Scott Walker and Wisconsin

or, Who the Hell Voted for This Guy? - or, Why am I even worrying about this, I'm in Spain - or, The Most Useless and Uninformative Wikipedia Page I've Ever Seen - or, No Really, It Should Have Been A Stub - or, The Imaginary Interrogation of Scott Walker - or, Are Your Actions Indicative of Your Time With and Opinion of the Red Cross - or, I Don't Mean to be an Elitist, but You Seriously Don't Have A College Degree? Not Even a Bachelor's? (Because I Don't Either, But I'm Not the Governor)

I want to know where your money came from, Scott Walker. I want to know how a guy who left college for the Red Cross could turn out to be such a raging douche - because that seems pretty cool to me though I think you're supposed to go back to college before you start trying to run a city or a state. And since when does working for a non-profit turn out to be so lucrative? I want to know about your campaign finance violations. I want to know how a guy who's all about jobs turned down eight-hundred million dollars of government money to BUILD A RAILROAD. (Because, I mean, there's no jobs in that, right?) I keep hearing that Scott Walker is a Millionaire but I can't find where he made his money! I hear he gave some of his salary back when he was County Executive (well, more at first because apparently he fell on some hard times, if only with his wife), but I want more information about that too because there are plenty of technicalities and loopholes and tax breaks that he could be ducking behind and he never did actually lower the salary of the position. How about now, how much of his governor's salary should we expect him to "give back?" Is that a part of the budget cuts? Scott, by all accounts you're a multi-millionaire why do you need a salary at all? Especially since you're going to score a pension larger than the salaries of the teachers you're asking to take a pay cut if (and hopefully when) we ever pull our heads out of our asses and CHOOSE not to reelect you!

What of the complaints about his work with the Criminal Justice system in Milwaukee? By the DA no less. Put an end to prison profiteering? Naw, let's bust up the prison gurds union instead. And why go straight for the Unions but exclude the Police and Fire Unions? I mean, they're our real heroes and all, and I appreciate the work they do, but what about teachers? What about Higher Education? What about the UW as a premiere research institution? How do you research without researchers? And why pay those guiding researchers?

Damnit Scott Walker, it can't just be about the bottom line, sure that's how you probably got rich (or you married it, either way it's pretty well hidden from the interwebz) but it's not how you run a state! You don't bust up the unions to cut taxes for the richest! And while I'm all for frugality in the face of abundant wealth, even though he is, according to his wife, "fiscally conservative when it comes to his personal finances. Scott drives a 1998 Saturn with 100,000 miles on it and packs the same brown bag lunch before heading to the office to save money: two ham and cheese sandwiches on wheat with mayo." Why does it have to come at the cost of Wisconsin's workers?

And while the Scott Walker Biography page on his campaign website lists (a trite) three "small town values and common sense principles"

1. Don't spend more than you have.
2. Smaller government is better government.
3. People create jobs, not government.

I'm having trouble seeing how this relates to his campaign promises and constantly restated purpose as Governor, to create jobs? And what does small government have to do with Unions and collective bargaining? Sure, let's not spend more than we have, but WTF, why are we not increasing the taxes on the wealthy? And why can't we lower the corporate tax rate (which in essence is supposed to create jobs; or not) AND increase the tax rate on the wealthiest Wisconsintes? I mean, why not eat the rich - or at least get them to pony-up and put some food on the table? People have done just fine with incredibly high taxes - the rich still get richer. But, but, but, then there's no incentive to get rich... well f'n shucks. But don't tell me that those post war years weren't booming! (And look at those taxes.) I mean, we were choking out the Ruskies and giving birth to the Military-Industrial Complex!

If you ask the majority to get paid less and give more, while you cut taxes for the wealthy aren't you basically creating a situation where the rich get richer and the poor stay f'n poor? I mean, if you cut the teachers salaries but you don't cut into the beneficiaries of the profits from the University, and in fact lower their taxes, aren't you baking a nice cake for the already rich? Aren't you creating a situation where the minority pays less and gets more? How the f is that fair? But I guess it doesn't have to be, 'cause it's a "free-country." A free country where the middle-class is disappearing, where the overwhelming demographic majority is becoming a sociological minority.

The American Myth

or, Freedom and Equality as Oil and Water - or, my time as an expat - or, why I sometimes wish I wasn't so in love with a city in Wisconsin - or, how, sooner or later everything can go wrong - or, if only I knew how to make a decent shit sandwich - or, Putin, is that you?

Tell me friends, why is it that American students study abroad to cut themselves loose? Because the legal drinking age is 18, and even before these Spanish kids reach that age, you'd be hard pressed to find a day that they're not drinking forties and liquor in the streets and parks here? Perhaps. Because all the puritans left Europe for America and after three hundred and fifty years the cultural differences caused by this exodus are palpable? Maybe. Because the cops don't really seem too interested in stopping anything they don't absolutely have to? Possibly. Because the Catholics seem to be huge fans of excess and their pagan roots? I answer my question with another question, who knows?

But I know this much is true, I feel freer here in Spain and maybe it's just because I can hardly speak the language. Maybe it's because I have few ties to, no vested interest in and I don't know all the BS that's going on as I can barely understand the past tense in Spanish - which makes reading a paper a labor of love - but maybe there's something else going on. There's a complacency in America and there's a complacency here but I posit that they are of a different breed. If you want to talk freedom I say why not start by talking about puritanism and prohibition? (Key moments in American History.) Why is it the law for in so many American states for bars to close at 2 am and why is the drinking age 21? How come you can vote at 18, kill and die for your country at 18, legally smoke tobacco at 18, go to jail for life by 16, but you can't drink until you're 21 or rent a car until you're 25? I'm not saying that freedom is just about alcohol consumption, tobacco, murder, and vehicle rental, but I am trying to make a point about freedom. So far as vice, and possibly vehicle rental, is concerned it's hard not to make the claim that the roots of our policies have some relationship to our Puritan ancestry.

And what of religious freedom? So long as you're a conservative, protestant you're free to believe whatever you want. After much tribulation we have also (at least partially) come to accept catholics and jews, and maybe someday we'll find a place in our hearts for Muslims too. I mean, we talk about the oppression of women in Islam like it's so radically different, but women have only been allowed to vote in the US of A for less than the last hundred years (and ask a Muslim woman how she feels about western women and you'll get a pretty interesting counter-point; and let's not talk about racism and the voting bloc), and if we're talking about the prohibition of alcohol there's plenty of ammo in the Qur'an. What of freedom from religion? Is that a constitutional right? Ultimately, what was the purpose of separation of church and state? Was it solely to prevent creeping theocracy, or was there maybe more to it? Or less? Nobody talks about it, but at least one of the founding father's of the United States felt that the country couldn't function without a bible based morality, at least one other was regularly attacked for his faith, or lack thereof, in his day as well as mine. (And then, of course, there was this guy.)

So, land of the free, home of the brave, tell me about your freedom because now that I've left I fail to see it. In Wisconsin, the new Governor is proposing to use the national guard to quell unrest and dissent to his proposals while the state erupts into protest over his budget and plans. Meanwhile, Egypt overthrows their dictator through massive protest - a (if not the) key to their victory (besides persistence)? The refusal of the military to attack the protestors. And yet, in Wisconsin, the actions of the democratically elected governor are being accurately reported with autocratic sounding words like "unilateral," "contemptuously dismissed" and "power grab." And my question becomes, where will the national guard stand, with or against the people? Interesting how the police and fire unions are exempt from this big union bust-up. With what force will they come with against the protests? (It's happened before) I see riot shields and fire hoses in a possible future that looks more like 1967 or 1984 than the change we're supposed to believe in. Were the citizens of thes United States, at her inception, more, less or as free as we are today?

But with all of that on the table, I must refer you to Citizen's United (though I'd prefer if you paid more attention to either of these accounts of the ruling than cuvfec.com's, except for the Keith Olbermann spot around 9 min. in) - and say what you will about cuvfec's orthodox story, show me how my boy Russ Feingold wasn't affected by the corporate money spent against him (and keep in mind the possibility of a tremendous difference between a corporation giving to who they want to, and who will benefit them, and to an honest collection of citizens pooling together to speak out against a candidate - and if you want my honest opinion, I'm AGAINST TV ads in general and especially when it comes to elections because nothing could be a greater waste of money) Feingold had been a bulwark against corporate power, so tell me that his lack of reelection is not related to the way he votes and the corporate money spent against him. 2010 was the most expensive midterm election ever, and this has nothing to do with corporations having the locks taken off the dam(n) against their spending? Just wait until 2012...

My point about Citizen's United is this: I don't have much money to give to a political campaign, and I assume this is pretty true for many, if not most, lower to middle class Americans, who make up the overwhelming majority of the country, but how much money does a corporation that makes a billion dollars in profits every year have to donate? Ask yourself what kind of favors that money can buy? Ask yourself how that money can affect "opinion" in our bodies of representatives when, if it doesn't go for you, it will go against you, depending on how you vote (re: Russ Feingold). And think of the votes that cash buys, if that decision has to do with what you want or what's better for the corporation, which way do you think that vote's going to go?

Now, let me bring this in from left field and let's talk about Abortion for a moment. We can argue about the morality of Abortion until we're blue in the face and ultimately, the conservative moralist will probably retain the moral high-ground and disagree, while the lefty murderer will still feel justified, and both self-righteous, but it's a law, it happened. It was a supreme court decision and honestly it's probably not going anywhere any time soon. Still, we expect our candidates to take a stand on it, perhaps some have even lost elections because of their stance on it (Kerry, 2004; Gore?), which by implications means others have won (Bush II, 2000 & 2004).

Abortion is old news, Citizens United is brand spankin' new. Abortion is a hot-button issue every election, but tell me, morality aside which one of these supreme court cases has more bearing on the actuality of our representative government? Just incase you're on the fence with this let me break it down for you, abortion rights doesn't swing how somebody votes on anything but Abortion rights, whereas Citizens United has the potential to determine not just election, but by proxy the votes cast on every issue brought up in our representative government - which in turn means WE don't have any say, dollars do. It's a zero sum game, if you vote the way your corporate sponsors want the money goes for your campaign, if you don't, it goes against you! Ultimately, it goes against the people - and on that note, the official, orthodox cuvfec.com story is a f'n joke and I don't mind saying so (though, the alternative they mention, media control is also fairly real - the difference is that media is a choice, nobody is making you watch TV, and there's plenty of alternative press).

That said, which one do you think we should be talking about as an election issue?

So now let's return, life in the states isn't as "free" as we think it is - don't buy the hype - though I'm certainly not saying it can't be. It just takes work. Hard, fearless work. Look at Civil Rights in the US, look to Women's suffrage, look to fledgling democracy in Tunisia and Egypt. And while you're there think about this too, think about the western world's inability to support democracy in Africa, and the corporate reality of the economics of arms sales (from WMD's sold to Saddam, to tear gas sold to the Egyptian police), and the economics of power. Who's really in control? The body politic or the corporate masters? We were warned about big Government by our founding fathers, but they had a really different view of Corporations than the McWorld we call modernity in the west.

We're supposed to protest. We're supposed to rebel. We're Americans and it's time to remember what that means because if we don't wake up and smell the BS we're being served we're going to find ourselves at best under the Ataturk that we apparently need, and at worst an American version of this guy, neither of which seem superior to the idealized American dream we all pay lip-service to while we blindly keep complacent time and fall into step in the open air prison our country has become.

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson

Science in the States

Though I am a firm believer that to completely trust the theory of evolution takes about as much faith as believing in anything else (to trust that billions of years and billions of minor changes are responsible for what we know as our modern world and everything in it is beyond our direct comprehension - we can accept it, we can even understand it, but we cannot grasp "billions" as a concept other than it's a damn lot) the difference lies in the unflinching testing of the theory.

Religions have a lengthy history, and even a modern reputation, for being unwilling to be put to the test while scientific theories are pretty much hanging it out there at all times and are regularly reinforced or modified. I mean, prove it wrong! I think that's what bothers me most about a biblically literal "creationism" being taught in a science classroom. It's untestable and it's unapproachable - and the only reason it "has" to be taught in the classroom is because biblical literalism and evolution go together like oil and water. But in the realm of reality, biblical literalism and evolution are about as old as each other. In the history of Christianity, for all the good and horrible things contained within it, Biblical literalism is a reactive (and reductive!) ideology that has only come to prominence since the mid 19th century as a foil to the literary criticism of the Bible of the same age.

Early church fathers are on record as interpreting Genesis' creation story far more allegorically than their modern, literal, American Christian contemporaries. Maybe that's the reason Catholicism has accepted evolution (mostly). The downside, our modern "Creation Science" is rooted in scientific sounding half-truths furthered by non-scientists and scientists working out of their depth/field. Cherry picking science much like believers cherry pick the principles of their faith from their holy books.

In Madison, every outdoor farmers market (so every Saturday between May and December), there are dozens of people crowded around "Evolution is a Lie" posters and giant information collages, along with plenty of other "witnesses." Though I agree with them that rationality/evolution is a worldview, it is a worldview that is grounded in testable, observable science (though conceptually difficult to grasp - like a concept of "God"), the people who disagree with that don't have facts on their side, instead having only faith. While that sort of resolve is commendable, that's the same sort of faith that is responsible for an unjustifiable level of ignorance and intolerance throughout history (which is not commendable).

No one can make you believe the truth, but no amount of belief can make something true. I just think it's sad that we (as a society) are hung up on these ideas and debates (creationism/evolution, gay marriage) when there is so much suffering here and abroad and innumerable and infinitely more important problems to solve. Ultimately, I think it just comes down to anomie - for (closed-minded, biblically literal) Christian parents to have their children subjected to such rational alternatives to their irrational beliefs creates an incredible feeling of anomie in their children, but more importantly, in themselves. And nobody likes to be told that they don't have a grasp on reality.

I think religion should be taught in schools, not A religion, but all - the facts, history and worldviews. Talk about creationism then. Leave science to the science class and leave religion out of it. What the bible says isn't science and it isn't really history either. It's not ALL bad but it's pretty ignorant to take two, or four or six thousand year old information and assume that the authors were aware of everything we know today. Especially in terms of modern science where twenty years is ancient history.

That said, I'm a spiritual guy from a spiritual family and my youth was spent bouncing from one fundamentalist Christian church to another. My extended family includes a high percentage of young earthers and I was taught creationism, I was also taught about evolution (though it wasn't framed as anything remotely close to truth). The evolution I was taught was the straw-man version that's rife with misunderstandings that make it look as unbelievable as this sentence makes it sound: Evolution goes against the Bible and against other laws of science - like the second law of thermodynamics (thank you for clearing that up).

Now that I'm on the other side of my childhood, there is a divide between my spirituality and my rationality. Though I prefer my material world to be infused with metaphor and meaning I also prefer my spirituality to maintain (at least) a modicum of rationality, ultimately they are separate. My spiritual experience in life has little to do with the material world, and the origins of the material world have nothing to do with my spiritual experience. Though my spirituality has a tremendous effect on how I interact with the world around me and see myself, and my experience of the material world regularly tests me and my faith, it's not a zero sum game. Thankfully.

It Hurts Me Because I Care

The Constitution

This is ONE of my problems with the whole "tea party" ideology. The decision to amend the constitution instead of remaking it was so we would understand our own mistakes and see where we came from. Not so we could gloss over it in a bunch of hoo-ha and rigamarole.

This is 'priestly' civil religion, when the leaders are big on their own team and not so up on their failures. I'm far more interested in what the 'prophetic' side of civil religion, where what we're doing is looked at and the mistakes and flaws are pointed out so we can improve upon the current situation.

You shouldn't read the constitution as it is, but as all that it is and has been. It is both. And! Our elected officials can't even be troubled to STAY through the whole reading? F'n A cotton, f'n A. Guess doing their job doesn't pay the bills.

A Friend of Mine Said...

...Wonder which of our rights they'll take away as a result this whole Tucson deal...

Well, hopefully this stays within the state. And, frankly, Arizona has pretty much zero gun legislation at the moment. The 2nd amendment is in full effect man, too many guns to take that away. Maybe they'll take away "Congress on your Corner" style events - I'd be far more concerned with what this is going to cover-up in terms of Media coverage.

But I agree, rights are being taken away. Legislation contrary to the will of the majority, or of some majorities, is somehow coming into effect, either through our representatives or through our courts. Some of these are heartfelt and passionate, like homosexual marriage on the Liberal agenda, some of these are coldly self interested like big business Republicans attacking Net Neutrality. It's a shame everybody else either doesn't care or seems to have a price - or at least everybody who's motivated enough and cold enough to run a company well, or run for office has a price - and the price buys complicity and complacence.

There is an uneasy and regularly changing balance between corporate interests and big gov't interests (to call them by the names they're called by their enemies) but ultimately, there is only one problem, man's lust. Specifically in this situation, man's lust for power. And! it runs deeper than that, there is a lust for safety, for security, and in unsafe places where money buys everything, money is security but don't ever think that more money doesn't come with more problems; catch-22. In a way, it's like "Skora" how can you blame Skora for his nature? It's our nature to seek security, both as a group and from the group, as families (real and imagined) and, especially in the modern, western milieu, as individuals.

Our society praises and treasures success, if only through our sycophantic worship of celebrity and wealth. The very idea of an entourage! It's nothing to celebrate to be a blue collar worker, nothing to celebrate to be middle management. It's really no wonder that the powerful, the price-tagged, are the people in charge of it. They're the people who have made their decision, whatever it may be, for good or for bad. Their movtivated and they make it happen. Think Frank Costello. The shame is how we need them. In some ways it's reminiscent of Mein Kampf, but it's not Jews, it's no ethnic other, it's just something akin to C. Wright Mills' "Power Elite." Our way of life is like an open-air prison, but it keeps us "safe" from most-everything but each other.

Somebody has to buy what's produced, or everyone has to find something else to do. The whole system is out of control man. I agree that "big gov't" isn't the answer, but until we change the way we live on a massive scale, "big corp." doesn't have another counter-balance. So we vote for guys like Russ Feingold... oh wait, I guess we don't anymore.

Or, that's just the way I see it Tony. Miss ya bud.

Life, Beyond the Stars

What a fantastic idea, that perhaps "we" are not alone in the vastness of the ever (at least for the moment) expanding universe. Broadcasting our presence via radio-waves, well... that one I'm not so sure about. We've got science and we've got sci-fi, either way we really don't know anything, if all our knowledge teaches us anything it should be humility - because we don't know jack. Maybe it's because I watched Star Trek the Motion Picture at a young age, but it just doesn't seem like a great idea. If the universe we know turns out to be like Star Trek and warp drive is the test of a civilization, we're still quite a ways off, and hopefully safe from outside forces until then. If it's a Battlestar Gallactica situation, there's a completely different set of problems and we're probably still a long ways off from whatever is going on in the universe. If it's more like Simbieda's Mechanoids, Bear's Von Neuman machines or even Michael Bay's interpretation of the Transformers, ultimately we're probably just f'd.

Stephen Hawking made his opinion on the matter known, and of course we're free to agree or disagree with him - and though on this matter I basically agree - I feel that something is going overlooked. Radiowaves. We're using radiowaves to show the universe how technologically advanced. Hawking made the connection to Columbus and the people of the "New World" that he found, but I'd only add to that, using radiowaves to show how advanced we are could be like using a smoke-signal to show how advanced we are to a group of people with radios.

I've been told that believing that humanity is God's chosen is arrogant but I must say, it seems just as arrogant to assume that we're the most advanced race in the universe and if we don't, if we aren't, I think it's probably a bad idea. If there is a more advanced race out there, I agree with Hawking that we might not want to be discovered, especially if they find radiowaves but a primitive technology.

The matter of language is a whole other development - imagine a group who was able to learn the language of another group without the other group knowing their language. In terms of codes and code-breaking, one can argue that this has had a lot to do with how wars have been won and lost in our own history. They'd know our language and we'd have no idea of theirs, they'd know what kind of technology we use to communicate, even if they were so far beyond it that it would have only struck them as white noise and gibberish had they just stumbled across us.

And besides, so long as we keep proving Bill Hicks right we don't deserve the stars.

New Years Day

Usually, over the course of my life, I have made time on New Years Eve or in the week before to go over my year, to process it and make some adjustments for the coming. 2010 was different. I spent some time before Christmas doing a fair amount of revaluation, checking my intentions and looking for possibilities. 2010 was a year of "plan b's." A year where things turned out, just not as planned. New Years Eve was like a microcosm of the entire year. Maddy and I threw together a fairly last minute party plan. We did a lot of inviting people who already had other plans, but that was fine in our book. This is the text message I sent to everyone, in two parts: "Maddy and I are throwing a lil party for NYE. Manhattans, Old Fashioneds and a Woodford Reserve midnight toast at my place tonight." Followed by, "If you don't have any plans, or even if you do. We're saying 6pm-???(after midnight); hors d'oeuvres, snaks and some casserole - stop through, even if it's on your way elsewhere." I arrived back in my town around noon from a quick trip out to visit my pops in his locale, so this message wasn't sent until the afternoon of New Years Eve. So it goes.

I spent the evening fielding polite no's from my friends, most of whom are lucky enough to be working but whose jobs require their working on days like New Years Eve. I have no grudges about it. In addition to the short timing, most of my friends are an hour (+) away, or have children and family plans for the holiday. That the party turned out to be me, my fiancee and her bestest friend with guest appearances by her aunt, sister and my brother, didn't bother me. Maddy though was basically stabbed in the back by her "friends." The "friends" in question were mostly people she works with and old pals from High School. We both put effort into the party, ultimately, she spent more of her time, effort and money on the party than I - and I never expect my friends to come to my functions, because I understand that they are regularly unable to.

There was an incredible fog in Madison all day and night New Years Eve, so dense it cancelled my flight home from Chicago and I got rerouted by bus. So it goes. I know the fog kept at least one of my friends away, no telling for hers though as they just come from across town. It's unfortunate that this has thrown her into not just doubt about the quantity and quality of her friends, but also about herself. Tough to deal with when you keep in mind that she's a "reep what you sow" ideologue.

That was 2010, and frankly, besides the importance of having contention plans (b, c and often d) all I learned in 2010 was that I don't have to talk about it if I don't want to. I am done with 2010. It's peaks were memorable, but I hope to keep it's valleys sheltered in the shade until they simply fade away, forgotten beneath the sands of time.

2011 is a year of big, though possibly bittersweet plans, and unmissable opportunities. From a semester in Spain, to a transfer into the University system from Community College. I'm making machinations to make 2011 the year I remember how to have fun and feel alive. 2011 is the year I test my boundaries. I don't have a good track record when it comes to being away from home, but I haven't tried it in twenty years - twenty years that have led me away from home and shattered my "home" into four or five different states (depending on how one counts). So it goes.

2011 is the year of the kindle, the year I read classics and see more of the world than I ever knew existed. 2011 should be the year I get a real job again, though we'll see what happens with that. 2011. Ok then, moving on...