Whatever Remains...
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
galent's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Thursday, April 14th, 2011 | | 12:54 am |
Experiment
Does this app work? Posted via crappy app. | | Monday, August 17th, 2009 | | 3:07 pm |
"Reader's Digest to file for Chapter 11...
Joke #1: ..., but it should be abbreviated." Joke #2: ..., which is unusual, as most Reader's Digest books don't get to chapter 11." Joke #3: ..., because America is now too lazy to read even Reader's Digest." Joke #4: ..., due to their exclusive contract with a now defunct spoon manufacturer." Joke #5: ..., reflecting 50% downturn in "clever" comments, leaving Reader's Digest only a 1/4th wit." Joke #6: ..., on the failure of Wiider's Digest." Joke #7: ..., because they mistook the small print on their mortgage as subtext, and didn't read it on principal. " Joke #8: …, shocked to discover that it, like other chapters, was full of words. " Joke #9: …, amazed to find unabridged tomes at lawyer’s office." Joke #10: …, dead writers stop spinning." Joke #11: …, headline at 10." Joke #12: …, Homer Simpson crushed." Joke #13: …, Bill Clinton crushed." Joke #14: …, declared to be too complicated for most people." Joke #15: …, campers go without tinder." Joke #16: …, readers forced to turn back to Playboy for short fiction." Joke #17: …, readers forced to turn to Penthouse for ridiculous fiction." Joke #18: …, readers forced to turn to Glen Beck for pithy one-liners." Joke #19: …, legacy remembered as crusaders for complete sentences in the face of twitter." Joke #20: …, Cliffs Notes unsure of where to get material." Joke #21: …, public mistakes black marks on paper for ants, remains functionally unaware they are ripping off Tarzan." Joke #22: …, reminds court that context and language are unimportant, ends up extradited to Myanmar." Joke #23: …, reading digested!" I couldn't stop. Stupid Brain. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_bi_ge/us_reader_s_digest_bankruptcy | | Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 | | 6:52 pm |
| | Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009 | | 7:55 pm |
Response to Mom
(For some reason I could not put this in the response to the previous post. No idea why.) I'm sorry, but I cannot buy that. I am not being an extremist, nor demanding that he be extra liberal. I also know, from his record and his policy releases, that he is not a liberal. That is fine. I do not have a problem with that either. People should disagree. I love speaking and conversing with those that do. My problem with him is that often he does not stand for what he says he does, and he is downright Orwellian in his use of language. It is of eternal annoyance to me that things have been couched in this light. If you do not think he is doing a good job, you are either an extremist with unrealistic goals or a conservative. That is a way of discounting others' opinions. I must admit that I do not thank my lucky stars for Obama, but other than for Emily, I rarely thank any stars. Even were someone I absolutely agreed with president I would not. The fundamental rule of power is that people who want it go for it. If they get it, through no fault of their own, they remain simply human and deeply fallible. I believe, happily, that it is impossible for anyone to be elected who agrees with me point by point, nor with anyone else. The human world is so much more complex than that, as it should be. It is the fundamental reason that we must form communities with political structures to govern themselves, and representation is the best way to do that. However, citizen, as Jefferson pointed out, must remain alert. Representative democracy, even in a republic, eventually comes down to a great network of ideas, interest groups, personalities, and ideals amounting to the worlds largest game of tug of war, with 300 million participants. If one side decided that they will be more diplomatic and move toward the center, which is the mature thing to do, the other must too, or it will simply result in the whole thing moving to the opponent's side. That is what has happened. Looking at his economic and social policies, and there has been some research into this, Obama would be seen as right of center in every decade preceding the 1980s. Following Regan, anytime anyone on the left stands up for themselves, they are declared to be extremists. Being good liberals, who usually believe in the essential goodness of humanity, they usually immediately back off. That is one of the things that got us here, yet it is also praise of the liberals. The system is set, the issues are nicely divided, and the populace is set against itself. That is the legacy of Reganism. Obama, even by being a "centrist" has not helped this, not that he can. My thinking and judging of the situation is deeply influenced by how I understand this system. I feel absolutely free to tug on my end of the rope as hard as I can to stand up for what I believe, knowing that as it stands the right will never meet in the center. I feel it is a duty to hold my ground, or no one will. That is why I criticize Obama's polices when he makes mistakes, as he has done and will do. Anyone would. That doesn't mean I cannot disagree with him. I have also said many times that there are things I agree with, and that I think he has done well. All that is policy. Where I disagree with him as a man is a whole other area. His narrow mindedness (on some subjects), and his refusal to acknowledge many of the ideals he was put into office on, regardless of whether he shares them. His secrecy, Orwellian language changes, and opacity make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.
I am not about to move into the woods and found Galenia, but I think it is fair to point them out. Such things are not needed, and no amount of complexity, to my mind, excuses them. ...And I enjoy saying so. More people are now. There are rising voices from all points in the political spectrum questioning these things, and his approval rating is falling. I view this as a good thing, not because I am vindictive. I am not. He has the hardest and most thankless job in the world, period. He has been acting as if his mandate does not mean he must speak to the people unless he wants something from them. I hope this will bring him back to earth. As for McCain and your comment about him and the election, to me that is not a way I can see things. Fear of the Other is no excuse for acceptance of the adequate. (I realize that to many, Obama is far more than adequate, and more power to them. To me that is precisely what he is.) It is precisely the system of fear that I want to tear down. right vs left, black vs white, religious vs atheist, pro-choice vs pro-life, etc... are all divisions that do not need to exist as divisions. They can simply be opinions. As for McCain himself, he was not Bush part 3, as Move On and Obama said. It was a cheap shot. McCain was an ass, to be sure, but he was not the devil. I am glad he is not president too, and even more glad that Palin is not VP, but to be glad one man is in power because the other is not is not democracy, and I cannot accept it as a rationale. I do not wish Obama failure, I just wish he was more the man he said he was, and less the man he governs as. I made a 100 days retrospective, but never had time to source it and post it here. Maybe I will so that you can see a break down. The basic point was that he was doing well in some areas, badly in others, and immorally in a few. That is not a bad record for a president, in fact it is a good one, but just as the genius of humans is that they can be better than the sum of their parts, so it is that Obama could be better than he has been. I, as an active citizen, feel that by expressing my opinion I may aid him. When he fails, as he and any other person on the face of the earth will, I will criticize him, but that is not condemnation. He is an elected official, that is our relationship. (I realize I use strong rhetoric sometimes, but I am passionate about such things, and quick to forgive and smile.) | | Tuesday, July 14th, 2009 | | 10:05 am |
Obama and Secrecy (Bush Continuance)
I still hear from many people that I am insane or just being somehow ridiculous or paranoid for repeatedly mentioning that I do not care for Obama. Never mind that he is not a liberal or a progressive, but I, in not being a conservative, am expected to act refreshed and overjoyed that he is our president. During the election I made many claims about how his policies were not going to hold up to his rhetoric, and so far I am batting nearly 1000 (if you discount the work related rage in those emails). I do not mean this as a statement of pride. If anything, I am disappointed, as I always hope things will go better than I prognosticate. That said, he put coal in the “clean energy” bill, neglected gay rights, mismanaged the recovery, is in the process of working on a health plan that will not work, and developed a disturbing habit of Orwellian doublespeak (favoring long convoluted names and redefinition, usually preceded by the statement “Let me say this as clearly as I can…”). Now, all of these things are an improvement over Bush, by miles and miles, but I still say that says more about the sadness of the Bush administration than the glory of the Obama administration. There is no pride in sinking lower only to return to the sad levels of Clinton governance a decade later. To be fair, and I really am trying to be, Obama has done some good things, especially in international relations and national pride. He has given public voice to global climate issues (but not much more), and he is clearly not an idiot, which makes all of us feel a bit relieved. Further, he is not a complete child, which makes him stand out in DC, even if his staff doesn’t. But recently growing rumors of the Obama administration’s continuance of Bush secrecy practices have been getting louder, and more concrete. From Public Radio’s even tempered Here and Now: http://www.hereandnow.org/2009/07/rundown-710/#5 (It is the second to last story. Apparently you cannot link directly to it, just to the day’s show. Look out for the uncharacteristically volatile headline "Is President Obama Morphing into President Bush?" ...Really, they are usually so much better about such things.) Secrecy in the world of politics is dangerous. If you have nothing to hide, then why are you hiding it? Furthermore, given his seemingly irrational support of coal in the face of his verbally expressed support of stopping global warming raises questions. If he did not meet with coal industry, then he should just release the records. Nothing would please me more than to find out he is clean. People who want power are power-hungry. Anyone who pursues the presidency is power-hungry. No matter how much you like them, power-hungry people must be watched.
True transparency, not just transparency on the issues of your predecessors' doings or on the things you want to share, is essential to democracy.
| | Monday, June 22nd, 2009 | | 3:41 pm |
Radio Ad for Tony Scott
(Ominous music) Does your movie suffer from intelligence? Do your characters seem to have a life of their own? Is your movie intriguing? Does it tell a story people will be interested in? Is it coherent? Tony Scott can help. (Rockin’ out music) For over 25 years, Tony Scott has been our film industry’s premier movie succubus. Confusing elements like moral ambiguity and mildly naturalistic dialog are smoothed away allowing room for testosterone driven heroes, awkward exposition, pure boneheaded coincidence, and the word “fuck.” In fact, there is a great deal on the word “fuck” right now. If you call in the next ten minutes, you can have it inserted in every single sentence for just 15 million dollars. That is half price! For every “fuck” you get a spare “fuck” for free! I don’t need to remind you how gritty it makes your characters sound. So fucking call now, and get fucked over! And if you do call, we can offer you the patented Tony Scott visual style. No longer will your audience notice and point out the holes in the plot. They won’t be able to. They will be bleeding from the eyes. Scott has spent his career gathering a masterful team around him, made entirely of flying crackheads with ADHD. In case anyone who might be critical of any element survives that, your film will be edited by Cuisineart. Even simple close-ups will be rendered nearly incomprehensible. But that is still not enough! If you act now you will get the Tony Scott Players! Only the hammiest performances ever captured on professional celluloid will be culled from even respected actors. You will also get that guy, and that other guy, and that 24yr old lady in the miniskirt and low cut blouse who is supposed to be the boss of a major corporation, or something. You will recognize them all from other of Tony Scott’s long line of hits. They are the ones who sit around getting stuff wrong so that the hero can sort them out. Inexplicably, you will also get Denzel Washington. Finally, Tony Scott will add a percussive score, entirely made up of old Trent Reznor’s demos from the late 80s and early 90s. He wasn’t using them, and Tony Scott needed them. Hey! He is Tony Scott! Not even Trent Reznor’s janitor can say no to Tony Scott! This final element will perfect the harmonics, completely addling and boggling the minds of the audience so that they do not have the wherewithal to do anything but think your hero is awesome, and that it was totally cool how that one guy got shot, and those other guys in ties were so totally wrong for disagreeing with the hero. Those that can, will leave the theater at least 15 IQ pts dumber. That is the Tony Scott guarantee! Some of them may be in such damaged state that they think the movie is innovative and arty. These people represent return business!! Life is too short for easy little arty pictures. Call Tony Scott right now, and let him do for you what he did for Domino, Man on Fire, and The Taking of Pelham 1,2,3! (very fast) WARNING: Tony Scott shares an office with his brother Ridley Scott. If Ridley gets a hold of it, we cannot promise that he will not make a good movie out of it. The odds are about 50/50, if you count the mid 90s. Regardless, his films make sense and are watchable. By submitting a script to Tony Scott, you are agreeing to the risk Ridley’s interference. This risk is small, however, as Ridley turns out one film for every 2.8 of Tony’s. | | Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 | | 10:29 am |
Fun Fact: Carrots were not always orange.
They were white, purple, and yellow. It was not until the staff gardeners of William of Orange (1533–1584) decided to honor him with a carrot (lucky man), that an orange carrot was bred. It turned out to be more tasty than the white and yellow carrots, and, unlike the purple kind, it did not stain the plates. Source: Tom Standish, interview in support of “Edible History” | | Wednesday, October 15th, 2008 | | 3:47 pm |
Rather Says Debates Are Not Debates
Former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather insisted Tuesday that the "so-called" presidential debates are not controlled by the journalists presiding over them but by the two political parties. He accused his colleagues of showing too much deference to the candidates and operating in general in a "defensive posture" and imposing self-censorship on themselves. "These so-called debates are not for the people, by the people," Rather said Tuesday at Time Warner's Politics 2008 Summit. "They are for the parties, by the parties. That's what's wrong with them."
I am not usually a big Rather fan, but GOOD JOB! | | 3:45 pm |
Loss of Context, and some debate help for Obama
In honor of the final debate tonight, I am writing this to address the biggest issue of the entire campaign: The complete lack of any responsibility. For a long time it bugged me that no one fact checks anything they say. They both lie on stage, on TV, on the radio, in ads, and in the debates, and no one really calls them on it. Even things like the AP’s dependably shallow analysis of the truths behind the debates has been factually incorrect. You should not have to fact check the fact checks, but you do. Then, an NPR commentator summarized the entire problem with this simple phrase: “This is an election without context.” That’s it! It was a borrowed epiphany. There is no context. It is not just bad fact checking, it is a total unwillingness by either sides to put anything in context. They edit everything to sound great about themselves and horrible about their enemy. This is nothing new, but it is palpable in this election. Obama is a friend to terrorists! McCain is a spoiled brat! Obama is a fake Christian! McCain is just like Bush! None of this is even close to true, but a crumb can be found, and the context excised, which then becomes an entire story, a fictional story. The polarization has become soo complete that people chant for killing Obama, advanced ballots are sent out listing “Barak Osama,” people threaten (again!) to leave the US if McCain wins, etc…. The greatest tragedy is that the choirs are not even looking for context. We, as a people, have been diminished to the rumor mill of a Jr. High. “I totally heard that, like, Obama, like, totally forgot which anniversary he was celebrating with his wife. You just can’t trust him, ya know?” …Ok, I meant that to sound like a Jr. High kid, but it could also be Sarah Palin. Take your pick. The things I get in my e-mail box from Move-on or the couple of nutty-ass Christian groups that I listen in on are, frankly, irresponsible and slanderous. Neither is worse than the other, which is just sad. I mean, seriously… I hate MoveOn.org. At least Lenny MacGruder and his buds have some imagination! But still, MoveOn, a supposedly “legit” political organization, should be a step above these other groups. Even Rolling Stone has run several articles on the Republicans that are nothing but pure yellow hatchet jobs. Who reads Rolling Stone’s political section? People who want to know that McCain is not just someone they disagree with, but a spoiled violent little tyrant. Then they turn around and drool all over Obama. Way to burn your political journalism pedigree, RS! All that said, most polls are showing that negative ads turn off the populace, especially “independent” voters. This is one of the reason McCain’s numbers are slipping. I could go on and on about how this purposeful miseducation of the populace, with no accountability, is damaging to the very fundamental philosophies driving Democracy, but you all are probably tired of me saying it over and over. And so… I am going to do Obama a favor! I am going to write his opening statement to the debate (Well, not the real Obama, as he is just as egotistical and spineless as most other politicians, but the one people wish he was), complete with my quick and tossed off attempt at his cadence and stutters, though you may have to read it in, and I will inevitably eventually just stray into what I want to say: Obama: “I, uh, … First, I’d like to thank Bob Schieffer for moderating and all of you for coming.. and, uh, everyone at home for watching…. (gesture with open palm, but with thumb and forefinger touching) (pause) Tonight’s debate centers on economic issues, and for that reason I think that at this current juncture, this is the most important, or most immediate, of our three debates. Tonight we have… have been given 90 minutes to show you what our ideas are, and how, if elected, we will change the current… um… situation. First, however, I’m ah…, I’m ah.., I want to start out with a brief departure from the subject on hand, so as to avoid future wastes of time. As some of you may have noticed, recently the campaign has turned negative. My venerable opponent has even suggested that he would kick me in the “you-know-what” during this debate. (Turn to McCain, smile, chuckle slightly [NOTE: do in this order, or it looks like you are baiting him, which you are.]) John, you’ll have to explain that to me later. (Turn back to audience, swallow, let smile fade back into “serious” look.) … (Pause. Look thoughtful. Hold hand slightly outstretched with fingers together and bent toward thumb.) This is a complete waste of your valuable time. (Shake hand slightly as punctuation of point.) John, you are not going to convince anyone with those tactics who is not already convinced, and I am not going to change the mind of anyone who believes you. Equally, the opposite is true. This is the last time tonight that I will respond to.. the… to these… to any comment that is not about policy or political record. The issue for tonight is the economy. Before we get into our plans to fix the issue, there is an important point that must be made. Everyone is looking for someone to blame for current economic problems. Democrats blame Republicans. Republicans blame Democrats. Those against the economic aid blame those for it. I blame John. John blames me. It seems like no one will take responsibility. (pause) That ends tonight. (pause) I am running for president as a member of the Democratic party…, and John is running as a member of the Republican party…. By declaring our membership to these parties we are declaring our affiliation to both the positive… and negative aspects of them. So, who is at fault in this current economic situation? The only real answer is that WE are. Your elected officials are. The Democrats and Republicans have been in charge of the country for over 160 years. We are the ones who make the laws. The buck has to stop with us… We must take responsibility. Many thought deregulation would work to create a better world. Regan thought so… so did Clinton… and both Bushes. It failed. It was our mistake. (pause, look thoughtful) Your elected officials have let you down, and now… now is the time for us to make it up to you. There were those for deregulation… and those against…, but the fact is that we are adults, and we must act like it. Regardless of position on the policies that created the situation, we are the ones responsible. It is time that we, as the elected officials of our country, take that responsibility. We created the problem, and now we need to learn from our errors and repair the damage that has been done. … We then need to make sure it does not happen again. Tonight is… well, I like to hope that tonight is a step along that road. Thank you.” Moderator: “Senator McCain…” McCain: “Thank you. Thank you for being here tonight… OBAMA IS A BLACK PANTHER!!!!” Ok, yes. I left it within the context of the ridiculous two party system, but if they want power they MUST take responsibility for the bad along with the good. I want one of them to admit it, dammit! At the very least it would briefly sooth my feeling that everyone else is taking crazy pills. It just makes you want to beat them all with the ugly stick, so everyone can see them for who they are! (Oops, too late for Henry Waxman:  , and he is one of the better ones!) Also, I know… Obama is affable, well spoken, and good at looking like he is thinking about the future, but the man has all the fire of a cheap tea-light. I am tired of him sounding “hopeful.” I want PASSION! Or, as the above statement reflects, something with at least the light of a swiftly guttering candle. If I have to put up with this stupid election, I want ENTERTAINMENT VALUE!!!!!! Finally, yes, it is a bit long. Obama speaks slowly. I would just like him to say something to the effect. Hell, if McCain wants to, he can have it too. Frankly, I would think better of whoever admitted they were not perfect. I think people want the politicians to stop pointing at each other, admit they were wrong, and work to fix it with a critical eye. I tell you what, the first candidate to say it gets the candy bar I was just handed. It is sweet and chocolaty! Any takers? I will put it in the express mail! Seriously, what happened to acting like an adult? I expect these two to have “I’m with stupid” t-shirts under their suits. Thoughts? | | Friday, September 19th, 2008 | | 11:36 am |
Geniuses or Tweedle Dee
I am very tired of everyone in the media talking about how smart the people on Wall Street are. The conversation usually begins by asking "how could so many smart people do so much wrong?" or consists of someone telling the interviewer that "...I mean these are smart people who did this!" Why are you telling me this? I feel that the only answer could be that they are trying to reassure people that the Wall Street system is run by very smart people who will treat you right, help you make enormous amounts of money, and will never run the economy into the ground.... contrary to all the evidence. I am not saying they are stupid. Economics, especially stock market economics, are vastly complicated, and as I study them I feel that they are often intentionally opaque. New tools are invented, used, celebrated, then used at so much that no one notices their tendency to implode. Then everyone is shocked, and goes around reminding each other of how smart they are. Meanwhile the working and middle classes lose their retirement. I have long watched the markets, trying to understand the logic behind them. It is a powerful force in our world, and often a viciously damaging one, so understanding it is beyond important. The problem is that when you study such a thing, a sudden feeling of dread takes hold of the back of your neck, stands the hairs up, grabs them, and slams your head into your desk. We would all like to believe that, while corrupt and generally greedy, the markets are stable in their greedy corruption. That is, in its way, comforting. Their actions can be predicted, to some extent. As I began dissecting the system in my mind, I got confused. I often get flustered. I have been known to make mistakes due to not really being able to get my mind to give me the info I need. I can even mix up names and dates if they sound too similar or look to similar. That is Dyslexia. But I am very rarely ever actually intellectually confused. That type of confusion comes from having lots of information, many points of reference, many cross-references, and much time to play with the data, and YET it still doesn’t click into place. The concepts don’t cohere. No larger picture emerges because the puzzle seems fundamentally incompatible with itself. In general, when exploring a subject, I tend to pull as many approaches out of my toolbox as possible. The various perspectives usually enhance each other, but in this case it kept feeling like something was missing. From different angles the data took on different shapes. It was like the three blind men trying to identify an elephant. I felt like I needed a fourth blind man to bump into its stomach and go “Wait a minute guys! There is something huge here …and I think it is tired of being poked!” I also subscribe to the Holmesian maxim that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is probably the truth. It took the Enron crisis for everything to suddenly come into focus. These people are not geniuses, they are delusional. The market is not a concrete batch of transactions. The large majority of it is an imaginary fairy land which only exists as long as you believe it does. The economy is dying! Clap if you believe in the economy! If you have not read Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, do so, or at least watch the middling documentary based on it. There are a hundred thousand different points I could make about that situation, but I will stick to the one that hit me like a creeping epiphany: the book keeping. Jeffery Skilling managed to get Enron to adopt his own version of “Mark to Market” book keeping. It worked like this: If you think you are going to make X dollars in the next time period, why not cut out the middle man and just write down that you have that much money? I mean you will… later… so it is like you already have it. Just put it in the books as a big old positive! And that was legal. (Are you beginning to see why my brain would not let me make sense of this sort of thing?) Of course, you are screwed if the market does not work the way you think it will, and don’t have the money you already said you already did have, and had already spent it because everyone thought you already had it. If that happens the only recourse is, apparently, total financial fraud, which is why Skilling is in prison. He should be in prison for his original book keeping. Anyone who argues that there should be less regulation needs to explain to me how in god’s name plans like Skilling’s can be allowed to happen, then they need to explain it to all the employees who lost their retirement funds, because “investment corrections” and “the system worked and he is in jail” does not cut it compared with the pain it caused, and continues to cause, the employees. But I guess Wal-mart does need greeters… so the market works! Demand and supply! And what happened at Enron was infinitesimal compared to the bizzaro Lewis Carroll shenanigans that go down on Wall Street, and are often greeted as “transformative tools!” There is the widespread price speculation, where you bet what the cost will be in the future. We have more gas than ever right now, but it is being bet up on the futures market, because one day we will not have enough gas, and so the price goes up. The result is that oil companies get more profits, get new areas opened to drilling, and get environmental barriers limited. To summarize: everything they have been fighting for since the 60s. Oh, and when we do run out of gas it will go up even higher, but the oil companies will have made even more money on it. Betting is more fun if you can set your own odds. In another era it would be considered price fixing. There is the fact that there is now far more debt in this nation than there is money to pay it back. That means that there is no way everyone can ever get out of debt. There are the sub-prime mortgages which were set up with the express intent to screw the hell out of the poor. That is why there were no limits on the interest rate. If someone is unable to get a normal loan, the odds are, demographically, that they are working class or lower. A high interest rate will not work for them. These things were set up to fail, but it was a educated bet. The companies bet that enough people would be able to pay the loan-shark rates that it would make up for the defaults. Who cares about the people who lost everything? Also, they got to claim, in a variation on the Mark to Market philosophy, that they “had” all the money that was going to be paid back. They then sold the mortgages to each other based on that supposed value, with each owner jacking up the interest rate to improve their own portfolio, and selling it off at a higher price. As I said, delusional. There are the securities backed by these mortgages, which became so complicated that NO ONE, not even the firms that traded them, knew where all the cash was coming from. If you are buying a horse, you look it in the mouth! You do not just grab it in hopes that it will make you even richer! There are the insurance companies, like AIG, who insured all these securities without really understanding what they were. AIG has admitted as much in a press conference this week, as if it were a viable excuse. I could go on and on. It is a fun house, and sure I bet the people in it have fun, but the rest of us take the hits when the whole thing eventually explodes, sending shards of glass into the crowds. The point is that greed and irresponsibility ran, as they always do, rampant. They are not geniuses. They are delusional and dangerous. They need to be regulated, simply to keep them from following butterflies and dragging us all into traffic. I do not think that the us government should own companies, if only because we do not need yet one more level of governmental corruption, but we do need laws with teeth to check these chicken-little dip-shits. It will not stop the market. Sure it may stop people from making billions on imaginary concepts and trading time bombs, but that is the stuff that always collapses anyway. Regulation would, if done right, would make for a more steady, if slower, market. The collapses are not “corrections” for most of the population, they are livelihoods stolen. I see that every day. As far as I am concerned the “minds” behind much of this need to go to jail, or at least be banned from the market for life. No such thing will happen, however. The heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given huge golden parachutes when they were fired BY THE GOVERNMENT. You sink a place, you do not get a huge retirement bonus! That is responsibility. Then again, such concepts are foreign to both Wall Street and the Government. Besides, if the oil oversight serves as any sort of microcosm, bringing in an army of regulators to Wall Street would just mean more sex, drugs, and corruption. The only comfort we can take is that Wall Street is not, in fact, the economy. They refuse to admit it, but it is true. Wall Street holds itself up as representative of the entire economy, unless pushed, … or when they really fuck up. The truth is, however, that the base of the economy is all of us. There is hope in that, somewhere. -Galen PS, Ok, so what got us into this specific crisis, on the most basic level, was high rate loans made to people who cannot pay them back… So what is the governmental response to AIG? A very large very high interest loan to a company with a questionable ability to pay it back. Ironic comment or stupidity, you make the call! | | Monday, September 15th, 2008 | | 12:40 pm |
The Continuing assault on Reality and Satire
I have gone on in the past about the fact that politics is moving past satire in a dangerous attempt to render it useless. It has won many victories in the past 30 years, and most especially in the past 8. Hell, Fox News' contribution to this battle alone should earn it a gold star. Now they have a new victory.
Besides being on Saturday Night Live, Chevy Chase, Phil Hartman, Dana Carvey, and that-one-guy who-was-on-SNL-for-10-years-and-played-every-politician-under-the-sun all have had one very conspicuous thing in common: They looked nothing like the politician they were playing. They could try. They could camp it up to the level of ham-fisted parody. But they could not look like the subject of their satire.
Those days are over.
The powers that be, in an attempt to render it all completely pointless for comedy writers, have now chosen a woman to run for VP who actually looks like the comedienne who would be willing to play her.
Here, watch Tina Fey play Sara Palin:
See, it is not that funny, though better than most SNL, which is saying almost nothing.
But here is why it is important: It is no longer satire. It is, in fact, an impersonation. It is a person who looks like Sara Palin saying the things that Sara Palin has said and acting the way Sara Palin has acted, with only a couple little flourishes.
So where is the joke?
There isn't one.
Basically, it is the only fact that it is on SNL means that people feel they can laugh at it. That is how SNL has survived for years. They put up crap, but people feel obligated to laugh, because that is what you do at SNL, which was once funny. The audience is trained.
On this one skit, however, they should be laughing at what Fey says. They should be laughing when Palin says it.
Satire is dead.
Welcome to the age of nueterd preformance art!
| | Tuesday, September 9th, 2008 | | 1:20 pm |
NOTE:
It has been brought to my attention that my irritating little dispatches seem overly angry and hate filled.
I wish I could disagree, but it is true.
I have found this election frustrating, maddening, and an outrage, on many levels.
Outrage is my preferred form of political expression, and is rarely undeserved, but in recent weeks dealings with my step mother and the state government have pushed me until, yes, I may have strayed out of outrage and into simple ranting frothing rage.
In my own defense, it started with me doing one of my pointless only-I-find-it-funny parodies, in this case of bloggers ...not the really crazy ones, you understand, just the ones that invent vast conspiracies to pin a downs-syndrome child onto a 17 year old. You know, like the Daily Kos, Politico, and Slate.com. Anyway, I forgot to mention the joke to anyone else, so I am not sure it was effective.
Also, I was paying tribute to that age old genre "the red-faced foaming at the mouth rant." Dating back to Plato's Infuriao, and reaching its classical heights when Justin Martyr called Trypho a "goat fucking Red Sea pedestrian" who "wouldn't know the messiah if he kicked him in the crotch." Caesar’s "Vini, Vidi, Vici… assholes" also deserves mention, though it failed to fully develop into a rant due to Caesar spiking Vercingetorix's helmet and doing what many consider to be the earliest documented precursor to the touchdown dance.
More recently poets like Mel Gibson and Bill O'Reilly have created more pedestrian rants, against Jews and everything-not-Bill-O’Reilly, respectively, utilizing the common language of the locals to great success. And I find ranting funny.
Anyway, the post below is much more serious and in depth.
| | 1:17 pm |
Anger Management
Ok, here is the thing, at least to me: This country’s governmental system was founded with one cornerstone belief, that people could govern themselves without the “aid” of aristocrats, a monarchy, a religious creed, or even a God-King. Yes, of course, our country’s founders meant free white landholding males, but the idea was stronger than their prejudices. It inspired millions to fight for hundreds of years to assert this belief and declare it to be a universal right. Much like Martin Luther’s accidental Reformation, it got completely out of hand. Soon everyone realized they had opinions and wanted their say. The poor, women, and minorities came forward to demand that this ideal be honored. We became a democratic republic with dreams of equality, at least among the non-male, non-white, non-land-owning set. And let’s face it; it is one hell of an idea. It speaks to what is best in human nature: intelligence, independence, empathy, community organizing, self-determination, etc… It is an ideal worth fighting for. The problem is that where there is power, there are the power-hungry. The goal, for such people, is to get elected. All too soon, and all too easily, the phrase “by any means necessary” becomes appropriate. The ideal of democracy for the populace is to allow certain people, based on issues, personalities, strengths, etc…, to represent them. The reality is that the politicians work hard to find ways to get people to vote for them, often to completely undemocratic, not to mention unethical, extremes. Lying to people, pandering, fooling people, taking money from sources counter to your constituency’s interests, etc… are not really democratic. They are not respectful, they are not moral, and they are not things to be proud of. Manipulation is the name of the “game.” It is the “game” that has given us polling, news networks, sound bites, talking points, lobbyists, and Karl Rove. Of course there are many many Karl Roves out there, on both sides. James Carville is one. Rick Davis (McCain) is one. David Plouffe (Obama) is one. Their methods may be more or less like Rove’s, too similar for comfort in many cases, but the point is that it is their *job* to get their candidate elected. It is up to them to find the most expedient way to win. It goes without saying that the most expedient way is rarely based on complex things like issues, discussions, or even humanity. So, what really motivates people politically? The answer always is, as it always will be, fear. We are hardwired for it. It trumps even sex as a human motivator. And it should. It is what keeps us alive sometimes. The rest of the time, of course, it makes us look like fools. Whether it is commies, Indians, southerners, black people, poor people, Nazis, fascists, Al Gore, George W. Bush, or simply the nebulous yet terrifying concept of “The Other,” fear has been used to get people elected for millennia. As noble as it is, tripping desperate people’s fear responses, these things are unreliable. The Commies crumbled, Indians became Native Americans and opened Casinos, the Southerners lost the war and gave us KFC, Black people have been pacified – sort of, the Nazis and fascists were beaten, Al Gore is a 2x4 and has science on his side, and W is leaving office to go clear brush. The poor people are still around, but now we have gated communities, and they don’t vote anyway. When looking for something direct and ever present to motivate the populace into fearfully voting for you, the obvious and even easy option was your opponent. The “two-party system” is, or at least has become, the home of these methods; the nest in which these tactics hatch, grow, and fly off to crap on the voters. If a system is like that of most of Europe, and has many parties, then it is hard to spread direct fear about a variety of others. You may vote against one, only to have them win a secondary seat, make a coalition with your party, and create a government. How embarrassing. This is not to say that there is not fear mongering, of course there is, but it is less and political debates are more issues driven. Nor is it to say that they don’t make idiotic decisions or call each other names. They do… often... on the floor of the parliament. But then again, we all do such things. The two party system in this country means that there is a direct target for fear mongering. If you are a Democrat, then it is the Republicans. If you are a Republican, then it is the other way around. Candidates are allowed to be lazy when it comes to policy, issues, stands, and even speeches because they can always fall back on “Vote for me or they will win.” Every time you hear “four more years of the Bush/McCain policies” or “Barak Hussein Obama,” that is what you are hearing. The same goes for the lack of experience argument. No one has experience being the president. Some of our greatest presidents have had very little executive experience, as defined by McCain, while others have had a lot. Look at Nixon. Nixon had experience, and we all reaped the benefit of it. It is the same for Regan, Bush, Bush, Clinton, and other lack luster presidents. This type of propaganda, which is what it is, has created the great polarized mess we are in right now. You are either one side or another. There are no words for the irritation I feel when, in the middle of a political conversation, a person automatically assumes I am voting FOR the guy who I am not deconstructing. It is usually accusing, insulting, and generally childlike snobbery that begins with “Well you (fill in the blank) supporters just don’t get it.” Occasionally they will go for bonus points by working some pre-programmed slogan into it, such as “John McCain is out of touch! Did you hear how many houses he has?!?!?” I take a deep breath, ignore the fact that the entire world has just gone red, and then try to explain that no, I am not for (fill in the blank) OR (fill in the blank). I believe it is more important to know the good and the bad of both sides, and since everyone else seems to be filled with the conviction that their candidate is a godsend, I am more likely to bring up the negative. Besides, voting records, public statements, policy statements, and espoused ideology cannot be seen as slander to the candidate who produced them. It doesn’t work that way. Candidates must be accountable or we are not a democracy. In such a conversation, when I have declared my distaste for both sides, it is often as if they have just lost their ability to follow what I am saying. You must be for one or the other, or you somehow incomprehensible. It is almost as if they think you are lying. Perhaps they think you are lying so as to continue to suggest that their candidate is not a savior. More often, however, it seems to be simply mind boggling, in the true sense of the word. I have run into this for as long as I have been politically active, and I know I am not alone. It was oddly easier when I was with the KU Greens, as then they could fit that label to me, and stop listening, even though I was just as often critical of Nader and the other Greens. I hope, deeply, that the human wish to belong does not necessarily have to lead to close-mindedness, us vs. them, and categorical concrete thinking, but I know it can. I also think this type of team allegiance makes an election much easier for both sides. The candidates have gotten lazy, as is blaringly obvious in this election. Both sides have leapt around committing slander and liable whenever possible and reviving wedge issues. If we just shake our heads for a minute, and pull them out of the fog of noxious fumes of school yard rhetoric, we can see that the most repeated slogans and criticism used by both parties are pure fabrications. McCain is not Bush. Yes he often voted with the president. So did most of the congress, on both sides of the isle. He has, however, criticized the sitting president many times on some very vital issues. No, he is not as much of an independent thinking as he was pre-2000, but he is not Bush part 2 (or is it 3?). Obama does not have, BY FAR, the most liberal voting record in the senate. He is a completely bland Clintonian centrist. Often he and McCain agree. That may be the source of the need for divisive arguments. You have to prove you are different. What is wrong with being 71? What is wrong with being a community organizer? Aren’t both supposed to be things that garner respect? I realize that male genitalia are part of the criteria for being a president, but do you have to be such a dick? On the flip side, McCain does not know how to win the war on terror. No one does, because there are no real parameters. So the surge worked a bit, and only 500 Iraqis died violently last month. Horary! What? Injuries? SHHhhhh! Obama does not offer a great change to Washington, in the larger picture. He may offer an attempt to change back to a pre-Bush Washington, and that would be a relief, but it is still nothing special. I could go on and on, issue by issue, insult by insult, but you get the picture. We must be honest with ourselves when we vote, give no one a pass, and hold all of their feet in the fire. So where are the real issues? Sure they get lip service, but mainly in an inflammatory comment here or there. “My opponent says blah blah blah, but I say blah blah blah!” (Applause) Where is the larger vision? What will these people do, in specifics, if elected? Not even their official websites give more than a smattering of what they think you want to hear. I know. I have actually read them. Even when there are “specifics,” they have holes in them big enough to drive a Straight-Talk Express through. I get REALLY bored at work. The honest fact is that in our system specifics, in dept thought, and conversation are viewed as a liability to the election specialists. You never know when a candidate will say something wrong and cost you a point here or there. The cross-dressing sheepherder/lumberjack from Versailles, pronounced like it is written, Texas demographic is VERY important. Just like soccer/hockey moms. This is why the parties took over the debates themselves. With no independent body to arrange the debates, the terms can be debated to death, until everyone is happy and no one has any danger of being interesting. So the “debates” are turned into parallel versions of the same old speeches, talking points, and insults, all exchanged with the occasional acknowledgement that the other person is in the same room. Really it is a parody. How do they get away with it? Well, they own you. No longer is the issue about EARNING votes, it is about getting them. It is Hungry Hungry Hippo, not democracy. Rather than a pink hippo, they use pandering, fear, and misinformation. They use the term “steal,” which I think is very telling. I have talked to party organizers who toss that out so casually that they clearly see it a given. The two parties have so many votes and they have to take them from each other. This is also the idea behind the ridiculous scapegoating of Nader in 2000. I could address the fact that, according to exit polls, more Dems voted for Bush than total Greens voted, or I could argue, as Nader does, that it came down to Florida and Gore gave it up/the Supreme Court screwed it up. Frankly, however, both those arguments are petty compared with the basic tenant of democracy which is being threatened by such scapegoating. It is this: No one can steal votes, support, or an election by getting people to vote for them. They have to earn the votes. Al Gore failed to earn many people’s votes. Period. That is it. THE VOTES ARE OURS, the people’s, NOT THE PARTIES’! So, how does one earn my vote? Well, as a middle class over-educated white guy… just kidding. FIRST: Stop looking at demographics! SECOND: Have an opinion. Have ideas. Show us what you want to do with the future. Argue why you should be president, NOT why the other guy should not. Hell, don’t even bring him up. THIRD: Debate in a real, honest, conversational way. Do it many times. It can be structured, for time and equal say, but it should not be bogged down by rules. Take questions from the audience, and no plants! Conversation is the way ideas evolve and develop. If you are unable to have one, you are unqualified to be president. FOURTH: Make sure the debates are run by an independent organization. The league of women voters will gladly take over again. The national director said as much in 2000 and 2004. FIFTH: Stop treating us as children. No more us or them. No more simplistic condescending answers. No more pandering. No more lies. No more insults. No more fear mongering. NO MORE TALKING POINTS!!!! (Besides, it is creepy when fifteen people all show up using the exact same phrases.) Speak to us as equals. This is a job interview. Do NOT forget that. You are honored to run; we are NOT honored to vote for you. SIXTH: Fire anyone who attempts to “tailor” your message. That is pandering, again. Say what you mean. I understand that different audiences may need different approaches, and that is fine, but the core of what you say must remain the same. This should be because it is what you believe. Seriously, what happened to core convictions?!?!? SEVENTH: You are a wealthy megalomaniac. It is the only way you would be running. Do not expect us to forget that. Do not try to prove you are “just one of the guys.” Instead, prove you want to understand what people go through, even if you cannot ever completely understand because of what you are. Empathize, dammit! And on a real level, not some fake “I feel your pain” bullshit. EIGHT: Be honest. Do not let anyone manipulate your image. We want to know who you are before we vote for you. If we don’t like you, we will not vote you in. Them’s the rules. If you lie to us to get power, you are scum. You not only do not disserve the power, you should be in prison. NINTH: Use Public Financing. Get rid of all the corporate money. Public financing is from the people. TENTH: When some organization that supports you puts out an insane ad spreading lies about your opponent, CONDEMN IT! Come out in public, and tell them to shut the hell up. ELEVENTH: Take a public and verifiable stand against lobbying. When they approach you, as they will, refuse them. Make your records public, more public than just the bare minimum, and stand by that decision. TWELFTH: Be a leader. Have a backbone. There are a lot of decisions that need to be made that will be unpopular at first, but will prove to be the correct ones. No, attacking Iraq does not count. The thousands and thousands that have died automatically disqualify it. I am speaking of environmental, economic, and social policies to insure stability and sustainability in the future so our grandkids can live happily. Fossil fuels, abstinence only sex ed., the death of welfare, corporate America’s license to misbehave, antagonism with the rest of the world, etc… will all have to go sooner or later, and sooner would be better. Powerful people will be mad. Deal with it. Grow a spine. If it does not work out for you, and you do not get reelected, fine. You were here to make a difference, not stay in power. All I am asking for is actual honesty, integrity, innovation, intelligence, and respect (and no, politicians, you may NOT put any of those words on any of your signs). Of course I realize that is an insane thing to ask for in our system, or any political system really, but they are not bad goals to work toward. We will never get there, but we may make things better. That work is ours, the voters’. Every voter should approach every candidate with a gut deep suspicion, a willingness to gage the troubling aspects of every candidate with the admirable ones, and the strength to punish transgressions. We have to make a decision, it must be remembered that it will be a compromise and that we will need to back up our votes with active engagement in the system. We should all have a torch and sharpened pitchfork in our garages, or possibly by the front door. No elected official should get to relax. That is the price of power. If you talk to people of all political persuasions, which is a rare thing for people to do anymore, you discover a huge amount of common ground. Sure there are issues people disagree on, and will bow to in an election, but there are big commonalities that stitch us together as one people. There are economic concerns, on a personal level, a need for respect, a belief that our government is out of control and out of touch, concern for health care, housing, ethics, etc… That makes it complex for a candidate. They want issues that separate and divide. That is how you win! Thus wedge issues, condescension, 2nd grade rhetoric, name calling, etc… In my opinion, this election is, as the last few have been, about the legacy of Ronald Regan. I consider this horrific. McCain has tried to take the mantel of Regan, but no one has been buying it, not even his own party. Bush tried to take it to, and it worked. People believed it. Bush even hired as much of the Regan administration as possible, and managed to institute policies that Regan had specifically turned down as, in the case of neo-conservative economics, “insane.” So perhaps it is better for all of us if McCain drops that attempt. On the other side, Obama actually, in many ways, presents a refraction of Regan. His policies grow not from traditions of Roosevelt, Kennedy, McGovern, or Carter, but rather from Clinton. Clinton ushered in the age of the “new Democrats” in 1992, by borrowing heavily from Regan. In the past 8 years it has become hard to remember how much progressives hated Clinton. It is one of the reasons Gore lost, besides all the others. Bush has lowered everyone’s expectations. It was on Clinton’s watch that much of the deregulation that had begun under Regan and Bush 1 continued and even accelerated in some areas (Helloooo credit crisis!). Clinton’s social and environmental stances were just this side of Regan, but not far. While modern wedge issues had been used for a while, the current method of using them was developed in the 90s by the republicans who really could not argue on many other grounds. A few even publically grumbled about him stealing ideas. Eventually then went after him on a sex scandal. If anything Obama is slightly right of Clinton, supporting religious organizations with federal money, the interpretation of gun ownership as a human right, new off shore drilling, nuclear power, using the rhetoric of Christian faith, etc… Obama has allowed himself to be seen as a savior, and in the process allowed people to cut and paste their own beliefs onto him. Listening to the faithful talk about him, it becomes very clear that many have not followed his positions, but maintain hope. And good for them, really. I just hope they will not feel too burned. He cannot but let people down if he makes it to office. Already his campaign is trying to smooth this over by using the word “moderation.” His policies only seem moderate in comparison to Bush, of course, but maybe that is where we are in the world. Moderation and compromise are what happens in Washington. You have to have ideals to push things as far as you can in the direction you wish, knowing they will never get there. If you start out a “moderate” it usually means you like the path of least resistance. As it stands in this country, the right has all the idealists and the “left” has the moderates, which means that things get pulled further and further to the right. Maybe Obama is really the idealist his fans wish he was. Maybe, like Lincoln, he is clever enough to exert his ideals, little by little, in ways in which they will be accepted. Of course Lincoln had the Civil War, and then was shot, so I am not sure how that worked out for him. Maybe after Bush we need an intermediate who just wants the old status quo. I tend to think that, if either, it is the latter. As for McCain, he is not the same man he was in 2000. He learned all the wrong lessons from being beaten by a Karl Rove smear campaign. He moved right, because he thought that was where the support was, never realizing that he had broad bi-partisan support. If he had won the primary he would have beaten Gore fare and square. Of course it would have taken a lot for him to win the primary, as it is dominated by right-wing nut jobs. His move to the right is probably why he made it this time, but at the same time, I think it is why he will lose the election. Even though I vehemently disagreed with many of his positions in 2000, I still respected him, which is rare. I don’t any more. I do not think I am alone in this. Oh, and Palin is a screeching harpy and Biden has a mysterious comb over that he is hilariously insecure about. There, everyone is insulted. …by reality. I’d go further, but I don’t think the VP nominations really change the race. Biden’s foreign policy experience is marred by decisions that border on terrifying, and Palin’s right wing credentials and willingness to tell bold face lies energetically leap over that border, pirouetting. So, as a swing state voter, what am I going to do? No idea. I don’t want to vote for either. Neither has earned my vote. At the same time, Obama is clearly the lesser of two evils, by an ear. …ok, two. At the same time voting for him is succumbing to the “evil of two lessers.” Every time we vote for two guys playing the games that these two are we reinforce that they are doing something right, which they are not. Bush has lowered the standards of the whole country, and for that he should be made into some hilarious folk-lore joke, like Thomas Crapper, or Benedict Arnold. Chances are I will watch the polls, and if McCain has not self-destructed yet, I will go sit for an extended period of time glaring at the ballot. I am not sure. Obama has not earned my vote, and probably will not. I think voting is very important. These people have no problem with NOT hearing from you, but how do you send them the correct message when voting. The answer is complex and depends on you being a very active participant in government following a vote. Most people don’t do that, for many reasons ranging from being poor to being disenfranchised. Mainly, however, I think people have just given up. Elections are going to be this way, so get used to it. I cannot do that. No one should. All around me I see people, out of a desperate need to change things, supporting Obama. Some are sure he is a mythical messianic figure, while others just think he might be the better of two lame choices. As the election gets closer and stays tied up, people get more worried and more willing to support Obama. Even Matt Tabbi, former critic, said this in his most recent column: “As I watch Obama on the campaign trail, I know I'm listening to the Same Old Shit, delivered by a candidate who could cross the Atlantic on a bridge constructed entirely from Wall Street cash culled for him by party hacks and insiders. But I suddenly don't care. It's not just that the alternative is four years of the madman John McCain. It's that, if Obama wins, it will be interesting to find out, at long last, if there really can be something truly different about someone who sounds so much the same.” I don’t know the answer, but I am working on it, or will be as soon as I figure out what to do, and, in the end, that is what matters. We all need to be working toward changing this system, really changing it, not Changing™ it. Every reality check will make you madder. Every investigation will make you feel betrayed, even if you don’t support the candidates, just because they think they can do that to us. It is ok to get angry. We as a nation need that anger to get past the apathy. We must funnel away from impotent rage, and into outrage. We’ll never fix the thing, but we can improve it, ourselves, and the quality of life for people who cannot fight themselves. That is anger management.
| | Saturday, August 30th, 2008 | | 11:46 am |
Obama's Speech
I could go on forever as to how middle of the road and boring Obama's stances are, or the fact that he has let himself be a blank slate for all the hopes and dreams of progressives, Democrats, etc... to gain their votes, and will now proceed to break their little hearts, or.... (on and on) The curious thing is that no one seems to be listening to him. I am guessing that out of the crowd, maybe a third actually agree with his middle of the road opinions. Most of the others are blinded by blind hero worship. But there is this other phenomenon that is actually quite frightening. People are changing their own views to agree with him. I read the Rollingstone politics page each day on break (along with the BBC, NPR, Guardian UK, and of course IMDB) because they have a tradition of skeptical journalism that they try to live up to. That allows some interesting opinions to come through, if only because they are attempting to pose as radicals. Well, that is over. Here is a quote from their Obamafantic(TM) politics blog: "There was a lot to like in this speech, and much of what was appealing was its unorthodoxy. Obama called for clean coal and safe nuclear power for fewer unwanted pregnancies and a Second Amendment we can all live with. This is the stuff mavericks are made of. And it rang true to the moderate Democrat Obama is at heart. But along with moderation, he brought a big idea to the table — independence from Middle-East oil in ten years. It’s a half-measure compared to what Gore is pushing, but considering we get a preponderance of our crude from a combination of Canada, Central/South America, and the Horn of Africa it’s probably doable." Ok... What?!?!? Maverick? Unorthodoxy? I'm sorry, they have completely confused McCain with Obama. They seem to have the same stands on everything. Also, Clean Coal does not exist, and is still limited and damaging to mine. Safe Nuclear does not exist either, and causes waste that we have no idea what to do with other than bury it in a mountain for hundreds of thousands of years where it will invade the ground water and kill most of the middle of the country. Fewer Unwanted Pregnancies?!?!? Great. I am all for it. How? No, seriously, with details, how? Second amendment is something that deserves discussion, but his support for guns as a human right earlier this year just scares the fuck out of me. So all that = Moderation. I totally mistook it for right wing. Silly me. Oh, and Oil! Oil! What do we need? Independence from the Middle east? Sure. It is a nice band-aid. It is even printed with pictures of cute animals. The kids'll love it, until the rest of the world is so fucked up from our oil attention that it all looks like the middle east. We need independence from Oil. Even some Republicans have figured this out. So, what is left? Let's see... the Economy? Neither knows what needs to be done or has the guts to crack down on futures markets and corporate tax evasion, create a living wage, etc.... Sure, the working class would appreciate a vague tax cut, Obama, good for you. Way to pander! The War? Both are candidates are edging closer to each other (Along with the Iraqis and Bush), and a troop reduction seems to be coming soon. Abortion? Ah, finally an issue where the two candidates disagree! Let's see... who is pro-abortion? I'm voting for them. I hate babies. In the end Obama has all this momentum. If he keeps it, if he wins, he will immediately disappoint most of his constituency. All these new voters who are so excited are going to get slapped in the face. Will they vote again? I guess it is a necessary growing experience. Here: your democracy is not in your control. Go get a job you hate. Give up on your dreams. If you are bland and spineless enough, with the ability to lie straight faced, run for office. YES I AM FRUSTRATED. I love the reaction that Obama has, seriously. He has people excited, interested, motivated, etc... It is what people need to be, but I always hoped it would be for a better candidate. This will result in burnout. At some point you just have to assume people get what they deserve, I guess. | | Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 | | 4:28 pm |
Update
Previously I said that the pundits had their heads so far up their own asses that they were looking out their own eyes. I was behind the times, I admit it. They have now burst from their own skulls and declared themselves Athena, goddess of wisdom. ... which I guess means they are mistaking themselves as Zeus too. | | 3:59 pm |
They stole Michelle Obama's soul!
...Or maybe she gave it away. Either way, it is horrific. Watching and listening to the democratic convention is much like beating your head against a concrete wall while surrounded with cult members. For every jolt of pain shooting through your body, tracing your nervous system, and making you shake and sweat with frustration, pain, and anger, there is a chorus of friendly vacant voices trying to convince you that there is a better future if only no one asks questions, everyone follows the rules, and you castrate yourself. Now this last year has been hard on me for a number of reasons (though also wonderful in many places ), namely I finally had to admit that there are stupid people. Before I always wanted to believe that people who seemed a tad dense were really victims of circumstance or choice. If they had the chance, surely they would not be earth shattering dip-shits they appear to be. But no. Some people just aren't smart.., or normal, ... or able to find the earth in a free fall. My stepmother, for instance. She is the first person I have ever met who is JUST FUCKING STUPID. That really is all there is to it. Anyway, my point is that I do not want to believe that there are more people like that, but this election is trying my patience. Maybe it is because everyone is desperate. Maybe I am just getting older and crotchetier. Maybe Mike Judge's Idiocracy is finally coming to pass. I don't know. Keeping this short, so I can finish my thesis, I saw Michelle Obama's speech. What did they do with the interesting, sometimes fiery, woman who we have seen over the last four years? She was no radical, rebel, or even left of center, but she was interesting and tended to speak her mind. The speech was horrid, but seems to have the world spellbound. She delivered it as best she could, hitting every bit of timing and all the beats that were clearly written into the script, I suppose, but still... It was like someone took the events of her and Barak's lives, handed them off to a first year screenwriting class undergrad, who then used the Cliche Generator to fill in the gaps. It is not that I think she was lying. I have no idea. But it takes a lot to completely dehumanize your own family into cardboard cutouts. Ok, actually it only takes aids and speech writers attempting to use polling to see what the populace might identify with, then twisting, cutting, and mutating your life to fit it. And it shows. Remember when Al Gore used to say his favorite album was whatever was on the top of the Billboard charts that week? It shouldn't fool anyone. But it does, somehow. I have never understood hero worship, but has the world really sunk this low? Does this prepackaged blank slate we call Obama really qualify? Or McCain? Sure he survived in Vietnam. Good for him. But is that what makes a man a hero? I remember when, in 1988, conservatives were arguing that George Bush was a hero because he was the youngest pilot shot down in WWII. Fighting for your country is a brave thing, as a personal decision, but that is not what they were arguing. He was a hero because he was shot down at a young age. Were there younger pilots who were better? Was he just the flunky? I don't understand. It must have been an unimaginable ordeal for McCain, and for his sake I am glad he made it. It shows inner strength, fortitude, stubbornness, etc... Admirable qualities, I agree, but to be a hero you should have to do something larger, something for other people. It says something about the state of the nation that we are so hard up. Where is Camus when we need him? "Hero" has lost definition. It needs to be imploded. The conventions represent what is worst about our political system. They are preplanned, meticulously staged, robotically enacted, and diabolically precise. They don't even choose the candidates anymore. There only purpose is to, with inhumanly smooth strokes, sell their candidate as the one everyone can relate too on what the polls show to be the lowest common denominator. The thing about people is that their lives are not planned, they are not pristine. We live in chaos, and as much as it may rub us the wrong way, it is the defining characteristic of human existence. Things like Michelle Obama's speech ring hollow, manipulative, and disingenuous. Or they should. Again, people are still lapping it up. Maybe it is just the pundits, who have degenerated more by the day. By now, their heads are so far up their own asses they are actually looking out their own eyes. This whole election has the hairs on the back of my neck on end. We deserve better. We have for a long time. What is dangerous right now is that we are being served the same old crap, but now people don't recognize it as such. It was pointed out to me the other day, by a wise man, that the fact that people are donating more money themselves this election than ever before (though the corporations are still big donors through bundling and other means, if you check, whatever the candidates may say) does not mean that they have more say, but rather corporate America does not need to spend the way it usually does. They get the same benefit without all that money. Their consumers pay their way. I doubt anyone in the Pepsi Center has thought of that. Amidst all these false narratives I am reminded of a story my father used to tell me. For those of you who never met him, he loved puns and jokes, beyond any healthy measure. He was not a big fan of satire, but he could occasionally stumble across it. He worked out an entire narrative of his life that began like this: "I was born in a basement, and never brought up. I was the child of a mixed marriage, one man and one woman. ..." and it went on. It lasted about 15 minutes in its final incarnation, and took him from birth through the birth of my younger brother. Every line was a pun or a joke. Like Michelle Obama's speech, it was based in some fact but was mainly bullshit. Unlike her speech it was funny (if only because of his enjoyment and pride in telling it), chaotic, sometimes emotional, and achingly human. He is gone now, and I never wrote it down, so it is gone too. Her speech, however, was recorded by millions. | | Saturday, August 9th, 2008 | | 7:07 pm |
| | Wednesday, January 16th, 2008 | | 12:55 pm |
In a blinding coincidence, I turned out to be Galen... Tyrol. | | Monday, June 18th, 2007 | | 10:23 pm |
| | Wednesday, June 13th, 2007 | | 10:40 am |
|
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
galent's journal
