10/04/06: Hall of Shame
I thought it would be enlightening to consider just some of the miscreants inhabiting the halls of power in Washington. I thought it might be interesting to consider how these paragons of Democracy, these pillars of truth and justice; these upholders of the Constitution are serving our interests. I was wrong. It's neither enlightening nor interesting. It's disgusting. The fact that it took me all of 20 minutes to track down these miscreants only added to my depression. Enjoy (or not)...
09/14/06: Fuck You Secretary Michael Wynne
During his recent testimony to Congress, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne advocated the testing of non-lethal weapons on Amercan crowds for essentially "public relations" purposes. It seems Dipshit Wynne believes that "if we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation". He further went on to say "...if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."
Are you fucking kidding me? Test weapons on Americans because you're afraid to be vilified in the world press? This is our military talking about testing weapons against American citizens. Isn't there anybody out there that thinks this is a bad idea? And if not, why stop here? (or maybe a better question, is why not return to here
Why not test (when ready), the new Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle against old-age homes in West Virginia; it might be good PR to be sure we can pinpoint a strike on a small American target with a faster-than-the-speed-of-sound missile before we charge off into war risking our standing in the eyes of the world's media conglomerates. And besides, if you choose an old-age home, those people don't really vote any more and they're close to the end of their active lives.
Or maybe we should try out the LRAD (long-range accoustic device); designed to produce agonizing pain to those within earshot; on groups of teen-aged kids to determine its effectiveness before we trot it onto the battlefield. Hitting American teenagers with a sound device might just get their attention and could provide a nice sound-bite (sorry, that one was just too obvious) to be aired on Al Jazeera; heavens knows we need some good PR content for the Mideastern audiences these days.
Tell you what, Mr. Wynne-nut, you line up your wife and kids in front of what ever weapon you wish and test away. Leave my children out of your nightmarish view of military propriety you utterly stupid fuck.
And shame on you in the media who feel uncompelled to rail against such utter stupidity. Perhaps, we should be testing our new weapons against you sleeping, fat-assed morons who inhabit the halls of the Fourth Estate.
Are you fucking kidding me? Test weapons on Americans because you're afraid to be vilified in the world press? This is our military talking about testing weapons against American citizens. Isn't there anybody out there that thinks this is a bad idea? And if not, why stop here? (or maybe a better question, is why not return to here
Why not test (when ready), the new Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle against old-age homes in West Virginia; it might be good PR to be sure we can pinpoint a strike on a small American target with a faster-than-the-speed-of-sound missile before we charge off into war risking our standing in the eyes of the world's media conglomerates. And besides, if you choose an old-age home, those people don't really vote any more and they're close to the end of their active lives.
Or maybe we should try out the LRAD (long-range accoustic device); designed to produce agonizing pain to those within earshot; on groups of teen-aged kids to determine its effectiveness before we trot it onto the battlefield. Hitting American teenagers with a sound device might just get their attention and could provide a nice sound-bite (sorry, that one was just too obvious) to be aired on Al Jazeera; heavens knows we need some good PR content for the Mideastern audiences these days.
Tell you what, Mr. Wynne-nut, you line up your wife and kids in front of what ever weapon you wish and test away. Leave my children out of your nightmarish view of military propriety you utterly stupid fuck.
And shame on you in the media who feel uncompelled to rail against such utter stupidity. Perhaps, we should be testing our new weapons against you sleeping, fat-assed morons who inhabit the halls of the Fourth Estate.
Recent political ramblings, primarily from the GOP, have recast the Iraqi adventure (from the search for Al Qaeda to the search for WMDs to pre-emptive security intervention to the new front in the war on terrorism to the battle for the spread of Democracy) in yet another light; that of the Battle Against Islamic Fascism. As (primarily) American forces have sunk further into the Iraqi quagmire while our political leaders have found it necessary to continually refashion (in the best tradition of the "New and Improved" marketing model) the story of our country's efforts in Iraq; the death toll of innocents, non-combatants and combatants has continued to its inexorable rise with no end in sight.
This latest depiction of American adventurism in the Middle East as a fight against global fascism is perhaps the most heinous misrepresentation of the facts yet to be foisted upon a populace too tired and too distracted to even notice the hypocrisy. Let's consider for a moment, a set of fairly learned definition of the term fascism:
This latest depiction of American adventurism in the Middle East as a fight against global fascism is perhaps the most heinous misrepresentation of the facts yet to be foisted upon a populace too tired and too distracted to even notice the hypocrisy. Let's consider for a moment, a set of fairly learned definition of the term fascism:
- Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.
Sound like any government know? Doesn't our government, from the left and the right have a preoccupation with the victim-hood of 9/11 and an effective collaboration with monied interests both personal and corporate? - Fascism is a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; a belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; a need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; and the right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint.
Sound like anyone you know? Aren't our leaders relying on the superiority of their own visions and instincts, apparently oblivious to the facts? Didn't we put them in office? Haven't we, without so much as a peep from the loyal opposition of the Democrats, pursued domination of others without legal or moral restraint in Guantanamo, in Abu Ghraib, in Haditha? - Fascism is defined by a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior.
Sound like any country you know? Aren't the words "American Exceptionalism" taken as truth and at face value, without critique? Isn't economic corporatism just another way of saying "Washington Lobbyist"? Aren't we as a people excessively nationalistic?
Are we in a fight against fascism? Sure, we are. The battle is joined here, in the very halls of power that claim to support and protect our very own democracy. When an American President can take emergency powers of investigation, search and seizure; when an American President, with the help of a complict Congress, can illegally commit troups to a never ending war with a constantly shifting and morally indefensible purpose; when his own proclamations and those of his Secretary of Defense can call into question the loyalty, patriotism and moral standings of any who stand in their way; we have a fight against fascism on our hands.
The fascists are here and they aren't going to go away on their own. The path down which our current President is leading us; the path down which our current political representatives on both sides of the aisle seem unwilling to stray from; the path down which our global adventurism and our government's outsourcing of civic duty and public policy development to the monied interests of the corporate lobbyist; is leading us all toward fascism. It is a path toward unyielding nationalism. It is a path toward economic corporatism where legislative power is given to those that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, and professional groups (ok, lets just say it; lobbyists). This is a path down which many others have travelled. A path along which none have escaped unscathed by the fires of history or the self-inflicted wounds of the self-righteous.
We are engaged in a fight against fascism in which the only winning strategy is to challenge at every turn the entrenched powers of party politics with grass-roots leaders who truly believe in the beauty and workings of Democracy. We are engaged in a fight against fascism in which the preamble to our Constitution must become a new call to action:
We the People of the United States...
We the People must take on this fight against our own home-grown fascism. We the People must fight this native fascism with every issue and with every vote and with every opportunity to declare our devotion to...
...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
In a recent announcement, interim President George W. Bush lauded an "economic resurgence that's now in its 18th quarter" bouyed by an increase in tax revenues which dropped the budget deficit from nearly $500 billion dollars to a (presumably) more manageable $290 billion dollars or so. All of this brought on by the present administration's tax reforms.
What's really behind this seeming good news?
The New York Times reported that the primary reason for an increase in tax revenues is "a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have tripled since 2003".
Let's look at a few facts that the present administration (and the complicit dens of ill repute known as the House and the Senate) would rather NOT discuss when considering America's economic picture:
In this case, those tax savings Bush is so pleased with accrued only to the highest compensated individuals. The rest of us got nearly $600.00 in savings. SO, to follow Mr. Bush's logic, if each of the 80 million workers who averaged $600.00 in tax savings gave ALL that money back to the US Treasury, the government would have recouped about $48 billion in tax revenues. Hardly the hundreds of billions Mr. Bush is so proud of.
Remember, both houses of Congress passed this legislation and given the income averages of the members, our representatives in government benefited the most from these tax changes.
Did the money come from increased wages from better jobs? Well, not so fast. According to US Bureau of the Census data, incomes actually dropped for all wage earners during most of this decade.
So, we're all making less, and yet Mr. Bush is happy with his economic performance.
So, where did all this income come from? Well, here's one last chart for you, dear reader. It compares the change in compensation (payroll income) and capital income (corporate revenue) between Mr. Bush's economy of the last 5 years and the average of previous economic cycles. You'll get a kick out of this one:
So you see, while regular Americans were taking it in the shorts:
Mr. Bush and his posse in both houses of congress and on both sides of the aisle were capable of telling us just how goods things are going.
Is it any wonder only 1/2 the eligible voters even care to vote? Is it any wonder our country is quickly sinking into the toilet? How many more fiddles should we break out for our ruling class while modern Rome burns around us?
The madness that is tax policy which taxes incomes and not wealth (policies put into effect in just the last 40 years), must be reversed. New policies must be developed to ensure fiscal responsibility, provide for future growth, meet future needs and extend the American dream beyond the gated communities of the wealthy and the privileged.
What's really behind this seeming good news?
The New York Times reported that the primary reason for an increase in tax revenues is "a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have tripled since 2003".
Let's look at a few facts that the present administration (and the complicit dens of ill repute known as the House and the Senate) would rather NOT discuss when considering America's economic picture:
In this case, those tax savings Bush is so pleased with accrued only to the highest compensated individuals. The rest of us got nearly $600.00 in savings. SO, to follow Mr. Bush's logic, if each of the 80 million workers who averaged $600.00 in tax savings gave ALL that money back to the US Treasury, the government would have recouped about $48 billion in tax revenues. Hardly the hundreds of billions Mr. Bush is so proud of.
Remember, both houses of Congress passed this legislation and given the income averages of the members, our representatives in government benefited the most from these tax changes.
Did the money come from increased wages from better jobs? Well, not so fast. According to US Bureau of the Census data, incomes actually dropped for all wage earners during most of this decade.
So, we're all making less, and yet Mr. Bush is happy with his economic performance.
So, where did all this income come from? Well, here's one last chart for you, dear reader. It compares the change in compensation (payroll income) and capital income (corporate revenue) between Mr. Bush's economy of the last 5 years and the average of previous economic cycles. You'll get a kick out of this one:
So you see, while regular Americans were taking it in the shorts:
- Getting less than 1% of the tax break that the wealthiest citizens (and our representatives in Congress) enjoyed
- Losing between 1% and 4% of their incomes
- Watching corporate incomes rise 26 TIMES faster than compensation (payroll) incomes
Mr. Bush and his posse in both houses of congress and on both sides of the aisle were capable of telling us just how goods things are going.
Is it any wonder only 1/2 the eligible voters even care to vote? Is it any wonder our country is quickly sinking into the toilet? How many more fiddles should we break out for our ruling class while modern Rome burns around us?
The madness that is tax policy which taxes incomes and not wealth (policies put into effect in just the last 40 years), must be reversed. New policies must be developed to ensure fiscal responsibility, provide for future growth, meet future needs and extend the American dream beyond the gated communities of the wealthy and the privileged.
Superman Returns: to a theatre near you, on a cereal box near you, plastered on a bus near you, on a billboard near you, on a television commercial near you, screened onto the pajamas your kids will soon be wearing near you, on the back-to-school lunch boxes you'll soon be buying near you. You get the picture. Superman has indeed returned, thanks to big-box-office, major corporation AOL/Time Warner (note, AOL/Time Warner is NOT the parent company of Running).
And what do we learn about Superman, returned from 5 years of exile? Well we learn that in the (im?)mortal words of Meatloaf, 2 outta 3 ain't bad!
Superman, that man of steel who stood for Truth, Justice and the American Way has returned, and regardless of the producer's squeamishness at actually mouthing this troika of values for which Superman has always stood, we find that sadly each is represented by explicit inclusion or conspicuous absence in this latest installment of the Superman Saga.
Does Superman stand for truth? It appears that sadly, not any more. When finding out that he spawned a son with Lois Lane some 5 years earlier, does Superman confront the truth of his parentage? Does he encourage Lois Lane to confront the truth? Do these two paramounts of moral courage confront the sad-sap who is duped into raising this offspring? NO! All lies! Lois lies to her son and her significant other. Superman, complicit in both these lies refuses to accept his parental responsibility.
Grade: FAIL -- Superman is the world's fastest and strongest dead-beat dad
At least here, Superman gets a passing grade, if only just barely. Sure Superman fights the good fight against crime and avarice, but even here the producers couldn't help but take a pull on Superman's cape when pointing out that Lex Luthor is free to cause havoc because Superman could not be bothered to follow through on things like court dates and Miranda warnings. Yeah, let's not blame the criminal for the damage done to society, let's blame Superman for failing to dot the i's and cross the t's.
Grade: Pass -- Barely
Globalization has hit home with Superman. No longer does Perry White wonder aloud whether Superman fights for Truth, Justice and the American Way; content to drop this last value in favor of winning the loyalty of a global movie audience.
BUT, let's not be mistaken. Superman is truly the personification of that post-modern hero we have all come to tolerate (if not wholly trust or respect). In perfect mimicry of a US administration and a complicit Congress, Superman indeed fights for the modern American Way. How else to explain the way he illegally invades the privacy of Lois Lane and her family; not once but twice. First; finding out where Lois lives, Superman uses his X-Ray vision to play Super-Peeper, surreptitiously watching as Lois and family enjoy a quiet evening at home. Of course, Superman, like our own government, has only the best intentions at heart. THEN, when realizing that Lois' child is his son, Superman pulls a B&E to speak to his sleeping son (about how much the Man of Steel WON'T be an active participant in his upbringing). Touching cinema, and like our government's intrusions into the lives or ordinary citizens, clearly in the boy's best interests.
Grade: Pass, but only if the "American Way" includes unrestrained spying and easy-to-explain-away intrusions on personal privacy, then Superman has indeed grasped the warp and woof of the New America
All kidding aside, the ambiguous ethical lessons of this movie only serve to deepen my anxiety over the direction of our country. Moral ambiguity and serious ethical lapses masquerading as values have no place in our children's mythologies.
Message of the day? Even Superman cannot escape moral relativism or the tyranny of subjectivity.
And what do we learn about Superman, returned from 5 years of exile? Well we learn that in the (im?)mortal words of Meatloaf, 2 outta 3 ain't bad!
Superman, that man of steel who stood for Truth, Justice and the American Way has returned, and regardless of the producer's squeamishness at actually mouthing this troika of values for which Superman has always stood, we find that sadly each is represented by explicit inclusion or conspicuous absence in this latest installment of the Superman Saga.
Truth: 0, Moral Ambiguity and Deadbeat Dads: 1
Does Superman stand for truth? It appears that sadly, not any more. When finding out that he spawned a son with Lois Lane some 5 years earlier, does Superman confront the truth of his parentage? Does he encourage Lois Lane to confront the truth? Do these two paramounts of moral courage confront the sad-sap who is duped into raising this offspring? NO! All lies! Lois lies to her son and her significant other. Superman, complicit in both these lies refuses to accept his parental responsibility.
Grade: FAIL -- Superman is the world's fastest and strongest dead-beat dad
Justice
At least here, Superman gets a passing grade, if only just barely. Sure Superman fights the good fight against crime and avarice, but even here the producers couldn't help but take a pull on Superman's cape when pointing out that Lex Luthor is free to cause havoc because Superman could not be bothered to follow through on things like court dates and Miranda warnings. Yeah, let's not blame the criminal for the damage done to society, let's blame Superman for failing to dot the i's and cross the t's.
Grade: Pass -- Barely
The American Way
Globalization has hit home with Superman. No longer does Perry White wonder aloud whether Superman fights for Truth, Justice and the American Way; content to drop this last value in favor of winning the loyalty of a global movie audience.
BUT, let's not be mistaken. Superman is truly the personification of that post-modern hero we have all come to tolerate (if not wholly trust or respect). In perfect mimicry of a US administration and a complicit Congress, Superman indeed fights for the modern American Way. How else to explain the way he illegally invades the privacy of Lois Lane and her family; not once but twice. First; finding out where Lois lives, Superman uses his X-Ray vision to play Super-Peeper, surreptitiously watching as Lois and family enjoy a quiet evening at home. Of course, Superman, like our own government, has only the best intentions at heart. THEN, when realizing that Lois' child is his son, Superman pulls a B&E to speak to his sleeping son (about how much the Man of Steel WON'T be an active participant in his upbringing). Touching cinema, and like our government's intrusions into the lives or ordinary citizens, clearly in the boy's best interests.
Grade: Pass, but only if the "American Way" includes unrestrained spying and easy-to-explain-away intrusions on personal privacy, then Superman has indeed grasped the warp and woof of the New America
All kidding aside, the ambiguous ethical lessons of this movie only serve to deepen my anxiety over the direction of our country. Moral ambiguity and serious ethical lapses masquerading as values have no place in our children's mythologies.
Message of the day? Even Superman cannot escape moral relativism or the tyranny of subjectivity.
In a recent editorial, a writer for the Vancouver Sun (Vancouver, BC Canada) reports that "imposing minimum terms for many gun crimes will help bring down the crime rate". For proof, our intrepid reporter points to the decrease in crime rates across the US over the past 10 to 15 years; a period that coincides with an explosion of the incarceration rate in the US; where you now have 1 chance in 142 to be locked up along with 2 million of your fellow citizens.
It is true, according to FBI data, that violent crime reports did indeed drop from a high of 5.77 crimes reported per 100 persons in 1988 to 4.69 crimes reported per 100 persons in 2003 (an 18% drop). However, to attribute that drop in crimes to a massively expanded incarceration policy misses a number of points both about the incarceration policy itself and the underlying demographic changes at work during that period of time.
First, the incarceration policy:
So, to say that increased incarceration rates in the US has led to an decrease in crime ignores the fact that these rates are artificially inflated by (among other things) an ill-conceived war on violent drug offenders (The war can't be on drugs, since drugs are things and things don't fight wars.) More on this subject here .
Now, let's consider some real reasons for a lower crime rate in the US:
Crime's links to poverty are well established. A recent study of 39 industrialized nations demonstrates that higher levels of poverty or economic stagnation lead to higher levels of crime. The converse is also true; higher levels of economic opportunity lead to lower levels of crime.
Again, citing FBI statistics, the arrest rates for people below the age of 25 is 10 times greater than that of people above the age of 25.
In the 2000 census, the percentage of Americans of prime crime committing age (10 to 35) represented 35.39% of the population, a 10% decrease in the potential criminal population of 1990 where the same group made up nearly 40% of the population.
Between 1990 and 2000 the official poverty rate in the US declined by nearly 13%.
The FBI reports that 62% of the total prison population is either black (8 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites) or Hispanic (5 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites). According to the US Census, poverty rates among blacks and Hispanics are 2 to 5 times that of whites. Blacks or Hispanics are not more criminal, they are however as a group, more likely to be poor which state contributes to criminal behavior.
So, while there is ample evidence that locking up more offenders for longer periods of time doesn't change a criminal's outlook on their life of crime (with over 67% committing new crimes within 3 years of release) there IS ample evidence throughout the industrialized world that economics, poverty and demographics have strong relationships to crime rates.
In the decade of lowering crime statistics, the US has seen significant changes in crime's contributing factors (fewer young people who commit crimes and fewer people in poverty).
To make the intellectual leap that locking more people up for longer periods of time will reduce crime is to be blind to the facts in favor of policies that are clearly at odds with reason and dangerous to a free society.
For all the prisons and wars and dead Arabs America has created over the past 10 years, ask them how much more secure they feel than then did in 1990.
An environment where policies are developed to support opinions instead oone where policies are developed in light of the facts is exactly why America finds itself in the mess it does.
The politics of small ideas, politics of pandering to the fears of its citizens and politics of obfuscation and abuse can no longer be the order of the day. It is time to rise above small mindedness and reach for new ideas, new ways of thinking, to work for new and lasting solutions to our problems and to find new approaches to our opportunities.
It is true, according to FBI data, that violent crime reports did indeed drop from a high of 5.77 crimes reported per 100 persons in 1988 to 4.69 crimes reported per 100 persons in 2003 (an 18% drop). However, to attribute that drop in crimes to a massively expanded incarceration policy misses a number of points both about the incarceration policy itself and the underlying demographic changes at work during that period of time.
First, the incarceration policy:
- According to the American Correctional Association, the US incarcerated over 2 million of its own citizens in federal, state or local jails as of 2002, an increase of 16% over a 7 year time span (1995 to 2002).
- The State of California, with a population about equal to that of Canada, incarcerates nearly 4 times as many of its citizens as Canada and yet the California homicide rate is 5 time greater than that of Canada.
- According to the US Department of Justice, the fastest growing segment of the inmate population (growing at 37% between 1990 and 2000) are non-violent drug offenders. Currently, nearly 72% of ALL inmates can be categorized as non-violent offenders.
So, to say that increased incarceration rates in the US has led to an decrease in crime ignores the fact that these rates are artificially inflated by (among other things) an ill-conceived war on violent drug offenders (The war can't be on drugs, since drugs are things and things don't fight wars.) More on this subject here .
Now, let's consider some real reasons for a lower crime rate in the US:
Crime's links to poverty are well established. A recent study of 39 industrialized nations demonstrates that higher levels of poverty or economic stagnation lead to higher levels of crime. The converse is also true; higher levels of economic opportunity lead to lower levels of crime.
Again, citing FBI statistics, the arrest rates for people below the age of 25 is 10 times greater than that of people above the age of 25.
In the 2000 census, the percentage of Americans of prime crime committing age (10 to 35) represented 35.39% of the population, a 10% decrease in the potential criminal population of 1990 where the same group made up nearly 40% of the population.
Between 1990 and 2000 the official poverty rate in the US declined by nearly 13%.
The FBI reports that 62% of the total prison population is either black (8 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites) or Hispanic (5 times more likely to be incarcerated than whites). According to the US Census, poverty rates among blacks and Hispanics are 2 to 5 times that of whites. Blacks or Hispanics are not more criminal, they are however as a group, more likely to be poor which state contributes to criminal behavior.
So, while there is ample evidence that locking up more offenders for longer periods of time doesn't change a criminal's outlook on their life of crime (with over 67% committing new crimes within 3 years of release) there IS ample evidence throughout the industrialized world that economics, poverty and demographics have strong relationships to crime rates.
In the decade of lowering crime statistics, the US has seen significant changes in crime's contributing factors (fewer young people who commit crimes and fewer people in poverty).
To make the intellectual leap that locking more people up for longer periods of time will reduce crime is to be blind to the facts in favor of policies that are clearly at odds with reason and dangerous to a free society.
For all the prisons and wars and dead Arabs America has created over the past 10 years, ask them how much more secure they feel than then did in 1990.
An environment where policies are developed to support opinions instead oone where policies are developed in light of the facts is exactly why America finds itself in the mess it does.
The politics of small ideas, politics of pandering to the fears of its citizens and politics of obfuscation and abuse can no longer be the order of the day. It is time to rise above small mindedness and reach for new ideas, new ways of thinking, to work for new and lasting solutions to our problems and to find new approaches to our opportunities.
