprise killers for better and for worse. People complain about the media and a slanted message, they should turn that directly on the slanted lens of history. In a way I find it hard not to see this nation as a self important bully with a long and violent history of same, but we've stood against (what have been portrayed as) more-evil-states that could have otherwise shaped the world, for better or for worse, but we're writing the history books, because we're winning.
But the unfortunate side effect of our victories has left an unbalance - there's no ONE, clear enemy anymore, or at least not a NATION - and we're not willing to put down our dukes, even though we're drained like an aging punch-drunk champion fighting against shadows. It's just sad that though what lurks behind some shadows is genuinely unhappy and possibly willing to kill us, and behind the rest are innocent bystanders.
It takes a lot to kill but if you pay your taxes you're suporting it. So if you don't agree with it, either stop paying your taxes (in which case you go to jail and basically wind up a ward of the state who winds up contributing in other ways) or as some love to remind those who feel differently than they do about love of country and freedom, maybe it's best to just leave - but where does one go? Perhaps to a democratic-socialist state, like Switzerland, or anywhere in Scandinavia. No where's really perfect, because we're not, but if America wants to continue to see itself as the hero and savior of the planet, her people, liberty and freedom, we've got much harder work ahead of us that doesn't involve anything remotely akin to invading countries and waging war. We need to wage a war against our selves and see our own faults and flaws.
Killing is killing, a person who kills is a killer. Sometimes, killing can be done in the best interests of a large amount of people, but it is never in the best interests of the killed or their relations. If we don't change our methods and our ideologies, we are going to create a world that is hardly worth living in, let alone killing for, and far too many people are going to die. But then again, sooner or later, there's going to be too many of us for this lil'blue planet and we're going to have to figure something else out or we're all going to die.
Monday, November 8, 2010
sometimes, original works are not the best idea
I wish I had something profound to say to you today, something that would turn everything wrong on its head and make everything right again - the election didn't do that and neither can I. If you think it did, or I can, you are sadly mistaken and horribly wrong. Please connect the dots:
1.) Read this or, if you don't like to read and have lots of time, watch this, (good stuff starts @ the 2:50 mark) Bill Moyers speech @ Boston University on October 29th, just days before the election. It's long but informative, horribly informative. His argument appeals not to emotion but to logic and morality, and it finds an unfortunate amount of traction in reality.
2.) "Speak, money" by Roger D. Hodge, the article is referenced in the Moyers speech. It's not as long, but still long.
3.) This is Mitch McConnell, say what you will about Obama's double speak - this is about as duplicitous as it get - read what he's quoted as saying in the Moyers speech and then watch this.
(optional) Extra Credit: Read "So Much Damn Money" by Robert G. Kaiser, or listen to this reading of an excerpt from it on NPR.
AMERICA, WAKE UP! It's true, the politicians aren't working for us anymore, they're working for plutocracists or plutonomists. They are working for the people who are really running the show and calling the shots from behind the camera, like the difference between actors and the director. They will say anything to make you feel good about yourself and the direction of the country, but ultimately, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are saying the truth, are doing the "right" thing by the people, and are guiding us towards a better, freer, more American future. We're being sold a giant satchel of lies. The people in office are just paying lip-service to the constitution and to our best interests, and way too many people are listening to them.
1.) Read this or, if you don't like to read and have lots of time, watch this, (good stuff starts @ the 2:50 mark) Bill Moyers speech @ Boston University on October 29th, just days before the election. It's long but informative, horribly informative. His argument appeals not to emotion but to logic and morality, and it finds an unfortunate amount of traction in reality.
2.) "Speak, money" by Roger D. Hodge, the article is referenced in the Moyers speech. It's not as long, but still long.
3.) This is Mitch McConnell, say what you will about Obama's double speak - this is about as duplicitous as it get - read what he's quoted as saying in the Moyers speech and then watch this.
(optional) Extra Credit: Read "So Much Damn Money" by Robert G. Kaiser, or listen to this reading of an excerpt from it on NPR.
AMERICA, WAKE UP! It's true, the politicians aren't working for us anymore, they're working for plutocracists or plutonomists. They are working for the people who are really running the show and calling the shots from behind the camera, like the difference between actors and the director. They will say anything to make you feel good about yourself and the direction of the country, but ultimately, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are saying the truth, are doing the "right" thing by the people, and are guiding us towards a better, freer, more American future. We're being sold a giant satchel of lies. The people in office are just paying lip-service to the constitution and to our best interests, and way too many people are listening to them.
Friday, October 29, 2010
in the ghetto...
I was walking around on the verge of tears this morning (for various reasons, mostly war and inspired, religious ignorance) and I saw a young woman walking around like nothing was wrong - and then another and another. I thought about how parents protect their children from the dangers of the world, or at least they do what they can, but at some point it's not enough. Isn't it time we moved out of the ghetto?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
An Indirect Reply to Peter Berkowitz
I'm no Peter Berkowitz. My bio doesn't include words like "Stanford" or "Senior Fellow" but I kind of like it that way. I read this article by Peter Berkowitz on the Wall Street Journal, it was OK. I mean, I don't take it whole, and by that I mean I don't agree entirely. In fact, I agree more so on a conceptual level than with the articulation of his points. But honestly, I'm just a student, I'm asking you NOT to take my word for it, I'm asking you to look at it yourself because that is what being a student is really about.
When I was twenty five I read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," a somewhat plodding but ultimately enjoyable and enlightening mental exploration of a shattered psyche. What I took from this book was the outlook observed by the protagonist, Phaedrus (which means wolf in latin, or something) that he does not go to school for grades but for knowledge. The idea is that you go to school to learn, if you learn, grades will follow. If you go to school for grades, or even just to pass, you might not really learn anything at all (except, possibly, how to pass a class - which may or may not include learning).
I just completed this one hundred level Sociology course, an intro course, and about three quarters of the way through we wound up talking about education, and what was important to education. One of my classmates had just had a realization, that it's about learning not about grades, it's about being familiar with the subject and the material not just about the test scores and study guide syndrome. It's really just some simple logic. Let P stand for, "I learn the material" and Q, "I pass the test." If P then Q. If you have P, you will have Q. If you have Q, you may or may not have P.
Being a student who is currently involved in the system, I might be blind to what Berkowitz is complaining about - I mean - pointing out. But, being a student who is in the system I am witnessing some of what he's mentioning first hand. Not everybody is making the realization of my classmate. Some people are not involved in the material. Some people do not dive in head first and dig themselves a foxhole in the front-row (even if they did, everybody can't fit in the front row, nor does everyone need to, it's more like a metaphor than a truth anyway), submerged in the subject, deep in unfamiliar territory. Some students are busy raising kids, or working to maintain, not just the cost of college but, lifestyles, homes, habits and/or whole families. There are those students who are on the struggle, but there are plenty of students who just don't take it seriously and plenty of others who might not actually be intuitive enough to grasp the concepts early or have been prepped by authoritarian backgrounds and parenting to accept what's presented to them without too much questioning. BAsically Berkowitz, the problem isn't necessarily the system or the focus of higher education but the students, who quickly become graduates. You say it's the system of higher education and the waste of resources, mismanaged and misguided teachers and institutions that lie at fault here, but it's more than that and it runs much deeper.
You, sir, mention some pretty big names that I would appear to be insulting but there is a caveat to my theory, and by implication, to yours as well. The opinions given by the editorialists you mention aren't wrong, though they're not any more right than you or, dare I say, myself, they are opinions. Hooray for opinions. Pretty American, nay, pretty human to have one of those, we're just fortunate to live in a place where we're not supposed to be punished for our thoughts, at least not beyond the scathing retorts, the opinions of our fellow human beings. In a way, the Tea Party is just that - even though I preferred when they called themselves Tea Baggers. Lulz. But my point is this, the Tea Party does represent a marginal slice of a marginalized group (including a slightly highershare of what you called, "clowns, kooks and creeps"); and, when TV personalities promote the event it's not a grass-roots thing anymore (ask any underground club promoter about that kind of nonsense); the Tea Party is getting billions of dollars of support from multimillionaire libertarians (who built on inherited wealth, never ceases to crack me up - way to build it, but you still didn't do it on your own).
When the movement is talking about the need to replace out of touch, incompetent politicians with people who will fight for freedom, the "favored candidates" shouldn't be the ones making "embarrassing statements" or the ones who "embraced reckless policies." That is counter-productive at the very least and paradoxical at worst - ultimately, I agree with you in that this does not differentiate them from the political pack or the political mainstream, but what I believe is important to note is that THOSE are not the PEOPLE who should be chosen. If we're going to say no more slick, self-serving, career politicians do we have to choose idiots, incompetents and regressive ones over them? (And! if the problem lies less with our representatives but with the system of money and lobbyists, wouldn't idiots, incompetents and regressives be MORE susceptible to the machinations of a high powered, unfeeling political machine that's not about truth or constituents' desires as much as the language of cold hard cash?)
But whatever, I'm a high-school drop out from a divorced family - if I see any success in life I will be an outlier on the mathematical models and systematic surveys that proponents of higher education are so fond of. Similar to the mathematical models used to predict politics and what's being taught at our revered institutions, where legions of empiricists are turned out yearly, equipped with that most unfriendly of swords, reason. At least, to a certain degree that they are not just deaf-mute followers without original thoughts and opinions, or total slackers who just managed to get through it all and whose father is connected to some industry so... Favoritism, flattery and nepotism are alive and well in human nature, America is not immune - somehow even in situations of democracy (if not in popular votes, then in the electoral college and I'm looking at you: the supreme court). But honestly, though I don't completely disagree with your disdain for the problems and biases of higher education in these United States, I think you're missing a bigger problem that starts much earlier.
The system is flawed before "higher-education" even comes into the picture. You mention that "leading history departments have emphasized social history and issues of race, class and gender at the expense of constitutional history, diplomatic history and military history." I can't say one way or another on this, but I have a two pronged question to throw your way. (1) Public education needs to be reformed for the twenty-first century, k-12, public education is a government program - moving away from education is not the answer, reform is. Reform takes money, reform takes effort, reform takes time. How do we find a way to educate Americans that benefits American ideals - instead of benefiting a fading blue-collar factory based time-schedule - without public funding and public interest? (2) What if history could be taught in a way that emphasized both what it means to be an American AND the importance of social history? What if we could show students how our social history is a constant progression, something that successive waves of generations shape and reshape through their interactions, while still stressing the importance of liberty? From slave owning Washington and Jefferson, to Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X, America is what we make it. From the constitution to the white house.
My problem with your suggestion for shifting historical focus is twofold as well. First, I'm not against teaching military history, diplomatic history or even "constitutional history" as you suggest - but I wonder where you draw the ethnocentric lines, I mean, how biased is this curriculum going to be? Just American, or is it more inclusive? There's been plenty of wars, how many people do you think really need to study that? How deep are you asking EVERYONE to go into military history, or even diplomatic history (aren't they rather intertwined?) Second, at some point it has to be recognized that we live in an unequal world and we either embrace TOTAL FREEDOM and let those inequalities be (which can easily turn into sacrificing one group for the benefit of another - rich/poor; black/white; blue collar union/immigrant and outsourced labor;) or, we look to level aspects of the playing field (like the wage divide between men and women, like the reality of institutional discrimination, and/or the disproportionate representation of aging, white-males in the upper echelons of the private and public sectors).
My problems with the tea party lie in the marginal aspects, and their lack of acknowledgment of the power of the private sector, embracing concepts like conspiratorial "shadow masters" instead of just taking a look at the system prepared to accept that there are no quick fixes, and shift the focus to the long term and to change, not regressive reforms. My problems with Tea Party ideology has nothing to do with their ideas about limiting the power of government and everything to do with the facts on the ground, they are not, I repeat NOT, putting up a higher quality of person in place of those they decry so vehemently. You called attention to that. (Though, kudos to their library mall clean-up efforts, post "restoring honor" rally. My hat is off to those "grizzly mommas" who made it happen with their garbage-bag brigades. We could all be a little cleaner.) It's the demagoguery of our politics and our media that's got this all wrong, nobody is really preaching in the street these days, and nobody is listening when they do - our minds are made up - we just preach to the choir and we talk really badly about the "other" sides - rattle the sabers and get everybody fired up.
Ultimately, even in America with all these freedoms we have to learn to get along with each other or all these fancy systems are just for show and our "freedom" is no better than bull$hit. Our forefathers expected us to be involved and educated, they expected us to be like them, to use our freedoms to thrive not merely economically, but spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically, to be free but more importantly to be wise - because freedom is the ultimate gateway to experience. We have to immerse ourselves in this material, learn it, be it, believe it or we'll never become what we are tasked with being. It is true, we do need to make some tough reforms in our government and social institutions, but a reactionary movement is not necessarily the best direction for the country, especially when it's not putting anything better into office and pushing issues that divide while doing nothing to counteract problems in our decaying representative government, nothing for foreign policy, nothing for the masses and indirectly handing the keys back to big industry (that's shipping our jobs out of the country to increase their profit margins). We can't do much about who's in charge in the private sector, but we can at least vote for politicians who will slow their dominance in the public - regardless of what a marginalized margin of a marginalized group says, no matter how loud they shout.
Oh yeah, and I can't tell you what to do, but I think it's a good move to vote for Russ Feingold on November 2, 2010 (if you live in Wisconsin anyway).
When I was twenty five I read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," a somewhat plodding but ultimately enjoyable and enlightening mental exploration of a shattered psyche. What I took from this book was the outlook observed by the protagonist, Phaedrus (which means wolf in latin, or something) that he does not go to school for grades but for knowledge. The idea is that you go to school to learn, if you learn, grades will follow. If you go to school for grades, or even just to pass, you might not really learn anything at all (except, possibly, how to pass a class - which may or may not include learning).
I just completed this one hundred level Sociology course, an intro course, and about three quarters of the way through we wound up talking about education, and what was important to education. One of my classmates had just had a realization, that it's about learning not about grades, it's about being familiar with the subject and the material not just about the test scores and study guide syndrome. It's really just some simple logic. Let P stand for, "I learn the material" and Q, "I pass the test." If P then Q. If you have P, you will have Q. If you have Q, you may or may not have P.
Being a student who is currently involved in the system, I might be blind to what Berkowitz is complaining about - I mean - pointing out. But, being a student who is in the system I am witnessing some of what he's mentioning first hand. Not everybody is making the realization of my classmate. Some people are not involved in the material. Some people do not dive in head first and dig themselves a foxhole in the front-row (even if they did, everybody can't fit in the front row, nor does everyone need to, it's more like a metaphor than a truth anyway), submerged in the subject, deep in unfamiliar territory. Some students are busy raising kids, or working to maintain, not just the cost of college but, lifestyles, homes, habits and/or whole families. There are those students who are on the struggle, but there are plenty of students who just don't take it seriously and plenty of others who might not actually be intuitive enough to grasp the concepts early or have been prepped by authoritarian backgrounds and parenting to accept what's presented to them without too much questioning. BAsically Berkowitz, the problem isn't necessarily the system or the focus of higher education but the students, who quickly become graduates. You say it's the system of higher education and the waste of resources, mismanaged and misguided teachers and institutions that lie at fault here, but it's more than that and it runs much deeper.
You, sir, mention some pretty big names that I would appear to be insulting but there is a caveat to my theory, and by implication, to yours as well. The opinions given by the editorialists you mention aren't wrong, though they're not any more right than you or, dare I say, myself, they are opinions. Hooray for opinions. Pretty American, nay, pretty human to have one of those, we're just fortunate to live in a place where we're not supposed to be punished for our thoughts, at least not beyond the scathing retorts, the opinions of our fellow human beings. In a way, the Tea Party is just that - even though I preferred when they called themselves Tea Baggers. Lulz. But my point is this, the Tea Party does represent a marginal slice of a marginalized group (including a slightly highershare of what you called, "clowns, kooks and creeps"); and, when TV personalities promote the event it's not a grass-roots thing anymore (ask any underground club promoter about that kind of nonsense); the Tea Party is getting billions of dollars of support from multimillionaire libertarians (who built on inherited wealth, never ceases to crack me up - way to build it, but you still didn't do it on your own).
When the movement is talking about the need to replace out of touch, incompetent politicians with people who will fight for freedom, the "favored candidates" shouldn't be the ones making "embarrassing statements" or the ones who "embraced reckless policies." That is counter-productive at the very least and paradoxical at worst - ultimately, I agree with you in that this does not differentiate them from the political pack or the political mainstream, but what I believe is important to note is that THOSE are not the PEOPLE who should be chosen. If we're going to say no more slick, self-serving, career politicians do we have to choose idiots, incompetents and regressive ones over them? (And! if the problem lies less with our representatives but with the system of money and lobbyists, wouldn't idiots, incompetents and regressives be MORE susceptible to the machinations of a high powered, unfeeling political machine that's not about truth or constituents' desires as much as the language of cold hard cash?)
But whatever, I'm a high-school drop out from a divorced family - if I see any success in life I will be an outlier on the mathematical models and systematic surveys that proponents of higher education are so fond of. Similar to the mathematical models used to predict politics and what's being taught at our revered institutions, where legions of empiricists are turned out yearly, equipped with that most unfriendly of swords, reason. At least, to a certain degree that they are not just deaf-mute followers without original thoughts and opinions, or total slackers who just managed to get through it all and whose father is connected to some industry so... Favoritism, flattery and nepotism are alive and well in human nature, America is not immune - somehow even in situations of democracy (if not in popular votes, then in the electoral college and I'm looking at you: the supreme court). But honestly, though I don't completely disagree with your disdain for the problems and biases of higher education in these United States, I think you're missing a bigger problem that starts much earlier.
The system is flawed before "higher-education" even comes into the picture. You mention that "leading history departments have emphasized social history and issues of race, class and gender at the expense of constitutional history, diplomatic history and military history." I can't say one way or another on this, but I have a two pronged question to throw your way. (1) Public education needs to be reformed for the twenty-first century, k-12, public education is a government program - moving away from education is not the answer, reform is. Reform takes money, reform takes effort, reform takes time. How do we find a way to educate Americans that benefits American ideals - instead of benefiting a fading blue-collar factory based time-schedule - without public funding and public interest? (2) What if history could be taught in a way that emphasized both what it means to be an American AND the importance of social history? What if we could show students how our social history is a constant progression, something that successive waves of generations shape and reshape through their interactions, while still stressing the importance of liberty? From slave owning Washington and Jefferson, to Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X, America is what we make it. From the constitution to the white house.
My problem with your suggestion for shifting historical focus is twofold as well. First, I'm not against teaching military history, diplomatic history or even "constitutional history" as you suggest - but I wonder where you draw the ethnocentric lines, I mean, how biased is this curriculum going to be? Just American, or is it more inclusive? There's been plenty of wars, how many people do you think really need to study that? How deep are you asking EVERYONE to go into military history, or even diplomatic history (aren't they rather intertwined?) Second, at some point it has to be recognized that we live in an unequal world and we either embrace TOTAL FREEDOM and let those inequalities be (which can easily turn into sacrificing one group for the benefit of another - rich/poor; black/white; blue collar union/immigrant and outsourced labor;) or, we look to level aspects of the playing field (like the wage divide between men and women, like the reality of institutional discrimination, and/or the disproportionate representation of aging, white-males in the upper echelons of the private and public sectors).
My problems with the tea party lie in the marginal aspects, and their lack of acknowledgment of the power of the private sector, embracing concepts like conspiratorial "shadow masters" instead of just taking a look at the system prepared to accept that there are no quick fixes, and shift the focus to the long term and to change, not regressive reforms. My problems with Tea Party ideology has nothing to do with their ideas about limiting the power of government and everything to do with the facts on the ground, they are not, I repeat NOT, putting up a higher quality of person in place of those they decry so vehemently. You called attention to that. (Though, kudos to their library mall clean-up efforts, post "restoring honor" rally. My hat is off to those "grizzly mommas" who made it happen with their garbage-bag brigades. We could all be a little cleaner.) It's the demagoguery of our politics and our media that's got this all wrong, nobody is really preaching in the street these days, and nobody is listening when they do - our minds are made up - we just preach to the choir and we talk really badly about the "other" sides - rattle the sabers and get everybody fired up.
Ultimately, even in America with all these freedoms we have to learn to get along with each other or all these fancy systems are just for show and our "freedom" is no better than bull$hit. Our forefathers expected us to be involved and educated, they expected us to be like them, to use our freedoms to thrive not merely economically, but spiritually, emotionally, mentally and physically, to be free but more importantly to be wise - because freedom is the ultimate gateway to experience. We have to immerse ourselves in this material, learn it, be it, believe it or we'll never become what we are tasked with being. It is true, we do need to make some tough reforms in our government and social institutions, but a reactionary movement is not necessarily the best direction for the country, especially when it's not putting anything better into office and pushing issues that divide while doing nothing to counteract problems in our decaying representative government, nothing for foreign policy, nothing for the masses and indirectly handing the keys back to big industry (that's shipping our jobs out of the country to increase their profit margins). We can't do much about who's in charge in the private sector, but we can at least vote for politicians who will slow their dominance in the public - regardless of what a marginalized margin of a marginalized group says, no matter how loud they shout.
Oh yeah, and I can't tell you what to do, but I think it's a good move to vote for Russ Feingold on November 2, 2010 (if you live in Wisconsin anyway).
Friday, October 8, 2010
Creepy
So if this is what the world looks like through the eyes of Islamocentrism, darker being more good and lighter being less good, I wonder what it looks like the other way around...
Holy Crap! It's like a negative. No wonder the Islamic world is the last bastion of the unconquered lands and seat of all that is wrong with the world... I mean, the "West" is the ever growing empire that stands for much of what is wrong with the world... oh, whatever.
But srsly, it's creepy.
I have been hung up on something for the better part of a year now: If hardcore puritans of Christianity or Islam are right (regardless of the more mainstream or liberally heretical positions) and Christianity isn't necessarily a ticket to heaven (hard-core Islam-alone), why does God hate white people, and if Islam is a ticket to hell (hard-core christianity-alone) why does God hate non-hispanic browns so much? Or maybe India a marker of God's ultimate breakdown, that the 24 million christians and 140 Million muslims go to heaven while 800 million hindus go directly to hell... somebody do the math, how does the rest of the world figure in? Um, yeah. Things start to make less sense for me when viewed on a global scale that includes numbers in the billions. No offense God, I mean, I'm sure you know what you're doing - just saying that on the ground it doesn't seem to add up too well and we are really getting confused down here.
this was the original find, but the two images above define the line of questioning even better. Highlight of this one is the tiny yellow stars that represent judaism - you'll find them in most of the major cities.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
gotta do what I gotta do
when I think it's been a couple of weeks, it's more like a month. That is the course of a semester. So be it. I've got to do some reading and writing for pops tonight, and crank out some sociology in the morning. اللهم أعطني القوة
Friday, September 24, 2010
thursday bleeds out into friday casting the whole weekend into doubt
Man, it was cool when the guy gave me the free 16oz mocha at 4pm but now it's 6am. I have been fantastically productive this evening. Including an eight page letter to my dad that I finished about an hour ago. I am now working on sociology. I am tired but I sure feel like a real college student for some reason. I have class in four hours. No more caffeine in the afternoon. I'm such a lightweight. Also, I may have eaten a few too many Oreo cookies last night and have remained in a state of lowgrade nausea ever since.
My dad taught me how to eat Oreos, like any good Dad of the pre-transfat age would. This is the method, it's... um... a little dark, but it's really not - I mean they're just cookies right? You drown the Oreo and then eat it whole. You take it in two fingers and hold it under the milk until the little bubbles stop, then you lift it up, toss it in and feel that soggy cookie melt into delicious as you much away on your mouthful of cookie. Haven't touched an Oreo in six months. Probably wont' again. Uggh. Feels so bad-good in my tum-tum.
Sociology is sick. Similar feeling. So bad-good in my brain. It's not all-right, but it makes some interesting points about socialization and freedom, I mean... who are you... really?
And then I think about my friends who are parents, and my parents. I think about the late nights and the early mornings, the working and everything else they do, and I wonder if that lifestyle has anything to do with the status quo, with the autopilot culture that has subsumed the American (by which I mean the United States) ideal of "freedom." I have the freedom to drink a sixteen ounce mocha at four pm, but there are consequences to my actions. It's practically scientific - for every action an equal and opposite reaction.
I thinka about all the sacrifices and struggles that parents must go through, and how so many of these contrived problems pale in comparison to anything that can be experienced with a child, the good and the bad, the enlightening and the frightening. But I know how well I think when I'm in zombie mode, like I'll be today. And I know that most of the parents I know are running on so few hours of sleep so often. And I wonder, how many of the foolish trends catch on because of factors like this.
Because what sociology shows is that patterns exist in our 'ness. From cultures to sub-cultures, people in similar situations make similar decisions - not everybody, but enough to form patterns. Patterns form trends. Trends come and go, and change is gradual, slow. and absolutely inevitable. And I wonder if being in this sleep deprived, protective, educating state that is parenting, if it leads people to become more conservative, accentuates latent and manifest conservative principles, or just makes people cranky and impersonal.
But perhaps that's the magic of staying busy. Could the trouble be that there's just too many people for us to all stay busy? Or is it better to be able to make that detachment between work and home, keep that home space sacred and separate? We are what we cultivate I suppose. The projects we work on, children can be this as much as careers or cars or vijiagames or girlfriends or religion or education or really, just about anything else - but how many projects can someone work on and give just due to? At what point does overload set in and somebody is useless to all of the above, or simply spread too thin to be effective in any one?
And perhaps, another seed of conservatism is planted by necessity - if one is not allowed, or does not take the time to educate and meditate, ponder, pray and examine in detail themselves from top to bottom and outside in - how many values can be taken for granted and accepted at face value? Values that might be harmful, or better amended to include new information - traditions, superstitions, sanctioned violence, flat earth mentalities being passed on from person to person without a second or third thought to the drawbacks or the benefits of amending the method.
In essence, I appear to be hypothesizing that, at least in the USA, early parenting forces the continuation of cultural norms, but allows a great amount of freedom to the individual (to spread the dominant culture to their children and participate in the system of norms to provide for their family) and the argument appears circular. Though, one can sacrifice some of the family project to excel at the system, the career project, the motivated-self-starter/aspiring entrepreneur project, thus creating more opportunity for the offspring to succeed by establishing wealth and, or a family name.
The beauty of the system is that it is open. Participation is mandatory, but if you're willing to go all in there's a good chance for boom or bust, and if caution leds to opportunity, or you're just lucky enough it could all come together in your favor. The system is organic. The system can be controlled to a certain extent, but it is ultimately unpredictable. The system is slowly becoming what the participants desire it to be, but it's no democracy. Elites do dominate the system qualitatively, while the majorities are maintained, though they dominate quantitatively, through this open system.
The trouble with the system is that it is harmful. It is oppressive to those who fall beneath it's tread. It keeps us occupied but it also generates the show around us, it's akin to working in a bar or a restaurant or a retail shop - where it's so easy to wind up throwing so much of your money right back into the business. It does this at the cost of those lower down the food chain. Meanwhile, there's no need for a food chain between humans.
We have the ability to change this, to respect each other and live our lives side by side - it just involves taking note of our cultures, seeing the differences in our societies and subcultures and questioning everything - but we're too busy with our individual selfish pursuits to be reminded of what's really important - our connection to the Divine Other, the Perfection that is all we are not, and greater than all we are; our connection to our flesh and blood, kindred spirits and like minds (family, friends and community); our shared reality, the planet and our humanity - that we are human, alike for all our differences.
My dad taught me how to eat Oreos, like any good Dad of the pre-transfat age would. This is the method, it's... um... a little dark, but it's really not - I mean they're just cookies right? You drown the Oreo and then eat it whole. You take it in two fingers and hold it under the milk until the little bubbles stop, then you lift it up, toss it in and feel that soggy cookie melt into delicious as you much away on your mouthful of cookie. Haven't touched an Oreo in six months. Probably wont' again. Uggh. Feels so bad-good in my tum-tum.
Sociology is sick. Similar feeling. So bad-good in my brain. It's not all-right, but it makes some interesting points about socialization and freedom, I mean... who are you... really?
And then I think about my friends who are parents, and my parents. I think about the late nights and the early mornings, the working and everything else they do, and I wonder if that lifestyle has anything to do with the status quo, with the autopilot culture that has subsumed the American (by which I mean the United States) ideal of "freedom." I have the freedom to drink a sixteen ounce mocha at four pm, but there are consequences to my actions. It's practically scientific - for every action an equal and opposite reaction.
I thinka about all the sacrifices and struggles that parents must go through, and how so many of these contrived problems pale in comparison to anything that can be experienced with a child, the good and the bad, the enlightening and the frightening. But I know how well I think when I'm in zombie mode, like I'll be today. And I know that most of the parents I know are running on so few hours of sleep so often. And I wonder, how many of the foolish trends catch on because of factors like this.
Because what sociology shows is that patterns exist in our 'ness. From cultures to sub-cultures, people in similar situations make similar decisions - not everybody, but enough to form patterns. Patterns form trends. Trends come and go, and change is gradual, slow. and absolutely inevitable. And I wonder if being in this sleep deprived, protective, educating state that is parenting, if it leads people to become more conservative, accentuates latent and manifest conservative principles, or just makes people cranky and impersonal.
But perhaps that's the magic of staying busy. Could the trouble be that there's just too many people for us to all stay busy? Or is it better to be able to make that detachment between work and home, keep that home space sacred and separate? We are what we cultivate I suppose. The projects we work on, children can be this as much as careers or cars or vijiagames or girlfriends or religion or education or really, just about anything else - but how many projects can someone work on and give just due to? At what point does overload set in and somebody is useless to all of the above, or simply spread too thin to be effective in any one?
And perhaps, another seed of conservatism is planted by necessity - if one is not allowed, or does not take the time to educate and meditate, ponder, pray and examine in detail themselves from top to bottom and outside in - how many values can be taken for granted and accepted at face value? Values that might be harmful, or better amended to include new information - traditions, superstitions, sanctioned violence, flat earth mentalities being passed on from person to person without a second or third thought to the drawbacks or the benefits of amending the method.
In essence, I appear to be hypothesizing that, at least in the USA, early parenting forces the continuation of cultural norms, but allows a great amount of freedom to the individual (to spread the dominant culture to their children and participate in the system of norms to provide for their family) and the argument appears circular. Though, one can sacrifice some of the family project to excel at the system, the career project, the motivated-self-starter/aspiring entrepreneur project, thus creating more opportunity for the offspring to succeed by establishing wealth and, or a family name.
The beauty of the system is that it is open. Participation is mandatory, but if you're willing to go all in there's a good chance for boom or bust, and if caution leds to opportunity, or you're just lucky enough it could all come together in your favor. The system is organic. The system can be controlled to a certain extent, but it is ultimately unpredictable. The system is slowly becoming what the participants desire it to be, but it's no democracy. Elites do dominate the system qualitatively, while the majorities are maintained, though they dominate quantitatively, through this open system.
The trouble with the system is that it is harmful. It is oppressive to those who fall beneath it's tread. It keeps us occupied but it also generates the show around us, it's akin to working in a bar or a restaurant or a retail shop - where it's so easy to wind up throwing so much of your money right back into the business. It does this at the cost of those lower down the food chain. Meanwhile, there's no need for a food chain between humans.
We have the ability to change this, to respect each other and live our lives side by side - it just involves taking note of our cultures, seeing the differences in our societies and subcultures and questioning everything - but we're too busy with our individual selfish pursuits to be reminded of what's really important - our connection to the Divine Other, the Perfection that is all we are not, and greater than all we are; our connection to our flesh and blood, kindred spirits and like minds (family, friends and community); our shared reality, the planet and our humanity - that we are human, alike for all our differences.
Monday, September 20, 2010
=( boo hoo
in the most pessimistic of lights, the US is hardly more than just another conquering empire built on the backs of slaves. A massive nation governed by a vaguely aristocratic elite who are in turn influenced by the hereditarily wealthy, the owners of the banks and corporations; the rich, new and old. It's way more that than any masonic conspiracy BS.
The founding fathers may have been individually selfless, no one believing himself too superior to another, but they were predominantly slavers and they were predominantly full of themselves (some, perhaps deservedly so). They were also predominantly "self made" men, being the right combination of preparedness and circumstance, the elite amongst the colonists and although not an exclusive order, they certainly saw themselves as the decision-making group of the whole. I imagine there to be a lot of people like our founding fathers running around, sleeping with whatever they want, not wanting to pay their taxes, breaking rules, making rules to bend, looking for loopholes, fond of expressing themselves and certainly charismatic. I think it's very much the same people who run things today. Opportunists and lechers the like. Though I think we prefer to imagine them much more egalitarian, honest, moral and just.
The founding fathers may have been individually selfless, no one believing himself too superior to another, but they were predominantly slavers and they were predominantly full of themselves (some, perhaps deservedly so). They were also predominantly "self made" men, being the right combination of preparedness and circumstance, the elite amongst the colonists and although not an exclusive order, they certainly saw themselves as the decision-making group of the whole. I imagine there to be a lot of people like our founding fathers running around, sleeping with whatever they want, not wanting to pay their taxes, breaking rules, making rules to bend, looking for loopholes, fond of expressing themselves and certainly charismatic. I think it's very much the same people who run things today. Opportunists and lechers the like. Though I think we prefer to imagine them much more egalitarian, honest, moral and just.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Maybe We're Asking Too Much Of Our Politicians
In the face of globalization, the new modern identity crises are rapidly taking shape, but whilst much of the world was locked into tribal, civil, social and martial combat, these United States spent the first half of the last 234 years as an isolationist state - expanding its borders and eradicating tribalism at home. When the founding fathers established the interim government with the Articles of Confederation they were forming a unified voice with which to speak to European power but they were confronted with a reality of strong states who were very much concerned with their autonomy. Today, States are suffering while the federal Government - though deeply in debt - is practically bleeding money. It is actively funding the occupation of two, non-contiguous countries on the other side of the world and with regard to the billion dollar bailouts of yesteryear while simultaneously catering to a failed economic strategy and the courting the extraordinarily wealthy by seeking to maintain the Bush era tax breaks for the 250k plus crowd. And now for a rash overgeneralization, Rich people don't pay their taxes anyway because they can afford the best accountants and lawyers with all the money they save by not paying their taxes [RE (but not limited to): John Kerry].
As I was reading the Articles, Article Five really stood out to me, resonating. I could be dead wrong on this, but I like my interpretation of it: representatives are elected to a six year term; each state being represented by not more than seven or less than two representatives; each representatives not being able to spend more than three of the six as the state's representative to the federal government. In Washington's day, he complained the delegates weren't showing up. I wonder if that's, at least one reason, why we have a permanent representative base in the nation's capitol. But, tell me, what do you think would change if we didn't? If instead, our state representatives rotated in and out of the Federal representative seat?
The grass is always greener on the other side isn't it?
I want to know more about why the states are starving and the federal government has the money to burn - and so should you. It's a separate line item, but at least in my little Capitol city, the lobbyists are self motivated, extra-curricular lobbyists. I'm wondering how and if the current federally minded lobbying apparatus could maintain it's current power if forced to manage at the state level. The founding fathers saw the threat of external (as in not "by the people") influence on the democracy and they made many a law to combat this threat, but now we have similar threats from dissimilar places, from within the country but innately external to the system - some are human beings, as in individual people, many of who represent interested groups or incorporated interests, some aren't human beings at all, though still legally people, corporations.
But maybe we're asking too much of our representatives. Asking them to listen to people, to their constituents who - all too often - either can't bring themselves to say anything, or are so passionate that they can't find a way to the bargaining table through their partisan talking points. Asking them to say no to millions of dollars, some for them and theirs, some for "friends" and whatever passes for "family" these days, most in the interests of those who do have (an unfortunate monopoly on) their ear. Asking them to balance the needs of an individual State vs. the looming deficits of the Federal budget. Asking them to balance their appearance, like valiant bastions of morality - but when one giant falls no one says, dear god, not him; instead, the cry comes up, finally, with his checkered past...
Maybe we're asking too much when we ask them to stick to party platforms, masking both their views and the nuance of their constituents. Maybe we're asking too much and they're just giving us a little lip-service demagoguery in return - run another poll of our district Ted, let's see what we're going to talk to the people about today. Maybe we're asking too much of our suitors (the politicians), we're dying to get married, we've only got their word - do we take them at face value? Something old (power corrupts; money talks), something new (lobbyists and corporate personhood; money as free speech), something borrowed (the money draining out of the Federal government; bankrupt borrowers and too-big to fail lenders), something blue (the idea of a freedom sucking, left leaning, ethnic majority hating, big government - the tribulation styled secular humanism of Christian eschatology, when the majority becomes the persecuted and the anti-Christ reigns supreme; echoed in an Islamic perspective here and then in more exclusively secular terms, here, as well. And never forget that behind all of this lies the power of symbolism, from our capitol city to our home town; from marketing and advertising that saturates our living-rooms and wardrobes, to the churches that dot the countryside.)
But seriously, as we face the increasingly global future, Jihad vs. McWorld comes back into scope. It's unfortunate that the meme (jihad vs. mcworld) is easily misunderstood within the inspired nationalistic ignorance and ethnocentricity of the post 9/11 American milieu. The author may explain the metaphorical and rhetorical use of the Arabic term "jihad" as well defining it by loosely associating it with the "struggle" of righteousness against the profane, but this nuance is lost as the voices of the mostly unrelated, Islam (as representative of "the other," proxy for terrorism and all that is backwards and wrong in the world) vs. America (as representative of uninformed individuality bordering on the ignorantly, selfish, proxy for westernization, globalization, secularization, corporatization and exploitation) debate escalates at home and engages violently abroad. I digress, as we face the global future, the struggle of identity comes to the forefront.
Who are we if we're not human? what are we? What is a politician if not a man (or a woman for that matter)?
Our American fore fathers built a Government infrastructure that was designed to balance the the power of the state against the power of the nation, the national identity and military unity a check to the powers of the state; the individual pieces against the government's parts and whole. Yet something has slipped away. The people are as they have always been - perhaps with greater options today, a prison of a different type - some make choices to be some combination of active, informed and the converse of each, while others still, will, choose or quietly become contextually ignorant but constantly involved - not so much even pawns but the board upon which the game is played.
What if our freedom of speech has been translated, and as happens in translation has been weakened for it, into freedom to spend as much as you want on whatever you want. A corner stone of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, has been co-opted by advertisement dollars, the deeper and more consistent the journalistic sensibility (ie, the bastion of the informed, what a gentleman reads two of a day, aka, the newspaper, the investigative report) the greater the failure. More effort in, more effort out, less money in, more money out - a recipe for failure but perhaps some things must operate at a loss, like Government. This is the democracy of the market, this is democracy overwhelmed by group-think and mob-rule, the market is Darwinian not democratic. They are not incompatible, but they are not completely compatible either. Think of it this way, you can view the internet from different browsers on different platforms, either way you're seeing the internet. You can even run the same browser on different platforms. But you cannot run Windows coded copy of Firefox on a Mac OSX system (without some serious interpretative software, which in turn has to run Windows anyway). We can live in a Darwinian society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the government exists (primarily, if not completely) to make life easier and more profitable for the corporations - which in turn is supposed to 'trickle down' to the little pieces, the individual peoples, the cogs and pawns of the system itself; it does too, unfortunately it doesn't seem to penetrate beyond the surface, shining on the prepared, the lucky and the elite while missing the needy, unfortunate and incapable. The majority is left without, glossed over and enduring the low grade exploitation of life in an open air debtors prison. It's not impossible to get out, and work within the system to great success. It's not impossible to move up, drop out, slip through or otherwise achieve a dream but there's no escape from the reality of the economic prison. You're either in it, working for it, running it or working against it.
This is the set up for a revolution. This is the prison our forefathers were trying to keep us from falling into. A demeaning set of serfdom. They never knew it would be so couched in the freedoms they were so resolute in providing. Perhaps an Ataturk would be more deserving our modern state than the (racially exclusive, social) altruism of a Franklin, Hancock, Jefferson or a Washington. This prison of borderline serfdom and neglected, marginalized and overtaxed existence was the set up for Marx, for Lenin, for Hitler, for America. Perhaps we're asking our politicians to do too much, because we're asking them to be unamerican. To stand against absolute freedom, as a bulwark not just against the storm of nations and assaults against borders, but against the market, the global as well as the local economy, to shield us from the shifting tides of international politics, violence and resource management while balancing the needs of the increasingly failing state. Perhaps these burdens increase and be far too great for mere local politicians to handle on a rotating schedule of federal service, but I know what the answer is not. the answer is not an increasingly consolidated power structure, culminating in a cult of national security headed by autocratic Presidency and his cabinet of selected advisors. It's not in the status quo. It's not in a Congress and a Senate increasingly out of touch with - or at least distracted from - local constituents and more importantly good personal judgement, the most integral piece of representative government. Wisdom over demagoguery, but that might not get you re-elected, or even elected in the first place
Maybe we're asking too much of our politicians, but we're still not asking enough. Maybe we should be asking for more, not of our politicians, but of our system. Trying to get along in the twenty first century without diligently and intelligently reinterpreting our foundation - to repair the cracks of expansion, growth and the ever changing world, to remove therot and corruption from within, and heal the damage of abuse - we're cursed to regression, to wandering aimlessly into obscurity. If we don't learn to adapt and change and get involved, we're going to lose more than freedom or identity and many lives will be lost.
Americans like to poke fun at Islamic Shariah systems, the backwardness of stoning adulterers, veiling women, male dominance and other parochial and patriarchal aspects to the system. A system that dates back to the 7th century but is held to be sacred and beyond reproach by its followers. Yet, here in America, we love a document from the 18th century and hold it to be sacred and byond reproach. How long will it be before we're the relic - or will we make sure that's never the case with our military might and our conspicuous consumption; with the global reach of the corporate culture that we've molded and been molded by, sugar, salt, fat and opportunity - everything you could ever want. Maybe we're asking our politicians to do too much, but if we are, we're not doing enough ourselves.
It's not all about voting (though it is in part), it's about voting with every dollar. It's not all about changing the political guard (though it is in part), but about reforming the systems of government and the regulation of what goes on between political participants, activists, lobbyists and decision makers, and and getting diligent and informed people into the roles played by increasingly self serving, career politicians with too many friends, contacts, debts and debtors. It's not about FEMA and prison planet and satanic conspiracies, it's about taking the reigns of the future. It's about dissent, debate and disagreement as much as it's about community, solidarity and open-minded reform. Don't eschew the government for the corporate prison, there is nothing holding the people back but the people themselves. It's not about facebook, politics, groupthink, or anything else, it's about ourselves. If we value freedom of choice, we have to become aware of the prison of too-many-options, of over-extension, of over-consumption. A culture of disposable permanence (plastic - from bottles to wrappers) and permanent disposability (social darwinism, market economics, fashion, media and social trends), trapped in a self destructive cycle positing elitist interests against majority numbers - why that's the very concept of modern America itself against the world. Some day we, whatever we are, we're just going have to admit to being outnumbered - though we may never be outgunned as the ghost of the cold war doctrine of mutual destruction rears its ugly head.
We may be asking too much of our politicians. We may be asking too much of the world. We may be asked to give up too much, but on a long enough timeline, every lie becomes truth, every truth becomes lie and the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
As I was reading the Articles, Article Five really stood out to me, resonating. I could be dead wrong on this, but I like my interpretation of it: representatives are elected to a six year term; each state being represented by not more than seven or less than two representatives; each representatives not being able to spend more than three of the six as the state's representative to the federal government. In Washington's day, he complained the delegates weren't showing up. I wonder if that's, at least one reason, why we have a permanent representative base in the nation's capitol. But, tell me, what do you think would change if we didn't? If instead, our state representatives rotated in and out of the Federal representative seat?
The grass is always greener on the other side isn't it?
I want to know more about why the states are starving and the federal government has the money to burn - and so should you. It's a separate line item, but at least in my little Capitol city, the lobbyists are self motivated, extra-curricular lobbyists. I'm wondering how and if the current federally minded lobbying apparatus could maintain it's current power if forced to manage at the state level. The founding fathers saw the threat of external (as in not "by the people") influence on the democracy and they made many a law to combat this threat, but now we have similar threats from dissimilar places, from within the country but innately external to the system - some are human beings, as in individual people, many of who represent interested groups or incorporated interests, some aren't human beings at all, though still legally people, corporations.
But maybe we're asking too much of our representatives. Asking them to listen to people, to their constituents who - all too often - either can't bring themselves to say anything, or are so passionate that they can't find a way to the bargaining table through their partisan talking points. Asking them to say no to millions of dollars, some for them and theirs, some for "friends" and whatever passes for "family" these days, most in the interests of those who do have (an unfortunate monopoly on) their ear. Asking them to balance the needs of an individual State vs. the looming deficits of the Federal budget. Asking them to balance their appearance, like valiant bastions of morality - but when one giant falls no one says, dear god, not him; instead, the cry comes up, finally, with his checkered past...
Maybe we're asking too much when we ask them to stick to party platforms, masking both their views and the nuance of their constituents. Maybe we're asking too much and they're just giving us a little lip-service demagoguery in return - run another poll of our district Ted, let's see what we're going to talk to the people about today. Maybe we're asking too much of our suitors (the politicians), we're dying to get married, we've only got their word - do we take them at face value? Something old (power corrupts; money talks), something new (lobbyists and corporate personhood; money as free speech), something borrowed (the money draining out of the Federal government; bankrupt borrowers and too-big to fail lenders), something blue (the idea of a freedom sucking, left leaning, ethnic majority hating, big government - the tribulation styled secular humanism of Christian eschatology, when the majority becomes the persecuted and the anti-Christ reigns supreme; echoed in an Islamic perspective here and then in more exclusively secular terms, here, as well. And never forget that behind all of this lies the power of symbolism, from our capitol city to our home town; from marketing and advertising that saturates our living-rooms and wardrobes, to the churches that dot the countryside.)
But seriously, as we face the increasingly global future, Jihad vs. McWorld comes back into scope. It's unfortunate that the meme (jihad vs. mcworld) is easily misunderstood within the inspired nationalistic ignorance and ethnocentricity of the post 9/11 American milieu. The author may explain the metaphorical and rhetorical use of the Arabic term "jihad" as well defining it by loosely associating it with the "struggle" of righteousness against the profane, but this nuance is lost as the voices of the mostly unrelated, Islam (as representative of "the other," proxy for terrorism and all that is backwards and wrong in the world) vs. America (as representative of uninformed individuality bordering on the ignorantly, selfish, proxy for westernization, globalization, secularization, corporatization and exploitation) debate escalates at home and engages violently abroad. I digress, as we face the global future, the struggle of identity comes to the forefront.
Who are we if we're not human? what are we? What is a politician if not a man (or a woman for that matter)?
Our American fore fathers built a Government infrastructure that was designed to balance the the power of the state against the power of the nation, the national identity and military unity a check to the powers of the state; the individual pieces against the government's parts and whole. Yet something has slipped away. The people are as they have always been - perhaps with greater options today, a prison of a different type - some make choices to be some combination of active, informed and the converse of each, while others still, will, choose or quietly become contextually ignorant but constantly involved - not so much even pawns but the board upon which the game is played.
What if our freedom of speech has been translated, and as happens in translation has been weakened for it, into freedom to spend as much as you want on whatever you want. A corner stone of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, has been co-opted by advertisement dollars, the deeper and more consistent the journalistic sensibility (ie, the bastion of the informed, what a gentleman reads two of a day, aka, the newspaper, the investigative report) the greater the failure. More effort in, more effort out, less money in, more money out - a recipe for failure but perhaps some things must operate at a loss, like Government. This is the democracy of the market, this is democracy overwhelmed by group-think and mob-rule, the market is Darwinian not democratic. They are not incompatible, but they are not completely compatible either. Think of it this way, you can view the internet from different browsers on different platforms, either way you're seeing the internet. You can even run the same browser on different platforms. But you cannot run Windows coded copy of Firefox on a Mac OSX system (without some serious interpretative software, which in turn has to run Windows anyway). We can live in a Darwinian society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the government exists (primarily, if not completely) to make life easier and more profitable for the corporations - which in turn is supposed to 'trickle down' to the little pieces, the individual peoples, the cogs and pawns of the system itself; it does too, unfortunately it doesn't seem to penetrate beyond the surface, shining on the prepared, the lucky and the elite while missing the needy, unfortunate and incapable. The majority is left without, glossed over and enduring the low grade exploitation of life in an open air debtors prison. It's not impossible to get out, and work within the system to great success. It's not impossible to move up, drop out, slip through or otherwise achieve a dream but there's no escape from the reality of the economic prison. You're either in it, working for it, running it or working against it.
This is the set up for a revolution. This is the prison our forefathers were trying to keep us from falling into. A demeaning set of serfdom. They never knew it would be so couched in the freedoms they were so resolute in providing. Perhaps an Ataturk would be more deserving our modern state than the (racially exclusive, social) altruism of a Franklin, Hancock, Jefferson or a Washington. This prison of borderline serfdom and neglected, marginalized and overtaxed existence was the set up for Marx, for Lenin, for Hitler, for America. Perhaps we're asking our politicians to do too much, because we're asking them to be unamerican. To stand against absolute freedom, as a bulwark not just against the storm of nations and assaults against borders, but against the market, the global as well as the local economy, to shield us from the shifting tides of international politics, violence and resource management while balancing the needs of the increasingly failing state. Perhaps these burdens increase and be far too great for mere local politicians to handle on a rotating schedule of federal service, but I know what the answer is not. the answer is not an increasingly consolidated power structure, culminating in a cult of national security headed by autocratic Presidency and his cabinet of selected advisors. It's not in the status quo. It's not in a Congress and a Senate increasingly out of touch with - or at least distracted from - local constituents and more importantly good personal judgement, the most integral piece of representative government. Wisdom over demagoguery, but that might not get you re-elected, or even elected in the first place
Maybe we're asking too much of our politicians, but we're still not asking enough. Maybe we should be asking for more, not of our politicians, but of our system. Trying to get along in the twenty first century without diligently and intelligently reinterpreting our foundation - to repair the cracks of expansion, growth and the ever changing world, to remove therot and corruption from within, and heal the damage of abuse - we're cursed to regression, to wandering aimlessly into obscurity. If we don't learn to adapt and change and get involved, we're going to lose more than freedom or identity and many lives will be lost.
Americans like to poke fun at Islamic Shariah systems, the backwardness of stoning adulterers, veiling women, male dominance and other parochial and patriarchal aspects to the system. A system that dates back to the 7th century but is held to be sacred and beyond reproach by its followers. Yet, here in America, we love a document from the 18th century and hold it to be sacred and byond reproach. How long will it be before we're the relic - or will we make sure that's never the case with our military might and our conspicuous consumption; with the global reach of the corporate culture that we've molded and been molded by, sugar, salt, fat and opportunity - everything you could ever want. Maybe we're asking our politicians to do too much, but if we are, we're not doing enough ourselves.
It's not all about voting (though it is in part), it's about voting with every dollar. It's not all about changing the political guard (though it is in part), but about reforming the systems of government and the regulation of what goes on between political participants, activists, lobbyists and decision makers, and and getting diligent and informed people into the roles played by increasingly self serving, career politicians with too many friends, contacts, debts and debtors. It's not about FEMA and prison planet and satanic conspiracies, it's about taking the reigns of the future. It's about dissent, debate and disagreement as much as it's about community, solidarity and open-minded reform. Don't eschew the government for the corporate prison, there is nothing holding the people back but the people themselves. It's not about facebook, politics, groupthink, or anything else, it's about ourselves. If we value freedom of choice, we have to become aware of the prison of too-many-options, of over-extension, of over-consumption. A culture of disposable permanence (plastic - from bottles to wrappers) and permanent disposability (social darwinism, market economics, fashion, media and social trends), trapped in a self destructive cycle positing elitist interests against majority numbers - why that's the very concept of modern America itself against the world. Some day we, whatever we are, we're just going have to admit to being outnumbered - though we may never be outgunned as the ghost of the cold war doctrine of mutual destruction rears its ugly head.
We may be asking too much of our politicians. We may be asking too much of the world. We may be asked to give up too much, but on a long enough timeline, every lie becomes truth, every truth becomes lie and the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
if you're not conservative when you're old...
My mother used to tell me that if you're not a liberal when you're young you don't have any heart and if you're not conservative when you're old you don't have any brains. She still says it. Both of my parents have always been fairly conservative in their views, neither belonging specifically to one party or the other. As a child, my father was a union plumber and for some reason (contrary to his personal views) voted for the party of democrats. My mother (more accurately reflecting her personal views at the time) voted republican. Their goal was to cancel each other out believing that the system was inherently corrupt and that whoever was elected was more so a politician than a man of conscience and belief. Elections are seldom, if ever, decided by a single vote - especially in populous southern California.
I'm getting older and I'm still not conservative, mostly because I'm not vested. I am of the opinion that as you age you have a greater invested interest in the status quo, and that is the how and the why of old age conservatism. What was conservative for our parents, for our parents parents is considered practically backwards today. The further back you go, the more it seems so. Each generation has lessened the load, eased off the restrictions - technology has played its part as much as say, women's lib or the civil rights movement, or Roe v. Wade. We've got a president with African heritage from a mixed coupling of the early sixties - we've come a long way since he was born - thankfully.
Here's my trouble, there is a rift between the old and the now. The youth of the country, those younger than me, by a decade or more especially, are coming of age into a unique situation in our history. Whereas the youth of Iran form the up and coming majority, the youth of America are outnumbered by the old. Just as the baby boomer hippies of yore changed the world with their massive protests, their women's liberation, civil rights and anti-war protests (back in their heart-driven liberal days), they are now fighting back civil rights and propagating war in the post 9/11 milieu. Presumably because 9/11 changed their status quo so severely, it was an assault on not just their country but their sensibilities that demolished their sense of safety.
While my grandparents are still getting out and voting, conservative demagoguery and tea party style politics are being fed to them like a mother feeds a baby; from the only hand they trust, the "Fair and Balanced" FOX news owned by Rupert Murdoch (with the number two shareholder being a Saudi Prince). They are setting the policy for the rest of us - oddly enough Barack Obama was elected, they must not ALL be old conservatives...
If our parents and grandparents are offended by Mosques being built on American soil (let alone hallowed ground), it is their grandchildren who will see a decrease in their constitutional rights. The past is putting the future of religious freedom in America on shaky ground. If our parents and grandparents are in charge of determining the future of healthcare, or of immigration procedures and regulation, or ANYTHING ELSE - it is not they who will lose the freedoms of America, but us.
Now, I don't think they mean it. I don't think that's their goal. I think it's about protecting America, protecting the cold war patriotism that has faded in the current and proceeding generations. I just think they're blinded by the corporate media, the corporate agenda, the corporate lobby. They see the detachment between the people and the government. They know, better than we do, that this is a huge and growing problem and they want to fight it - but they don't see the money agenda. They were warned by Eisenhower of the military industrial complex, but they don't understand that the whole system they set up for us is a dangerous game, that grows more and more dangerous in the future.
As our parents and grandparents rail against ecological reforms (because climate change isn't man made, isn't real) in the name of limiting government power and keeping us (their children) free - they'll be dead by the time their environmental choices are raining down on our heads. Although, our parents and grandparents can stand opposed to the (forced) government healthcare-reform in the name of budget deficits, the growth of the government (in terms of spending and scope) and anything else that puts more power in the hands of our elected officials; what they're missing is that the "big government" that they fear so intensely is powered by the big corporations and the massive lobbying apparatus of the modern political age.
They put the emphasis on the politicians, perhaps because they are blind to the ways of the system they created. Not the democracy of their parents and grandparents (people we've probably never met, or died when we were but babes), people who fought in world wars and provided for families through depressions, dust-bowls and prohibition (and some of whose parents saw the institution of slavery crumble in a bloody civil war), but the systems of consumptions and the growth of corporate interests. Either blinded by personal participation or a lack of education (not to diminish the importance of their experience and wisdom), our parents and grandparents, whose parents were tasked with destroying the Nazi's and the Japs, fought bravely against the communist threat, the big red menace, by any means necessary. They did it by making America the greatest economic powerhouse the planet has ever seen, they did it by making babies, they did it by making alliances with brutal dictatorships, by the doctrine of containment - wherever the Russians tried to go, we made every possible effort to deny them.
USA, USA. Meanwhile, their chemicals are poisoning us, but not before they have become our chemicals. Meanwhile, their alliances are becoming more problematic than beneficial, but not before they have become our alliances. Meanwhile, the companies they created are dominating our ideas of freedom - dictating to the masses through the media and the advertisement that keeps the TV on and the stores that sell them open, as well as feeding millions if not billions into the political system to keep the government in their hip pocket. Ten years ago, I was talking about the importance of removing career politicians from office, of voting against the incumbents, of term limits for ALL our representatives - and I still believe it. But, more importantly now, it has to be noticed that the influence of the massive money makers (be they corporations, those who run them, or just the incredibly, generationally, wealthy) on our government: the system must be changed.
Just as when these United States were founded, the founding fathers emphasized the necessity of separation between church and state, perhaps it is time to notice the need for a separation of finance from politics. It appears to me as daunting as separating church and state (which I argue to be externally plausible while internally impossible). This isn't something that is going to happen easily, quickly or without much debate and thought. The debate and thought of which must come not from the corporate or political world, but from WE THE PEOPLE. Once the decisions have been made, solutions reached, I wonder, what will the cost be to enact the resolutions and achieve, the nothing short of revolutionary, results?
Will it smack of socialism? Will it smack of government regulation? Can it be said that government regulation, if by the will of the people and beneficial to the vast majority of individuals (in these United States specifically, but also abroad - as the world is becoming increasingly global in nature and connection), is constitutional? As the generations shift, the old pass away and the young become the old, the world changes. Change is inevitable in this world and the beauty of America is that WE THE PEOPLE are those who should be shaping it. (Clinging to the past while resisting the future is a recipe for disaster as bad as any poorly thought out ideas for change.) Not we the powerful, not we the elite, not we the corporate big-wigs, not we the wealthy, not we the white, black or brown - WE THE PEOPLE.
We may be outnumbered between old and young, we may not have the inside track like those who have captured the ear of the government or hold them by the purse-strings, we may not have our hands on the wheel just yet, but, in the words of Rupert Murdoch, "The world is changing very fast. Big will not beat small anymore. It will be the fast beating the slow." We're coming for you Rupert, and we're faster than you - because the young are faster than the old. (though age and treachery are not to be underestimated...)
(also, I love my grandparents and my parents, but fortunately for my sanity, that doesn't mean I have to agree with their politics. It just means dinner is more interesting.)
I'm getting older and I'm still not conservative, mostly because I'm not vested. I am of the opinion that as you age you have a greater invested interest in the status quo, and that is the how and the why of old age conservatism. What was conservative for our parents, for our parents parents is considered practically backwards today. The further back you go, the more it seems so. Each generation has lessened the load, eased off the restrictions - technology has played its part as much as say, women's lib or the civil rights movement, or Roe v. Wade. We've got a president with African heritage from a mixed coupling of the early sixties - we've come a long way since he was born - thankfully.
Here's my trouble, there is a rift between the old and the now. The youth of the country, those younger than me, by a decade or more especially, are coming of age into a unique situation in our history. Whereas the youth of Iran form the up and coming majority, the youth of America are outnumbered by the old. Just as the baby boomer hippies of yore changed the world with their massive protests, their women's liberation, civil rights and anti-war protests (back in their heart-driven liberal days), they are now fighting back civil rights and propagating war in the post 9/11 milieu. Presumably because 9/11 changed their status quo so severely, it was an assault on not just their country but their sensibilities that demolished their sense of safety.
While my grandparents are still getting out and voting, conservative demagoguery and tea party style politics are being fed to them like a mother feeds a baby; from the only hand they trust, the "Fair and Balanced" FOX news owned by Rupert Murdoch (with the number two shareholder being a Saudi Prince). They are setting the policy for the rest of us - oddly enough Barack Obama was elected, they must not ALL be old conservatives...
If our parents and grandparents are offended by Mosques being built on American soil (let alone hallowed ground), it is their grandchildren who will see a decrease in their constitutional rights. The past is putting the future of religious freedom in America on shaky ground. If our parents and grandparents are in charge of determining the future of healthcare, or of immigration procedures and regulation, or ANYTHING ELSE - it is not they who will lose the freedoms of America, but us.
Now, I don't think they mean it. I don't think that's their goal. I think it's about protecting America, protecting the cold war patriotism that has faded in the current and proceeding generations. I just think they're blinded by the corporate media, the corporate agenda, the corporate lobby. They see the detachment between the people and the government. They know, better than we do, that this is a huge and growing problem and they want to fight it - but they don't see the money agenda. They were warned by Eisenhower of the military industrial complex, but they don't understand that the whole system they set up for us is a dangerous game, that grows more and more dangerous in the future.
As our parents and grandparents rail against ecological reforms (because climate change isn't man made, isn't real) in the name of limiting government power and keeping us (their children) free - they'll be dead by the time their environmental choices are raining down on our heads. Although, our parents and grandparents can stand opposed to the (forced) government healthcare-reform in the name of budget deficits, the growth of the government (in terms of spending and scope) and anything else that puts more power in the hands of our elected officials; what they're missing is that the "big government" that they fear so intensely is powered by the big corporations and the massive lobbying apparatus of the modern political age.
They put the emphasis on the politicians, perhaps because they are blind to the ways of the system they created. Not the democracy of their parents and grandparents (people we've probably never met, or died when we were but babes), people who fought in world wars and provided for families through depressions, dust-bowls and prohibition (and some of whose parents saw the institution of slavery crumble in a bloody civil war), but the systems of consumptions and the growth of corporate interests. Either blinded by personal participation or a lack of education (not to diminish the importance of their experience and wisdom), our parents and grandparents, whose parents were tasked with destroying the Nazi's and the Japs, fought bravely against the communist threat, the big red menace, by any means necessary. They did it by making America the greatest economic powerhouse the planet has ever seen, they did it by making babies, they did it by making alliances with brutal dictatorships, by the doctrine of containment - wherever the Russians tried to go, we made every possible effort to deny them.
USA, USA. Meanwhile, their chemicals are poisoning us, but not before they have become our chemicals. Meanwhile, their alliances are becoming more problematic than beneficial, but not before they have become our alliances. Meanwhile, the companies they created are dominating our ideas of freedom - dictating to the masses through the media and the advertisement that keeps the TV on and the stores that sell them open, as well as feeding millions if not billions into the political system to keep the government in their hip pocket. Ten years ago, I was talking about the importance of removing career politicians from office, of voting against the incumbents, of term limits for ALL our representatives - and I still believe it. But, more importantly now, it has to be noticed that the influence of the massive money makers (be they corporations, those who run them, or just the incredibly, generationally, wealthy) on our government: the system must be changed.
Just as when these United States were founded, the founding fathers emphasized the necessity of separation between church and state, perhaps it is time to notice the need for a separation of finance from politics. It appears to me as daunting as separating church and state (which I argue to be externally plausible while internally impossible). This isn't something that is going to happen easily, quickly or without much debate and thought. The debate and thought of which must come not from the corporate or political world, but from WE THE PEOPLE. Once the decisions have been made, solutions reached, I wonder, what will the cost be to enact the resolutions and achieve, the nothing short of revolutionary, results?
Will it smack of socialism? Will it smack of government regulation? Can it be said that government regulation, if by the will of the people and beneficial to the vast majority of individuals (in these United States specifically, but also abroad - as the world is becoming increasingly global in nature and connection), is constitutional? As the generations shift, the old pass away and the young become the old, the world changes. Change is inevitable in this world and the beauty of America is that WE THE PEOPLE are those who should be shaping it. (Clinging to the past while resisting the future is a recipe for disaster as bad as any poorly thought out ideas for change.) Not we the powerful, not we the elite, not we the corporate big-wigs, not we the wealthy, not we the white, black or brown - WE THE PEOPLE.
We may be outnumbered between old and young, we may not have the inside track like those who have captured the ear of the government or hold them by the purse-strings, we may not have our hands on the wheel just yet, but, in the words of Rupert Murdoch, "The world is changing very fast. Big will not beat small anymore. It will be the fast beating the slow." We're coming for you Rupert, and we're faster than you - because the young are faster than the old. (though age and treachery are not to be underestimated...)
(also, I love my grandparents and my parents, but fortunately for my sanity, that doesn't mean I have to agree with their politics. It just means dinner is more interesting.)
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
...?
been a while since I've read the communist manifesto, it's been assigned for my sociology class. In looking over one part of it, Marx is describing the globalism of the bourgeois, and what strikes me about it is not that he saw so (this aspect) so clearly but that this feared globalism (by the west as giving up its place atop the world, by the east as being dominated by the west) is so succinctly something we're facing right now in the world, but it's being labeled socialism. But what's really happening, in Marxian terms, is that as the bourgeois is solidifying it's hold on the world, America (or insert other country here) becomes far less important in the scheme of things, because the domination and interests of the global bourgeois is more important than any one country. Our corporate way of running things through rampant consumption and out of control, dehumanizing capitalism is still building this global dream, yet Americans opposed to big government (another form of tyranny) are so blind to it.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Too Much to Debunk or Those Who Don't Fact Check Should
This is the single worst article I've ever read. I'm not joking.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/29/is-obama-losing-his-grip-on-reality/
Paragraph 1:
The phrasing here posits that the only correct answer for the President to make is to admit that he isn't a valid President due to the place of his birth; if it isn't true doesn't he have the right to speak out against a lie?
Paragraph 2:
“Childish Rant of a compulsive thug who bamboozled...” only applies if you believe he isn't a valid presidential candidate. This is empty rhetoric, it's written to evoke a set of thoughts and emotions.
Paragraph 3:
Of course the man is aware that people don't think he was born in the United States. He only has to address his invalidity to the position if he is indeed stating his invalidity (which he is not).
Paragraph 4:
Hawaii doesn't release the original copies ( http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf )
Oil spill, what is Obama supposed to do? Swim to the bottom of the gulf and plug it up himself, but more importantly, at the time of their vacation the oil was no longer spilling. There is much cleanup to be done, but what is Obama going to do about that? Whisk it away with his African magic?
Paragraph 5:
see paragraph 4 notes above.
Paragraph 6:
Beyond the wild, unfounded conjecture of this paragraph sits a bold faced lie, that the President, called a cheater, “in his own words knows that he is ineligible to serve as president and realizes that he is over his head because the American people will demand the truth about him.” No where in the Brian Williams interview does he say anything remotely like this.
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38907780/ns/nightly_news )
Paragraph 7:
Is a single line that makes a very good point, unfortunately, it continues to invoke an idea that his little basis in fact.
Paragraph 8:
Barack Obama cannot control the free speech of his “former” pastor, whose remarks have already caused the President grief during his Presidential campaign.
The only thing Barack Obama supports about partial birth abortions is a clause to allow them in situations where the mother's life is in danger. Abortion is legal in the United States, as for his “pandering to killers such as Planned Parenthood” he is a “Pro-Choice” politician, it's a part of his platform to support a thing that is allowed by the laws of the land, abortion (though any citizen is allowed their opinion on it's morality). As of 2003, partial birth abortions are banned in the United States; the ruling of the supreme court upheld it in 2007 as well. However morally reprehensible one may find the idea of partial birth abortions, support for the idea does not make one a criminal or unfit to lead. Dissent is part of what makes this country great.
The hyperlink to his “upbringing” shows a very rational response (in newsweek) to the myriad of influence he encountered in his international upbringing, which may be bizarre but the link to his “bizarre and dysfunctional” childhood is simply a link to his mother's wikipedia page. “Devoid” has to do with hosting his grand-mother's funeral service at a Unitarian church, and his bouncing from church to church. The man calls himself a Christian, who is anyone to say he isn't? Isn't that between the individual and the God that he believes in? The “Christianity” link is to an indonesian site, that supports the Kenyan birth idea and if anything, explains his lack of religiosity as a child as well as the reason why he was registered as a muslim in the indonesian public school system (because his step-father was a Muslim and the father's religion determined the religion for the records).
Kenyan Birth Certificate debunking:
( http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/feature/2009/08/03/birthers_kenya )
The “become” link again references the above linked newsweek article (which is a pretty good read I might add).
the final link in paragraph 8 leads to a conspiracy/UFO website that has plenty of 9/11 truth information on it. 9/11 “truthers” believe conspiracy theories about US complacency or involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Signing the 9/11 Truth petition is what got Van Jones in so much trouble as being unamerican. Although I don't believe in “poisoning the well” I have a tendency to doubt information coming from the same sources as 9/11 truth BS. And as somewhat of a non sequitur, logically if Barack Obama is so horribly anti-American, why would a site associated with such unamerican things as 9/11 truth be outing him, as someone who suffers from “narcissistic personality disorder,” which is, I might add, not being done by a trained psychologist after a proper amount of sessions and perhaps a peer review – just a poster on a comments area of the site.
Paragraph 9:
the link that highlights, “groveling,” is a link to his constitutional support of the the constitutional right to freedom of religion. While the sentence continues without basis with,” at the feet of those with terrorist ties,” though possibly an Ayers reference, I'm confused as to the connection the author is attempting as the remainder of the paragraph deals with Arabs and Islam – Rauf perhaps? But Rauf's refusal to denounce HAMAS as a terrorist group doesn't make him someone with “terrorist ties.” Rauf has a track record as a bridge builder, in not denouncing HAMAS he is keeping a connection with borderline muslims who would take his denunciation as proof of his westernization (which translates as roughly with the ignorant and uninformed of the muslim world as anti-islamic as muslim translates to anti-american to the ignorant and uninformed here).
Barack Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia. People do that to kings. Our last president held his hand. If he's bowing to his “saudi masters” it's not because he's a Muslim, it's because our country is, and has been, in too tight with this repressive regime with the extra deep pockets.
The Clintons had an Eid al-Fitr (end of Ramadan) dinner in 1996; Bush started the Ramadan iftar tradition following 9/11. I'll throw that one back at you again, Bush started the Ramadan iftar tradition following 9/11, and continued it throughout his presidency. If you have a problem with it, it's not with Obama, that's just a scapegoat move.
Paragraph 10:
A single line, containing another linking to Obama's support for partial birth abortion, without stating his view of the matter, his defense of partial birth abortions when the mother is in danger. It' also contains some of his less stellar political moments. He's a politician, just like every other politician on the hill – to put my own value judgement on it: he's better than some and worse than others – just like the rest. A Christian is allowed a personal relationship with the God he or she believes in, Democrats have traditionally been pro-choice, and yes this is a very touchy and uncomfortable choice for any believer to make, but ultimately – he's a democrat, that's the platform they support and that is politics.
Paragraph 11:
A single line suggesting he's mentally ill with a link to the Mayo Clinic's definition of narcissistic personality disorder. No ties to Obama beyond the conjecture the reader may choose to draw.
Paragraph 12:
Well, thinking that you get the powers of what you eat is a little crazy, otherwise, who cares?
Paragraph 13:
A single line questions his parents... Aren't his parents, namely his Kenyan father, the one of two parts to the case of the whole “birther” movement? But just to play along, check google and look at the pictures, or look here:
( http://www.obamamagazine.com/?p=88 ) I'm no expert, but I think there's a resemblance – especially with the Barack Sr. pipe photo.
And, if you really want to read about Frank Marshall Davis being Barack Obama's father, check here:
( http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-real-father-connecting-dots.html ) it's way easier than trudging through the nine minute video the author links to (which, BTW, includes a casting of Davis' astrology chart(s)). Lastly, communist or not, Frank Marshall Davis was an American citizen, born in Arkansas – died in Hawaii.
Paragraph 14:
Showing a photo ID to vote constitutes a poll tax, which just so happens to be unconstitutional.
( http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/4873 )
The link “opposes” links to the same site as referenced in paragraph 10, then continues into rhetoric about how “illegals can vote for socialists like him who will allow them to stay in the country,” because illegals are here to take money from? Taxpayers I suppose is the connection I'm supposed to make, but I'm not sure how they do it. More importantly, America, land of opportunity is full of hard working immigrants who are here both legally and illegally, making a life for themselves and their families. Do I agree with illegal immigration? Nope, but it's a fact of life and until people stop hiring them it's not going to stop. So when a corporation of some sort hires an illegal immigrant at an illegally low wage who's money are they taking? (the implication is that Americans don't work for that little, 'cause they don't.)
As for the Huddle study, yup, those illegals sure do cost the tax payer some dough: ~$67 per year (20 Billion divided by 300 million). Also, you don't have to be, but I am for public education. I think we could do it better, I think the system needs updating and … dare I say, regulating? And I don't care who goes to it. The more education a group of immigrants can get, the more “american” they're going to be in fewer generations.
Also, I am a firm believer that if our national guard is to be taking on any additional duties, being called into active service, it shouldn't be to fight wars on the other side of the world, but to observe and protect the borders of the country – especially with violence spilling in from the drug cartels and their ties to both terrorism and human smuggling (which I think are far more important than stopping the flow of drugs to American streets).
As for, “bankrupt the country” (the huddle link), what about our exorbidant military budget, or the fact that we're in two costly wars in other countries, and two invisible wars around the world (on drugs and terror)? How much do those cost?
Paragraph 15:
Conjectures about Brian Williams's thoughts are something we can all think about, but none can know. As for why did Obama bring up his Christianity, Williams prodded him to do so with his remarks about the recent PEW servay that sheds light on the opinions of the people of the US by taking a slice of their opinions, specifically regarding the religion of the president. (this time it's the “Christian” link that directs the reader to the well written newsweek article from July 2008)
the link, “continues to lie” takes the reader to an AP article that is simply quotes from the Williams interview, with little explanation or extrapolation.
the next link, “says” takes the reader to the same AP article that is simply quotes from the Williams interview, with little explanation.
Paragraph 16:
I don't know anything about Hawaii's “Obama File” but the link goes to a website that calls itself “an historical archive” and to its benefit has apparently been selected by the library of congress to be archived, http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/ which really only means that it's seen as a cultural artifact.
That said, the idea of dual citizenship is AS close as I think it gets to questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, that said, however, he is not a dual citizen, and has not been for over twenty years. He didn't have to take any classes to be a citizen of the US. I'm not a lawyer, but if there is anything that rings true in this article, it's this, but no one is hiding this. It's on a government web page.
Paragraph 17:
see paragraph 16 statements above.
Paragraph 18:
More empty, one-sided rhetoric.
Paragraph 19:
“The country can move on once he is removed from office for ineligibility, election fraud, wire fraud, racketeering, and extortion. Now let’s get past all the foolishness and oust him from Washington, DC, along with all the congressional and judicial bad actors who contributed to this ghoulish charade.”
except for ineligibility, all of those crimes have been committed (in some combination) by our last two presidents (at least). But seriously, racketeering? Extortion? Wire fraud?
Election fraud? Well, maybe... but did HE do it, was it his idea? (same for Bush II)
best part about this article is that it's done. 19 paragraphs, 3 hours of my day and hardly even a half truth out of the whole damn thing. I did get to read a pretty well written newsweek article though.
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/29/is-obama-losing-his-grip-on-reality/
Paragraph 1:
The phrasing here posits that the only correct answer for the President to make is to admit that he isn't a valid President due to the place of his birth; if it isn't true doesn't he have the right to speak out against a lie?
Paragraph 2:
“Childish Rant of a compulsive thug who bamboozled...” only applies if you believe he isn't a valid presidential candidate. This is empty rhetoric, it's written to evoke a set of thoughts and emotions.
Paragraph 3:
Of course the man is aware that people don't think he was born in the United States. He only has to address his invalidity to the position if he is indeed stating his invalidity (which he is not).
Paragraph 4:
Hawaii doesn't release the original copies ( http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf )
Oil spill, what is Obama supposed to do? Swim to the bottom of the gulf and plug it up himself, but more importantly, at the time of their vacation the oil was no longer spilling. There is much cleanup to be done, but what is Obama going to do about that? Whisk it away with his African magic?
Paragraph 5:
see paragraph 4 notes above.
Paragraph 6:
Beyond the wild, unfounded conjecture of this paragraph sits a bold faced lie, that the President, called a cheater, “in his own words knows that he is ineligible to serve as president and realizes that he is over his head because the American people will demand the truth about him.” No where in the Brian Williams interview does he say anything remotely like this.
( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38907780/ns/nightly_news )
Paragraph 7:
Is a single line that makes a very good point, unfortunately, it continues to invoke an idea that his little basis in fact.
Paragraph 8:
Barack Obama cannot control the free speech of his “former” pastor, whose remarks have already caused the President grief during his Presidential campaign.
The only thing Barack Obama supports about partial birth abortions is a clause to allow them in situations where the mother's life is in danger. Abortion is legal in the United States, as for his “pandering to killers such as Planned Parenthood” he is a “Pro-Choice” politician, it's a part of his platform to support a thing that is allowed by the laws of the land, abortion (though any citizen is allowed their opinion on it's morality). As of 2003, partial birth abortions are banned in the United States; the ruling of the supreme court upheld it in 2007 as well. However morally reprehensible one may find the idea of partial birth abortions, support for the idea does not make one a criminal or unfit to lead. Dissent is part of what makes this country great.
The hyperlink to his “upbringing” shows a very rational response (in newsweek) to the myriad of influence he encountered in his international upbringing, which may be bizarre but the link to his “bizarre and dysfunctional” childhood is simply a link to his mother's wikipedia page. “Devoid” has to do with hosting his grand-mother's funeral service at a Unitarian church, and his bouncing from church to church. The man calls himself a Christian, who is anyone to say he isn't? Isn't that between the individual and the God that he believes in? The “Christianity” link is to an indonesian site, that supports the Kenyan birth idea and if anything, explains his lack of religiosity as a child as well as the reason why he was registered as a muslim in the indonesian public school system (because his step-father was a Muslim and the father's religion determined the religion for the records).
Kenyan Birth Certificate debunking:
( http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/feature/2009/08/03/birthers_kenya )
The “become” link again references the above linked newsweek article (which is a pretty good read I might add).
the final link in paragraph 8 leads to a conspiracy/UFO website that has plenty of 9/11 truth information on it. 9/11 “truthers” believe conspiracy theories about US complacency or involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Signing the 9/11 Truth petition is what got Van Jones in so much trouble as being unamerican. Although I don't believe in “poisoning the well” I have a tendency to doubt information coming from the same sources as 9/11 truth BS. And as somewhat of a non sequitur, logically if Barack Obama is so horribly anti-American, why would a site associated with such unamerican things as 9/11 truth be outing him, as someone who suffers from “narcissistic personality disorder,” which is, I might add, not being done by a trained psychologist after a proper amount of sessions and perhaps a peer review – just a poster on a comments area of the site.
Paragraph 9:
the link that highlights, “groveling,” is a link to his constitutional support of the the constitutional right to freedom of religion. While the sentence continues without basis with,” at the feet of those with terrorist ties,” though possibly an Ayers reference, I'm confused as to the connection the author is attempting as the remainder of the paragraph deals with Arabs and Islam – Rauf perhaps? But Rauf's refusal to denounce HAMAS as a terrorist group doesn't make him someone with “terrorist ties.” Rauf has a track record as a bridge builder, in not denouncing HAMAS he is keeping a connection with borderline muslims who would take his denunciation as proof of his westernization (which translates as roughly with the ignorant and uninformed of the muslim world as anti-islamic as muslim translates to anti-american to the ignorant and uninformed here).
Barack Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia. People do that to kings. Our last president held his hand. If he's bowing to his “saudi masters” it's not because he's a Muslim, it's because our country is, and has been, in too tight with this repressive regime with the extra deep pockets.
The Clintons had an Eid al-Fitr (end of Ramadan) dinner in 1996; Bush started the Ramadan iftar tradition following 9/11. I'll throw that one back at you again, Bush started the Ramadan iftar tradition following 9/11, and continued it throughout his presidency. If you have a problem with it, it's not with Obama, that's just a scapegoat move.
Paragraph 10:
A single line, containing another linking to Obama's support for partial birth abortion, without stating his view of the matter, his defense of partial birth abortions when the mother is in danger. It' also contains some of his less stellar political moments. He's a politician, just like every other politician on the hill – to put my own value judgement on it: he's better than some and worse than others – just like the rest. A Christian is allowed a personal relationship with the God he or she believes in, Democrats have traditionally been pro-choice, and yes this is a very touchy and uncomfortable choice for any believer to make, but ultimately – he's a democrat, that's the platform they support and that is politics.
Paragraph 11:
A single line suggesting he's mentally ill with a link to the Mayo Clinic's definition of narcissistic personality disorder. No ties to Obama beyond the conjecture the reader may choose to draw.
Paragraph 12:
Well, thinking that you get the powers of what you eat is a little crazy, otherwise, who cares?
Paragraph 13:
A single line questions his parents... Aren't his parents, namely his Kenyan father, the one of two parts to the case of the whole “birther” movement? But just to play along, check google and look at the pictures, or look here:
( http://www.obamamagazine.com/?p=88 ) I'm no expert, but I think there's a resemblance – especially with the Barack Sr. pipe photo.
And, if you really want to read about Frank Marshall Davis being Barack Obama's father, check here:
( http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/09/obamas-real-father-connecting-dots.html ) it's way easier than trudging through the nine minute video the author links to (which, BTW, includes a casting of Davis' astrology chart(s)). Lastly, communist or not, Frank Marshall Davis was an American citizen, born in Arkansas – died in Hawaii.
Paragraph 14:
Showing a photo ID to vote constitutes a poll tax, which just so happens to be unconstitutional.
( http://www.firedupmissouri.com/node/4873 )
The link “opposes” links to the same site as referenced in paragraph 10, then continues into rhetoric about how “illegals can vote for socialists like him who will allow them to stay in the country,” because illegals are here to take money from? Taxpayers I suppose is the connection I'm supposed to make, but I'm not sure how they do it. More importantly, America, land of opportunity is full of hard working immigrants who are here both legally and illegally, making a life for themselves and their families. Do I agree with illegal immigration? Nope, but it's a fact of life and until people stop hiring them it's not going to stop. So when a corporation of some sort hires an illegal immigrant at an illegally low wage who's money are they taking? (the implication is that Americans don't work for that little, 'cause they don't.)
As for the Huddle study, yup, those illegals sure do cost the tax payer some dough: ~$67 per year (20 Billion divided by 300 million). Also, you don't have to be, but I am for public education. I think we could do it better, I think the system needs updating and … dare I say, regulating? And I don't care who goes to it. The more education a group of immigrants can get, the more “american” they're going to be in fewer generations.
Also, I am a firm believer that if our national guard is to be taking on any additional duties, being called into active service, it shouldn't be to fight wars on the other side of the world, but to observe and protect the borders of the country – especially with violence spilling in from the drug cartels and their ties to both terrorism and human smuggling (which I think are far more important than stopping the flow of drugs to American streets).
As for, “bankrupt the country” (the huddle link), what about our exorbidant military budget, or the fact that we're in two costly wars in other countries, and two invisible wars around the world (on drugs and terror)? How much do those cost?
Paragraph 15:
Conjectures about Brian Williams's thoughts are something we can all think about, but none can know. As for why did Obama bring up his Christianity, Williams prodded him to do so with his remarks about the recent PEW servay that sheds light on the opinions of the people of the US by taking a slice of their opinions, specifically regarding the religion of the president. (this time it's the “Christian” link that directs the reader to the well written newsweek article from July 2008)
the link, “continues to lie” takes the reader to an AP article that is simply quotes from the Williams interview, with little explanation or extrapolation.
the next link, “says” takes the reader to the same AP article that is simply quotes from the Williams interview, with little explanation.
Paragraph 16:
I don't know anything about Hawaii's “Obama File” but the link goes to a website that calls itself “an historical archive” and to its benefit has apparently been selected by the library of congress to be archived, http://www.loc.gov/webarchiving/ which really only means that it's seen as a cultural artifact.
That said, the idea of dual citizenship is AS close as I think it gets to questioning the legitimacy of Obama's presidency, that said, however, he is not a dual citizen, and has not been for over twenty years. He didn't have to take any classes to be a citizen of the US. I'm not a lawyer, but if there is anything that rings true in this article, it's this, but no one is hiding this. It's on a government web page.
Paragraph 17:
see paragraph 16 statements above.
Paragraph 18:
More empty, one-sided rhetoric.
Paragraph 19:
“The country can move on once he is removed from office for ineligibility, election fraud, wire fraud, racketeering, and extortion. Now let’s get past all the foolishness and oust him from Washington, DC, along with all the congressional and judicial bad actors who contributed to this ghoulish charade.”
except for ineligibility, all of those crimes have been committed (in some combination) by our last two presidents (at least). But seriously, racketeering? Extortion? Wire fraud?
Election fraud? Well, maybe... but did HE do it, was it his idea? (same for Bush II)
best part about this article is that it's done. 19 paragraphs, 3 hours of my day and hardly even a half truth out of the whole damn thing. I did get to read a pretty well written newsweek article though.
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/07/11/finding-his-faith.html
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Oh what a day.
I have a heavy heart tonight. I'm having a really hard time with things that are going on in the world at large, and my little world is feeling rather topsy turvy. I'm reading, "the gospel according to Jesus Christ" by Jose Saramago and it is some powerful stuff. Real sensitive subjects for me. Fatherhood, innocence, innocence lost, the mistakes we make as people; the pain of wondering about forgiveness and if it can ever be achieved. Echoes of the interplay between faith and works and the conversations I have with my dad. The book is f'n brilliant. I've got homework to do and I can't put it down except to come down from the emotional high Saramago gives his readers.
otherwise, great day off. My cousin is sick. If you read this and you do this kind of thing, pray for him.
otherwise, great day off. My cousin is sick. If you read this and you do this kind of thing, pray for him.
an end to political advertisement
I want an end to political advertisement on television. I don't ever want to see and hear another commercial for or against candidate X, or any one he/she/it is running with or against. Twisting arguments, twisting sound-bytes, pictures in motion to make someone look at least as foolish as we all hope they're not all for price. The price to make the commercial is raised by the cost of the air-time required to show it.
Somehow I've got to find a way to show a.) that advertisement shouldn't be covered by the freedoms of the second amendment, or at least hope for a way for us to all just agree that political advertisement is a waste of time and money.
Fuck. Why can't we just agree to keep political advertisement off the air? Who wants to see this shit. This money is better suited for other things. Build a homeless shelter, a food pantry, invest it in local education, give it as scholarships to institutions of higher education, plaster a name all over it - name it and claim it for all I care - just get it off the airwaves.
Yes, I'm basically against advertisement in general - I can't shake the feeling that the money is better used elsewhere - but if political ads are refused airtime, THAT money can be better spent. State campaigns and campaigns for the houses of representatives on the national level, governor races - let journalists rake the muck, let the internet handle the meme takedown, let the campaign funds show more than just trumped up and dumbed down charges for or against a candidate. Put that money in the street.
If there aren't TV advertisement needs:
1.) little candidates don't need deep pockets - the people can get a field of candidates to choose from
2.) big candidates don't need AS MUCH investment and don't get as indebted to their contributors
think of it this way, if four candidates are buying air time from a station that financially supports one of them, three candidates can be considered to be paying for the fourth's campaign. How dumb is that?
Somehow I've got to find a way to show a.) that advertisement shouldn't be covered by the freedoms of the second amendment, or at least hope for a way for us to all just agree that political advertisement is a waste of time and money.
Fuck. Why can't we just agree to keep political advertisement off the air? Who wants to see this shit. This money is better suited for other things. Build a homeless shelter, a food pantry, invest it in local education, give it as scholarships to institutions of higher education, plaster a name all over it - name it and claim it for all I care - just get it off the airwaves.
Yes, I'm basically against advertisement in general - I can't shake the feeling that the money is better used elsewhere - but if political ads are refused airtime, THAT money can be better spent. State campaigns and campaigns for the houses of representatives on the national level, governor races - let journalists rake the muck, let the internet handle the meme takedown, let the campaign funds show more than just trumped up and dumbed down charges for or against a candidate. Put that money in the street.
If there aren't TV advertisement needs:
1.) little candidates don't need deep pockets - the people can get a field of candidates to choose from
2.) big candidates don't need AS MUCH investment and don't get as indebted to their contributors
think of it this way, if four candidates are buying air time from a station that financially supports one of them, three candidates can be considered to be paying for the fourth's campaign. How dumb is that?
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
to pass through as a traveler
there is an idea in Ibrihimic faiths (specifically Christianity and Islam) that we should, in the words of Jesus (UHBP), "____________" and be in the world, but not of it. There are ahadith attributed to Mohammad, PBUH, where he recommends to "be in this world like a traveler or a wayfarer."
In regards to Christianity, I feel like this has been used to keep Christians out of politics and creating beautiful change in the world. And similarly for Muslims. However, if you think about it, another aspect of traveling, of uninvolvement has less to do with say, participating in politics, than just taking sides in general. If our intentions, if our actions are not in line with what is right, good and true, if we're picking sides - but both sides are wrong, or not all right - everything is basically the same.
Whether you're a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist or anything else, really, choosing one side to the detriment of another is something a traveler rarely does - and something a resident does regularly. It's as though the temperance of uninvolvement with doing good has been lost. Is there really anything ever wrong with trying your best to do the most good for the most people? It's not about political parties, or fighting wars, or even fighting oppression - just do the good, keep yourself focused on right action, keep your conscience clear and your intentions pure.
To me, this doesn't mean stay out of the good fight, it means that picking one over another, damaging one in the name of another can be just as damaging either side you pick. So pick the side of awesomeness and quit being so ethnocentric.
In regards to Christianity, I feel like this has been used to keep Christians out of politics and creating beautiful change in the world. And similarly for Muslims. However, if you think about it, another aspect of traveling, of uninvolvement has less to do with say, participating in politics, than just taking sides in general. If our intentions, if our actions are not in line with what is right, good and true, if we're picking sides - but both sides are wrong, or not all right - everything is basically the same.
Whether you're a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist or anything else, really, choosing one side to the detriment of another is something a traveler rarely does - and something a resident does regularly. It's as though the temperance of uninvolvement with doing good has been lost. Is there really anything ever wrong with trying your best to do the most good for the most people? It's not about political parties, or fighting wars, or even fighting oppression - just do the good, keep yourself focused on right action, keep your conscience clear and your intentions pure.
To me, this doesn't mean stay out of the good fight, it means that picking one over another, damaging one in the name of another can be just as damaging either side you pick. So pick the side of awesomeness and quit being so ethnocentric.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Science is Really Awesome or World Weather Systems; what was once the hand of God is now the domain of Men
I've spent my last evening before the big move awed into a stupor reading about the jet stream, the dust bowl, the fires in Russia and the floods in Pakistan. Last night, one of the most amazing Thunderstorms blew through my state, no threat of a cyclone but 60+ MPH winds, one gust actually shook my apartment building - or perhaps we were hit by lightning, either option seems a little unbelievable to me - needless to say I am really curious about the weather today. Especially since the weather is one of the few things that actually scares the excrement out of Maddy (fortunately not literally).
I started today's journey by looking into the weather forecast for the rest of the week and looking into the phrase "active jet stream" that somebody on the weather channel mentioned, but did not discuss while I was reading the severe weather warnings for my area last night. Apparently, the jet stream dipped in June and is now doing some kind of weird things to the weather in the American Midwest. So then, I thought to myself, well if the jet stream is doing weird things here - what is it doing elsewhere? And after what felt like a ridiculous amount of looking (as apparently the only jet stream that gets talked about, even on the world wide web, is the part of it that flows over these United States), I found this video.
In my initial research, I had stumbled across a NASA based, historical research into the effects of the jet stream on the "Dustbowl" of depression era fame (link here). To summarize the article, fluctuating temperatures and a weakened jet stream were responsible for the meteorological effects of what was to become known as the Dust bowl (the other part had to do with poor farming methods to the extent of, basically, abusing the land).
Now, as much as I find the idea of global weather/climate change(s) to be fascinating, I am not a meteorologist, and my knowledge of weather and patters and the jet stream is all pretty much just from a couple of science classes spread over about fifteen years, and what I've looked into today. What I find to be so interesting about all of this has more to do with wild conjecture on my part than basis in any sort of actual factuality.
It seems to me that these weather phenomena may have incredible lasting effects - and that this hasn't been mentioned much, to my knowledge in the US media's 24 hour news cycle (probably because it's all wild conjecture on the part of one person, me). However, that this could be a threat seems to be alluded to when the weather guy in the video says something about how the phenomena above Pakistan "shows no sign of budging right now."
Now, obviously, this isn't the same matter as the cause of our depression era dust bowl, this is a split jet stream (not a weakened one, though I can't find any data on whether or not a splitting can weaken either fork of a split jet stream) and although similar trends (a cooling tropical pacific - el nino; a warm Atlantic) may be taking place, this seems like it would be what we in the US would need, not so much what would affect weather abnormalities for North-Eastern Europe and the Indian subcontinent. So I did some looking into water temperatures, and found this map, which doesn't show fluctuations or really describe them much, but shows plenty of warm water in places it'd be expected (shallower ocean areas & the equator) - and then I found this, describing unusually warm waters in the Baltic sea - which seems to my untrained self, to a much lesser degree of course, to mimic fluctuating temperatures of the pre-dust bowl oceans (especially if you compare this map to the oceanic overview above).
Kind of knocked my socks off. Mostly, because it seems that either the weather never really was the "hand of God" as it was seen to be for so many millennia of our human existence, or we're just really, really capable of seeing all the factors that go in to this ancient weapon of God's wrath. Or, better yet some would suggest that this is all the action of HAARP, and by inference, these United States (positive rebuttal of all points here, here and - best for last - here).
Though I am no expert, and this is going to sound like a fortune teller's prediction - we (the world) are experiencing either a one time shift in weather patterns due to a fluke jet stream phenomenon, a new, dangerous, possibly stationary, trend, an old weather pattern finding new life with new effects in a new area, the greatest weapon man has ever wielded, or simply the effects of a changing environment. In any of these cases, I find it absolutely fascinating and wish there was more coverage of things like this, but I also find the loss of life staggering and horrifying and although I'm sure plenty of aid will occur in these areas, I wonder why we can't do more for each other instead of simply pursuing profits - taking advantage of crisis situations to, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." (he was referring to the Economic downtown, and subsequent government action, but I feel it holds true for our track record; re: Katrina, 9/11, the economic downturn; shock doctrine)
additional reading:
http://factoidz.com/all-about-the-santa-ana-winds/
http://factoidz.com/chinook-winds-the-snow-eater/
sweet photojournalism/ Russian fires:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/30/russia.wildfires.heat/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10891244
sweet photojournalism/ Pakistani flooding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10903426
I started today's journey by looking into the weather forecast for the rest of the week and looking into the phrase "active jet stream" that somebody on the weather channel mentioned, but did not discuss while I was reading the severe weather warnings for my area last night. Apparently, the jet stream dipped in June and is now doing some kind of weird things to the weather in the American Midwest. So then, I thought to myself, well if the jet stream is doing weird things here - what is it doing elsewhere? And after what felt like a ridiculous amount of looking (as apparently the only jet stream that gets talked about, even on the world wide web, is the part of it that flows over these United States), I found this video.
In my initial research, I had stumbled across a NASA based, historical research into the effects of the jet stream on the "Dustbowl" of depression era fame (link here). To summarize the article, fluctuating temperatures and a weakened jet stream were responsible for the meteorological effects of what was to become known as the Dust bowl (the other part had to do with poor farming methods to the extent of, basically, abusing the land).
Now, as much as I find the idea of global weather/climate change(s) to be fascinating, I am not a meteorologist, and my knowledge of weather and patters and the jet stream is all pretty much just from a couple of science classes spread over about fifteen years, and what I've looked into today. What I find to be so interesting about all of this has more to do with wild conjecture on my part than basis in any sort of actual factuality.
It seems to me that these weather phenomena may have incredible lasting effects - and that this hasn't been mentioned much, to my knowledge in the US media's 24 hour news cycle (probably because it's all wild conjecture on the part of one person, me). However, that this could be a threat seems to be alluded to when the weather guy in the video says something about how the phenomena above Pakistan "shows no sign of budging right now."
Now, obviously, this isn't the same matter as the cause of our depression era dust bowl, this is a split jet stream (not a weakened one, though I can't find any data on whether or not a splitting can weaken either fork of a split jet stream) and although similar trends (a cooling tropical pacific - el nino; a warm Atlantic) may be taking place, this seems like it would be what we in the US would need, not so much what would affect weather abnormalities for North-Eastern Europe and the Indian subcontinent. So I did some looking into water temperatures, and found this map, which doesn't show fluctuations or really describe them much, but shows plenty of warm water in places it'd be expected (shallower ocean areas & the equator) - and then I found this, describing unusually warm waters in the Baltic sea - which seems to my untrained self, to a much lesser degree of course, to mimic fluctuating temperatures of the pre-dust bowl oceans (especially if you compare this map to the oceanic overview above).
Kind of knocked my socks off. Mostly, because it seems that either the weather never really was the "hand of God" as it was seen to be for so many millennia of our human existence, or we're just really, really capable of seeing all the factors that go in to this ancient weapon of God's wrath. Or, better yet some would suggest that this is all the action of HAARP, and by inference, these United States (positive rebuttal of all points here, here and - best for last - here).
Though I am no expert, and this is going to sound like a fortune teller's prediction - we (the world) are experiencing either a one time shift in weather patterns due to a fluke jet stream phenomenon, a new, dangerous, possibly stationary, trend, an old weather pattern finding new life with new effects in a new area, the greatest weapon man has ever wielded, or simply the effects of a changing environment. In any of these cases, I find it absolutely fascinating and wish there was more coverage of things like this, but I also find the loss of life staggering and horrifying and although I'm sure plenty of aid will occur in these areas, I wonder why we can't do more for each other instead of simply pursuing profits - taking advantage of crisis situations to, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." (he was referring to the Economic downtown, and subsequent government action, but I feel it holds true for our track record; re: Katrina, 9/11, the economic downturn; shock doctrine)
additional reading:
http://factoidz.com/all-about-the-santa-ana-winds/
http://factoidz.com/chinook-winds-the-snow-eater/
sweet photojournalism/ Russian fires:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/07/30/russia.wildfires.heat/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10891244
sweet photojournalism/ Pakistani flooding:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10903426
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Sam Osborne
- I am a student @ MATC in Madison, WI. I am in the Liberal Arts Transfer Program. I plan on teaching, and on continuing my education إن شاء الله