In the last post, I dealt specifically with metal. Of course, it isn't entirely true that all American bands are boring (because there are quite a few I enjoyed from the 90s and beginning of the 2000s), but the output of American music by and large took an enormous plunge: Even my cousin earlier wrote about bands he enjoyed (although a few he mentioned were of British origin, he did mention Metallica) being currently awful.
At my birthday party, one of my very good friends talked about the length of current songs. Now, my sister earlier than that defended song length as a staple of a certain genre, but I would have to agree with the friend that it may be a sign of our dwindling attention span. Maybe I am already skewed because in my view, any song less than 5-7 minutes long is extremely short. But even before I started listening to Prog, my satisfaction usually rested at 4 minutes as a decent length, and I remember feeling that even Linkin Park's songs were too short, and they were around 2:30.
But on the subject of song length, I think what's happening may be reciprocating. That is, the industry is producing artists and songs that are shorter and that people are listening to them. Many of the industry's target demographic don't really have a choice of what to listen to, and the only option left to them is to either force themselves to enjoy the auditory rape or go back in time, which explains why there are so many little kids running around saying they listen to bands from the 60s and 70s. Not that bands from that era are bad in any way (I happen to really enjoy listening to YES and Pink Floyd), but it's kind of anachronistic: How could these kids possibly find out about The Grateful Dead?
I think part of the problem is how new artists are produced, and we need to look no further than American Idol and Disney. I happened to actually like watching American Idol, except that it seemed to prove me right. There are people on the show who can actually sing and have actual talent, but there is an enormous discrepancy: The discrepancy exists between talent and marketing; to clarify, the best performer may not win, hence why Adam Lambert lost to Kris Allen last year, and Crystal Bowersox lost to Lee Dwayze this year. As it happens, Kris Allen and Lee Dwayze are exactly the same artist: Little scruffy kids with an acoustic guitar, annoying nasally voice, and zero stage presence. However, it is also true that Adam Lambert managed to land a record contract. The interesting thing is that at the end of AI, the records that are actually released by the winner(s) are pretty awful.
Let's move on to Disney. Two words: Miley Cyrus. She started off in a Disney sitcom in which she has a "rock star" (term used extremely loosely) alter-ego called Hannah Montana. Soon the two personalities became one, and Disney milked the cash cow for all it was worth. It also helps that her father was responsible for "Achy Breaky Heart." And then she displayed the depth of her ignorance when she went on to insult Radiohead.
The problem is that all of these franchises at least appear to be artificial and manufactured. They are signed and then have songs written for them, and they don't often really express any ideas at all (see also: Justin Bieber, who doesn't know that German is a language)
There are two redeeming pop artists in the United States, however, and they are Alicia Keys and Lady Gaga. As annoying and nonsensical as Lady Gaga is, she at least is classically trained and able to compose her own music.
You know what else is fun? Rap. Let me tell you a story. In the old days (circa 1980s), rap used to mean something. Scholars rejoiced at the new medium's giving voice to an oppressed minority, but then late in the 90s something amazing happened: The record labels went fishing for the next big thing and caught themselves gangsta rap, from which they were able to exorcise its relevance and turn it into a remarkably successful marketing ploy (see Sprite, Nike, Boost mobile). Only the most repulsive aspects of the original genre remained: Blatant misogyny, hedonism and violence. The plight of the inner city was abandoned when the rappers were featured on MTV Cribs.
Much like everything else, to find the cream of the crop, one needs to go underground, overseas, or in the past. A few decent rappers remain, and they are Overseer, Del the Funkee Homosapien, and Danger Doom. I prefer Del.
"Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?" Sometimes the indie scene isn't too much better than the corporate nightmare of Z100. Take, for example, Insane Clown Posse, whose song Miracles is the most poisonous piece of putridity that only perpetuates the worst possible Philistinism. The following line proves my point, and is the source of a large Internet phenomenon: "I don’t wannna talk to a scientist, ya’ll motherfuckers're lyin' and gettin' me pissed" That's the worst America has to offer in a nutshell.
It would be unfair, however, to claim that the record industry is not the same everywhere. French pop sounds just as repulsive as American pop, and the chavs' broken English in Britain are almost more repulsive than their American counterparts (see Lady Sovereign). But it's strange to me how it is easier to find good bands overseas than it is in my own country, where one would think they would be more easily available. It doesn't make much sense, because if the recording industry is the same absolutely everywhere, then I should have the same or even more limited access to decent bands in Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands. Unless, metal is simply more widespread in Europe than it is here.
What about Evanescence or Marilyn Manson? It is quite evident that Evanescence's debut album was excellent, but much like a lot of bands, their second album was cliched and quite uninteresting. The brains behind the band, Ben Moody, has since abandoned Amy Lee to her fate.
Marilyn Manson's latest album, Eat Me, Drink Me, had almost zero cultural relevance, which is sad because a few weeks ago I read the lyrics from Holywood, and they were absolutely beautiful. While I couldn't listen to him again, his lyrics are often among the best I've ever heard in domestic music, even if they appeal just to alienated middle-schoolers. MM remains one of the two most intelligent metal artists in the United States, the other being Trent Reznor.
I focus mostly on pop in this essay simply because it is the most widespread genre in music today, much like how first person shooters were biggest during the Halo Era (between the release dates of Halo 2 and a few months after Halo 3), and few examples in either genre have anything truly relevant to say. Much like the way another cousin described Ecstasy, they are simply "brain candy": They may make you feel good, but they don't do anything for you.
I'm not trying to say *all* American music is boring or not worth listening to--that would be a grossly inaccurate generalization, and there are many, many examples that even I know of that would prove me wrong were I ignorant enough to make that claim, but I will absolutely postulate that what is emitted from popular radio stations today by and large is uninteresting and not worth listening to.
It's kind of funny about contemporary pop. There is one band in particular I want to mention in its defense, but it turns out they're British, and their latest album absolutely has something very deep and insightful to say--in fact, I would never in my life expect a counterculture band to say what the Gorillaz have said in Plastic Beach.
Part III: What happened?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
American Bands Have Become Boring
I was having a conversation with a friend earlier today, and he stated that Metallica's Death Magnetic is "the greatest album of the decade." Needless to say, I laughed at him and told him otherwise, and mentioned two examples of music that I think are far better: Pain of Salvation's BE, and Tool's 10K Days. "Do you really think Tool's 10K Days was that good?" Yes, I was moved. I proceeded to justify BE with the track Iter Impius, about the last man on Earth awakening immediately after its annihilation. My friend tried to derail me by asserting that maybe I don't like American bands generally simply because they are American. Umm... no. I replied, "No, its because for many of these bands the subject matter is much darker on a psychological level than most American bands are willing to go. American bands are more about shock-and-awe and disgust (Cannibal Corpse, Slipknot) than trying to anything truly intelligent or meaningful." Of course, I mentioned Tool, so there are exceptions, but such acts are few and far between, and those varying greatly in quality.
The chief question when considering any Best Album/Song/Artist is: Am I moved?
I admit it: I listen to a lot of dark and occasionally morbid music. But the meaning behind such songs is so incredibly deep and meaningful that I listen in wonder more than I end up feeling depressed, with certain exception, which I will touch on later.
Here is one of the most beautiful choruses I've ever heard, and happens to deal specifically with death:
"Into the orchard I walk peering way past the gate
Wilted scenes for us who couldn't wait
Drained by the coldest caress, stalking shadows ahead
Halo of death, all I see is departure
Mourner's lament but it's me who's the martyr" -- Harvest by Opeth
I'm not sure what is the "correct" interpretation of the song, but the chorus leads me to believe the song is talking about suicide with "those who couldn't wait" amidst the other imagery. The orchard seems to be a kind of punishment for suicide; a Purgatory, if you will. But I will admit that I'm thrown by the final line. Maybe someone will help me out.
The rest of the song talks about someone else, possibly a lover:
First stanza:
"Stay with me awhile
Rise above the vile
Name my final rest
Poured into my chest"
The second stanza after the chorus is:
"Pledge yourself to me
Never leave me be
Sweat breaks on my brow
Given time ends now"
I would surmise that the speaker is deliberately killing himself even after he seems to have something to hold on to, but the final stanza is the kicker:
"Spirit painted sin
Embers neath my skin
Veiled in pale embrace
Reached and touched my face"
I would claim that the "pale embrace" is death taking him, and the Other in the song, the one s/he is talking to--is Death himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The second song I would cite as evidence for beauty in darkness is Pain of Salvation's Iter Impius, roughly translated to "Wicked Journey." I will deal with this song as a whole, for it tells a fairly straightforward tale.
"[Mr. Money:]
I woke up today
Expecting to find all that I sought
And climb the mountains of the life I bought
Finally I'm at the top of every hierarchy
Unfortunately there is no one left
But me
I woke up today
To a world that's ground to dust, dirt and stone
I'm the king upon this withering throne
I ruled every forest, every mountain, every sea
Now there're but ruins left to rule for me
And... you see, it beckons me;
Life turned its back on us
How could you just agree?
...how? I just don't see...
I woke up today
To a world devoid of forests and trees
Drained of every ocean, every sea
Just like a useless brick upon the shore
The morning after the storm
That swept the bridge away
Relentless tide
No anger
Just this relentless time
That calls us all on
But...
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne
I rule the ruins and wrecks
And the dust, dirt and stone
I rule rage rod and rattling of bones
I am on my own
I am all alone
Everything is gone
Stuck forever here
Already cold
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne...
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne
I rule the ruins and wrecks
And the dirt and the dust and the stone
I'm the ruler of rage rod and rust
And the rattling of bones
Ruler of ruin..." -- Iter Impius - Pain of Salvation, BE
The story is that the richest man on the planet--this man had owned absolutely everything--had himself cryogenically frozen only to awake and find Earth completely desolate. But he is not deterred or depressed: He specifically resolves to rule the planet as it remains: "I'm never crossing that line" is obviously the line between life and death. Originally I held him personally responsible for the planet's destruction, but there is no evidence in the lyrics to suggest that. The song itself is soft in the beginning, but impassioned--like many of the songs I listen to--in the second half.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The third song I would cite is from Opeth's greatest concept album (you can probably see why I love it so much), and I must tell the whole tale for this song to make much sense. An old man was exiled from his village fifteen years ago for his atheism, and he returns, intending to find his beloved, Melinda. This song is when our protagonist finds her:
"By the turnstile beckons a damsel fair
The face of Melinda neath blackened hair
No joy would flicker in her eyes
Brooding sadness came to a rise
Words would falter to atone
Failure had passed the stepping stone
She had sworn her vows to another
This is when no-one will bother
And conceded pain in crumbling mirth
A harlot of God upon the earth
Found where she sacrificed her ways
That hollow love in her face
Still I plotted to have her back
The contentment that would fill the crack
My soul released a fluttering sigh
This day fell, the darkness nigh
I took her by the hand to say
All faith forever has been washed away
I returned for you in great dismay
Come with me, far away to stay
Endlessly gazing in nocturnal prime
She spoke of her vices and broke the rhyme
But baffled herself with the final line
My promise is made but my heart is thine" -- Face of Melinda -- Opeth, Still Life
A few important things that are easily missed: The second stanza explains quite obviously that Melinda had been forced to marry someone else, but it was immensely painful for her, as she still loves him (3rd & final stanzas). The last line is her speaking, though Mikael Akerfeldt is still doing the vocals. In the next song, Melinda is executed, and our damned protagonist goes berserk:
"Ripped from my embrace
Melinda reflected in shafts
Red line round her neck
Met the earth in silence" -- Serenity Painted Death
Unfortunately, he himself is defeated and is hanged in the conclusion.
"They wear white for me
Seemingly jaded and lost
I forge myself into your dreams
And here I am your life
Hangman, clutching at his tools
I will come for you
The noose is tied
Murmur through the crowd
Plunging into anywhere but here" -- White Cluster
The townspeople don't realize the barbarity of their collective action, and he seeks to scar their consciousnesses forever. "I will come for you" is directed specifically at his executioner, probably in a fit of blind rage, though the line is sung calmly.
--------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting that though Opeth is death metal, they never use foul language in their lyrics ever, which is a testament to Akerfeldt's songwriting ability. I haven't listened to enough of Pain of Salvation to make that same claim about them.
I've only heard one American metal band that matches the talent of these two bands, and that is Tool. My friends actually disagree with me somewhat for my respect for 10,000 Days. Though I don't share the religious belief it expresses, I am still greatly moved by the title track:
I will link the lyrics because the song is 10 minutes long: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/10000dayswingspt2.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which songs do I actually feel depressed after listening to? How about Isolation Years:
"There's a sense of longing in me
As I read Rosemary's letter
Her writing's honest
Can't forget the years she's lost
In isolation
She talks about her love
And as I read
"I'll die alone"
I know she was aching
There's a certain detail seen here
The pen must have slipped to the side
And left a stain
Next to his name
She knows he's gone
And isolation
Is all that would remain
"The wound in me is pouring out
To rest on a lover's shore" -- Isolation Years -- Opeth, Ghost Reveries
The song is fairly straightforward, so I won't dissect it, and it's slow and quiet, which really gets to me. It's the most depressing song Opeth has ever written; no other song by them has that same impact on my emotions.
There are many more examples of this type, but this post is already far too long. I may continue some other time.
The chief question when considering any Best Album/Song/Artist is: Am I moved?
I admit it: I listen to a lot of dark and occasionally morbid music. But the meaning behind such songs is so incredibly deep and meaningful that I listen in wonder more than I end up feeling depressed, with certain exception, which I will touch on later.
Here is one of the most beautiful choruses I've ever heard, and happens to deal specifically with death:
"Into the orchard I walk peering way past the gate
Wilted scenes for us who couldn't wait
Drained by the coldest caress, stalking shadows ahead
Halo of death, all I see is departure
Mourner's lament but it's me who's the martyr" -- Harvest by Opeth
I'm not sure what is the "correct" interpretation of the song, but the chorus leads me to believe the song is talking about suicide with "those who couldn't wait" amidst the other imagery. The orchard seems to be a kind of punishment for suicide; a Purgatory, if you will. But I will admit that I'm thrown by the final line. Maybe someone will help me out.
The rest of the song talks about someone else, possibly a lover:
First stanza:
"Stay with me awhile
Rise above the vile
Name my final rest
Poured into my chest"
The second stanza after the chorus is:
"Pledge yourself to me
Never leave me be
Sweat breaks on my brow
Given time ends now"
I would surmise that the speaker is deliberately killing himself even after he seems to have something to hold on to, but the final stanza is the kicker:
"Spirit painted sin
Embers neath my skin
Veiled in pale embrace
Reached and touched my face"
I would claim that the "pale embrace" is death taking him, and the Other in the song, the one s/he is talking to--is Death himself.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The second song I would cite as evidence for beauty in darkness is Pain of Salvation's Iter Impius, roughly translated to "Wicked Journey." I will deal with this song as a whole, for it tells a fairly straightforward tale.
"[Mr. Money:]
I woke up today
Expecting to find all that I sought
And climb the mountains of the life I bought
Finally I'm at the top of every hierarchy
Unfortunately there is no one left
But me
I woke up today
To a world that's ground to dust, dirt and stone
I'm the king upon this withering throne
I ruled every forest, every mountain, every sea
Now there're but ruins left to rule for me
And... you see, it beckons me;
Life turned its back on us
How could you just agree?
...how? I just don't see...
I woke up today
To a world devoid of forests and trees
Drained of every ocean, every sea
Just like a useless brick upon the shore
The morning after the storm
That swept the bridge away
Relentless tide
No anger
Just this relentless time
That calls us all on
But...
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne
I rule the ruins and wrecks
And the dust, dirt and stone
I rule rage rod and rattling of bones
I am on my own
I am all alone
Everything is gone
Stuck forever here
Already cold
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne...
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne
I rule the ruins and wrecks
And the dirt and the dust and the stone
I'm the ruler of rage rod and rust
And the rattling of bones
Ruler of ruin..." -- Iter Impius - Pain of Salvation, BE
The story is that the richest man on the planet--this man had owned absolutely everything--had himself cryogenically frozen only to awake and find Earth completely desolate. But he is not deterred or depressed: He specifically resolves to rule the planet as it remains: "I'm never crossing that line" is obviously the line between life and death. Originally I held him personally responsible for the planet's destruction, but there is no evidence in the lyrics to suggest that. The song itself is soft in the beginning, but impassioned--like many of the songs I listen to--in the second half.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The third song I would cite is from Opeth's greatest concept album (you can probably see why I love it so much), and I must tell the whole tale for this song to make much sense. An old man was exiled from his village fifteen years ago for his atheism, and he returns, intending to find his beloved, Melinda. This song is when our protagonist finds her:
"By the turnstile beckons a damsel fair
The face of Melinda neath blackened hair
No joy would flicker in her eyes
Brooding sadness came to a rise
Words would falter to atone
Failure had passed the stepping stone
She had sworn her vows to another
This is when no-one will bother
And conceded pain in crumbling mirth
A harlot of God upon the earth
Found where she sacrificed her ways
That hollow love in her face
Still I plotted to have her back
The contentment that would fill the crack
My soul released a fluttering sigh
This day fell, the darkness nigh
I took her by the hand to say
All faith forever has been washed away
I returned for you in great dismay
Come with me, far away to stay
Endlessly gazing in nocturnal prime
She spoke of her vices and broke the rhyme
But baffled herself with the final line
My promise is made but my heart is thine" -- Face of Melinda -- Opeth, Still Life
A few important things that are easily missed: The second stanza explains quite obviously that Melinda had been forced to marry someone else, but it was immensely painful for her, as she still loves him (3rd & final stanzas). The last line is her speaking, though Mikael Akerfeldt is still doing the vocals. In the next song, Melinda is executed, and our damned protagonist goes berserk:
"Ripped from my embrace
Melinda reflected in shafts
Red line round her neck
Met the earth in silence" -- Serenity Painted Death
Unfortunately, he himself is defeated and is hanged in the conclusion.
"They wear white for me
Seemingly jaded and lost
I forge myself into your dreams
And here I am your life
Hangman, clutching at his tools
I will come for you
The noose is tied
Murmur through the crowd
Plunging into anywhere but here" -- White Cluster
The townspeople don't realize the barbarity of their collective action, and he seeks to scar their consciousnesses forever. "I will come for you" is directed specifically at his executioner, probably in a fit of blind rage, though the line is sung calmly.
--------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting that though Opeth is death metal, they never use foul language in their lyrics ever, which is a testament to Akerfeldt's songwriting ability. I haven't listened to enough of Pain of Salvation to make that same claim about them.
I've only heard one American metal band that matches the talent of these two bands, and that is Tool. My friends actually disagree with me somewhat for my respect for 10,000 Days. Though I don't share the religious belief it expresses, I am still greatly moved by the title track:
I will link the lyrics because the song is 10 minutes long: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tool/10000dayswingspt2.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which songs do I actually feel depressed after listening to? How about Isolation Years:
"There's a sense of longing in me
As I read Rosemary's letter
Her writing's honest
Can't forget the years she's lost
In isolation
She talks about her love
And as I read
"I'll die alone"
I know she was aching
There's a certain detail seen here
The pen must have slipped to the side
And left a stain
Next to his name
She knows he's gone
And isolation
Is all that would remain
"The wound in me is pouring out
To rest on a lover's shore" -- Isolation Years -- Opeth, Ghost Reveries
The song is fairly straightforward, so I won't dissect it, and it's slow and quiet, which really gets to me. It's the most depressing song Opeth has ever written; no other song by them has that same impact on my emotions.
There are many more examples of this type, but this post is already far too long. I may continue some other time.
23rd Birthday Wishlist
Games:
1) 3D Dot Game Heroes - PS3 - $40
2) Xenogears - PS1 - $40 on Amazon (yes, it's damned expensive for a PS1 title :C. I MUST PLAY THIS GAME.)
3) Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Wii - $50
Books:
1) Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky - $5
Misc
1) Webcam with a resolution no less than 1024x768. Should be around $30-40
2) LEGO Neptune Carrier - $60
3 A fairly large Amazon gift certificate :P
1) 3D Dot Game Heroes - PS3 - $40
2) Xenogears - PS1 - $40 on Amazon (yes, it's damned expensive for a PS1 title :C. I MUST PLAY THIS GAME.)
3) Super Mario Galaxy 2 - Wii - $50
Books:
1) Necessary Illusions by Noam Chomsky - $5
Misc
1) Webcam with a resolution no less than 1024x768. Should be around $30-40
2) LEGO Neptune Carrier - $60
3 A fairly large Amazon gift certificate :P
Monday, May 17, 2010
I Should Have This Guy's Job
This news is about 2 months old, but it's kind of upsetting to me, as a blogger, as someone whose ultimate goal would be to write for pay.
Two months ago, CNN hired a blogger named Erick Erickson to join their political panel. Erickson headed a website called redstate.com, and has said in his blog more irresponsible things and has used more irresponsible language than I could have ever dreamed of saying in my most incensed moods.
Erickson, for rough comparison, is Rush Limbaugh with advanced rabies. Let's take a look at his record: "Upon Justice David Souter’s retirement, Erickson called him 'the only goat-fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court” (Crooks and Liars, 5/1/09).'1
Don't forget the Hitler card: "He declared that White House spokesperson Linda Douglass “really is the Joseph Goebbels of the White House healthcare shop” (TPM, 10/12/09)."2
“Erick’s a perfect fit for John King, USA, because not only is he an agenda-setter whose words are closely watched in Washington, but as a person who still lives in small-town America, Erick is in touch with the very people John hopes to reach,”said Sam Feist, CNN political director and vice president of Washington-based programming. “With Erick’s exceptional knowledge of politics, as well as his role as a conservative opinion leader, he will add an important voice to CNN’s ideologically diverse group of political contributors”3.
Hey, we could reel in some of Glenn Beck's audience if we put up this guy. The author of the AlterNet.org article is right: "CNN is the most trusted name in news? Really?"
They were looking to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and I truly cannot forgive them. Of course, after Dobbs left, they needed their token Teabagger, but come on. This will come across as semi-elitist, but CNN is supposed to be the most trusted name in news precisely because they do not regularly accommodate such people.
I pulled the Hitler card ONCE when talking about the Idaho Republican gubernatorial candidate's endorsement of political violence. And quite possibly the worst thing I ever said about anyone was probably the Pope: "The lowest worm in the highest seat," which is completely justified. It doesn't make sense. You don't call a Supreme Court Justice a goat-fucking child molester and get hired by a reputable news network (Fox doesn't count), though Glenn Beck started on CNN.
Yes, I'm incensed, though more about the support Mr Feist lent to Erickson. "Exceptional knowledge of politics"? You're kidding. Tell me you're kidding. "Erickson is very much in touch with the people John King is trying to reach." That may be true, but why is King trying to legitimize xenophobia? There are places you just don't go, even for ratings. And if you are trying to reach them, try to educate them. Don't bring them on board infected by small-town ignorance.
There is something I hold quite dear, and CNN (until now) and even MSNBC adhere to it: We need actual discourse. We need mutual respect. This makes for better governance through policy education. We need less knee-jerking and more fair evaluation of policies. When you knee-jerk, you don't have much else, and it shows.
Erick Erickson is not someone who would be appropriate on an actual news network, much less a self-described trusted one. Glenn Beck's lost sheep are either still with him ideologically, or are no longer interested in his Nazi Tourette's4. Hiring Erickson only hurt CNN, because no educated person wants to tolerate the Hitler card.
-----------------------------
Hitler:
-Can be played once every 10 games. If card is played any more than that, player will be laughed at by all other players and s/he immediately forfeits the game without exception.
-Most effective when describing policies or sentiments that severely violate civil liberties (such as supporting militia action5); it backfires against policies that are intended to directly benefit people (ie the healthcare bill comparison makes Hitler look slightly less evil, instead of making Obama look more evil).
-----------------------------
I think I should be sitting where Erickson is. But of course, I don't appeal to Sarah Palin's America, which was their objective in hiring him. I think he's poisonous to their network, and I think he's poisonous to constructive governance. I think it's fine that he has his own blog, but I don't think it's fine that his "goat-fucking child-molester" comments should be given any legitimacy in the mainstream. I think it's amusing that another anchor on CNN grilled him on the air for his comments, and he apologized profusely6. This is not what CNN is, nor is it what CNN should aspire to be. CNN =/= Fox. Isn't there a more responsible Republican commentator that could be found? *silence* It's funny that MSNBC took all of the good ones for their Sunday shows. Liberal news network, what?
1) http://www.alternet.org/story/146070/erick_erickson_is_the_new_cnn_go-to_bigot%2C_misogynist_and_homophobe/?page=1
2) Ibid
3) Ibid
4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/lewis-black-glenn-beck-ha_n_574659.html
5) http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/idaho-republican-rex-rammell-governor-election-miltia
6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/stewart-slams-cnn-for-hir_n_522949.html
Two months ago, CNN hired a blogger named Erick Erickson to join their political panel. Erickson headed a website called redstate.com, and has said in his blog more irresponsible things and has used more irresponsible language than I could have ever dreamed of saying in my most incensed moods.
Erickson, for rough comparison, is Rush Limbaugh with advanced rabies. Let's take a look at his record: "Upon Justice David Souter’s retirement, Erickson called him 'the only goat-fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court” (Crooks and Liars, 5/1/09).'1
Don't forget the Hitler card: "He declared that White House spokesperson Linda Douglass “really is the Joseph Goebbels of the White House healthcare shop” (TPM, 10/12/09)."2
“Erick’s a perfect fit for John King, USA, because not only is he an agenda-setter whose words are closely watched in Washington, but as a person who still lives in small-town America, Erick is in touch with the very people John hopes to reach,”said Sam Feist, CNN political director and vice president of Washington-based programming. “With Erick’s exceptional knowledge of politics, as well as his role as a conservative opinion leader, he will add an important voice to CNN’s ideologically diverse group of political contributors”3.
Hey, we could reel in some of Glenn Beck's audience if we put up this guy. The author of the AlterNet.org article is right: "CNN is the most trusted name in news? Really?"
They were looking to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and I truly cannot forgive them. Of course, after Dobbs left, they needed their token Teabagger, but come on. This will come across as semi-elitist, but CNN is supposed to be the most trusted name in news precisely because they do not regularly accommodate such people.
I pulled the Hitler card ONCE when talking about the Idaho Republican gubernatorial candidate's endorsement of political violence. And quite possibly the worst thing I ever said about anyone was probably the Pope: "The lowest worm in the highest seat," which is completely justified. It doesn't make sense. You don't call a Supreme Court Justice a goat-fucking child molester and get hired by a reputable news network (Fox doesn't count), though Glenn Beck started on CNN.
Yes, I'm incensed, though more about the support Mr Feist lent to Erickson. "Exceptional knowledge of politics"? You're kidding. Tell me you're kidding. "Erickson is very much in touch with the people John King is trying to reach." That may be true, but why is King trying to legitimize xenophobia? There are places you just don't go, even for ratings. And if you are trying to reach them, try to educate them. Don't bring them on board infected by small-town ignorance.
There is something I hold quite dear, and CNN (until now) and even MSNBC adhere to it: We need actual discourse. We need mutual respect. This makes for better governance through policy education. We need less knee-jerking and more fair evaluation of policies. When you knee-jerk, you don't have much else, and it shows.
Erick Erickson is not someone who would be appropriate on an actual news network, much less a self-described trusted one. Glenn Beck's lost sheep are either still with him ideologically, or are no longer interested in his Nazi Tourette's4. Hiring Erickson only hurt CNN, because no educated person wants to tolerate the Hitler card.
-----------------------------
Hitler:
-Can be played once every 10 games. If card is played any more than that, player will be laughed at by all other players and s/he immediately forfeits the game without exception.
-Most effective when describing policies or sentiments that severely violate civil liberties (such as supporting militia action5); it backfires against policies that are intended to directly benefit people (ie the healthcare bill comparison makes Hitler look slightly less evil, instead of making Obama look more evil).
-----------------------------
I think I should be sitting where Erickson is. But of course, I don't appeal to Sarah Palin's America, which was their objective in hiring him. I think he's poisonous to their network, and I think he's poisonous to constructive governance. I think it's fine that he has his own blog, but I don't think it's fine that his "goat-fucking child-molester" comments should be given any legitimacy in the mainstream. I think it's amusing that another anchor on CNN grilled him on the air for his comments, and he apologized profusely6. This is not what CNN is, nor is it what CNN should aspire to be. CNN =/= Fox. Isn't there a more responsible Republican commentator that could be found? *silence* It's funny that MSNBC took all of the good ones for their Sunday shows. Liberal news network, what?
1) http://www.alternet.org/story/146070/erick_erickson_is_the_new_cnn_go-to_bigot%2C_misogynist_and_homophobe/?page=1
2) Ibid
3) Ibid
4) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/lewis-black-glenn-beck-ha_n_574659.html
5) http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/03/idaho-republican-rex-rammell-governor-election-miltia
6) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/stewart-slams-cnn-for-hir_n_522949.html
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Letter to John Boehner
My grandma received a Republican political survey (she has Alzheimer's so she can't fill it out), so my mother gave it to me to play with. After completing the survey, I drew up the following letter, which I plan to send along with the survey. I may censor Shepherd Smith's colorful exclamation when I print it out.
----------------------------------------------------
Dear John Boehner and the RNC,
It is my personal understanding as an educated citizen of the United States that the Republican Party is not acting on behalf of the American people on any single issue.
Furthermore, I found the survey sent to me on behalf of that same party to be unfair and unbalanced, deliberately slandering and making unjustified swipes at the opposition. The term “socialism” used in question number 9 is used chiefly to terrify your constituents and is absolutely devoid of merit.
I do not condone the torture of enemies within our custody (mentioned in #11). We are the United States of America. As Shepherd Smith once proclaimed, “We do not fucking torture!” We are better than that, we have even survived the USSR. We cannot debase ourselves and become the very monsters which we are currently fighting. You believe Barack Obama is straying from the Constitution, while at the same time you argue for waterboarding and Christian theocratic governance, particularly against homosexuals. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states—and I quote—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof.” This, of course, includes using Christian ideology to justify discriminatory policies towards homosexuals, as well as Creationism (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, 2005), and Christian historical revisionism in the Texas public schools.
Let us move on to the issue of national security. If it is indeed true that we must be “relentless in our efforts to protect Americans from terrorist attack”—and no one is arguing that we shouldn’t be—then it would follow that the Republican Party would equally support cleaner energy. Oil is controlled by regimes that are supportive of the militias that wish to do us harm. Furthermore, oil is controlled by regimes that do not share our values of democracy and individual freedoms, particularly of expression. These governments do not represent the will of their peoples, and are without exception despotisms. A particular offender is Saudi Arabia, with whom, against our stated interests, we have a healthy relationship while their women are oppressed under Wahhabi ideology (the fundamentalist sect of Islam). On its face, the Saudi government is trying to get its imams to tame the rhetoric, but still government charity money finds its way into the bank accounts of Wahhabi schools and the terrorist militias we encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Regimes reliant upon petroleum do not have to tax their people. Tom Friedman laid out the dynamic quite nicely in his Hot, Flat, & Crowded: He said that while our motto was “No taxation without representation!” the motto of oil states is “No taxation, so no representation, either.”1 I’d rather pay taxes to have a fire department, a police department, a decent school district, and have a say in public policy than not pay taxes and have none of those things. And how do you expect to pay for two large military campaigns, when our Defense Department had to ship out soldiers without sufficient equipment? Saving money by expending soldiers is not a good policy.
Question # 20 is particularly uncomfortable “because there is no room for compromise.” Scott Roeder didn’t compromise, did he, when he shot Dr George Tiller last year. Neither does the KKK when they launch campaigns in the southern Midwest against Mexicans. Proposition 8 in California wasn’t a compromise, either, what with all of the money pumped in from Utah. No, George W Bush didn’t compromise when he signed the PATRIOT Act and Alberto Gonzales helped him slip through legal standards of interrogation. How can we expect to get anything done if Israel and Palestine do not compromise on peace agreements? The only way the Jews will have a home is if both sides can leave each other well enough alone. Building settlements in the West Bank will only exacerbate the situation. What do you want with Social Security? It’s already going bankrupt, what more could you want? Are tax cuts for the wealthy really going to help our economy? Our government has the means and the resources to alleviate economic hardship at least a little, and create markets for cleaner energy, enticing venture capitalists and corporate R & D divisions to build and deploy wind turbines and solar panels to the scale we need them for. If our government does not take this step, when will our energy companies decide to take the initiative? They’ve had 8 years to take the initiative, and all our industries have been able to produce are even bigger cars that consume more oil and give more money to our enemies abroad—even as the fighting was most intense.
Also of note, though I must examine it separately, is the Republican position on the judicial system. The term “Activist Judge” is a farce. I mentioned above the Dover Area School District case in 2005. Before the trial, Christian conservative pundits praised Judge John Jones III for believing almost exactly like them, being fairly confident that Creationism would be seen in a more scientific light. However, Judge Jones III, like all judges, is bound by the US Constitution and must rule in accordance with it. The Creationist movement has been exposed as an inherently religious phenomenon, and it was decided that it was a violation of the First Amendment to include it in a science curriculum. A court case such as that one, as well as the one that will come in Texas over the history curriculum, arises because someone—and that person can be anyone—recognizes a violation of our laws. These came about by injecting political ideology (which often carries with it deliberate misinformation) into a public school. The judge then has a task of evaluating fairly the arguments and appropriateness of the actions taken by both sides and rules whether or not they do in fact adhere to or violate US law as it is written. This is true in all cases of this type, often involving religious matters in public policy, and as a refresher, here is, once again, the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof.”
The only way for the Republicans to earn some respect now is if they begin to make responsible choices. And that means shutting down Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Progressivism is not a cancer on this country, and few people—if any at all—are serious socialists. Would a major political party be acting responsibly if it attempted to bring back Joseph McCarthy’s HUAC? Is that something that a political party in the United States of America—where people have the right to express themselves and assemble freely even in the face of opposition—feels it should do? Sir, I suggest you rethink how your party and your constituents conduct themselves if you wish to regain power. No major Democrat has ever publicly stated that conservatism is a cancer on its face, nor has any major Democrat ever brought a gun to a campaign rally, or openly supported assassinating any opposing political leader (Solomon Forell). A political party in such a state has no place in government. In the words of Michael Steele, RNC chairman, “We don’t do policy.” Even if people disagree with the Democrats on healthcare, I’m sure they are more well-liked than Glenn Beck.
1) Friedman, Tom. Hot, Flat, & Crowded. ©Picador 2007 Revised 2009. New York. p. 135
Dear John Boehner and the RNC,
It is my personal understanding as an educated citizen of the United States that the Republican Party is not acting on behalf of the American people on any single issue.
Furthermore, I found the survey sent to me on behalf of that same party to be unfair and unbalanced, deliberately slandering and making unjustified swipes at the opposition. The term “socialism” used in question number 9 is used chiefly to terrify your constituents and is absolutely devoid of merit.
I do not condone the torture of enemies within our custody (mentioned in #11). We are the United States of America. As Shepherd Smith once proclaimed, “We do not fucking torture!” We are better than that, we have even survived the USSR. We cannot debase ourselves and become the very monsters which we are currently fighting. You believe Barack Obama is straying from the Constitution, while at the same time you argue for waterboarding and Christian theocratic governance, particularly against homosexuals. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states—and I quote—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof.” This, of course, includes using Christian ideology to justify discriminatory policies towards homosexuals, as well as Creationism (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, 2005), and Christian historical revisionism in the Texas public schools.
Let us move on to the issue of national security. If it is indeed true that we must be “relentless in our efforts to protect Americans from terrorist attack”—and no one is arguing that we shouldn’t be—then it would follow that the Republican Party would equally support cleaner energy. Oil is controlled by regimes that are supportive of the militias that wish to do us harm. Furthermore, oil is controlled by regimes that do not share our values of democracy and individual freedoms, particularly of expression. These governments do not represent the will of their peoples, and are without exception despotisms. A particular offender is Saudi Arabia, with whom, against our stated interests, we have a healthy relationship while their women are oppressed under Wahhabi ideology (the fundamentalist sect of Islam). On its face, the Saudi government is trying to get its imams to tame the rhetoric, but still government charity money finds its way into the bank accounts of Wahhabi schools and the terrorist militias we encounter in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Regimes reliant upon petroleum do not have to tax their people. Tom Friedman laid out the dynamic quite nicely in his Hot, Flat, & Crowded: He said that while our motto was “No taxation without representation!” the motto of oil states is “No taxation, so no representation, either.”1 I’d rather pay taxes to have a fire department, a police department, a decent school district, and have a say in public policy than not pay taxes and have none of those things. And how do you expect to pay for two large military campaigns, when our Defense Department had to ship out soldiers without sufficient equipment? Saving money by expending soldiers is not a good policy.
Question # 20 is particularly uncomfortable “because there is no room for compromise.” Scott Roeder didn’t compromise, did he, when he shot Dr George Tiller last year. Neither does the KKK when they launch campaigns in the southern Midwest against Mexicans. Proposition 8 in California wasn’t a compromise, either, what with all of the money pumped in from Utah. No, George W Bush didn’t compromise when he signed the PATRIOT Act and Alberto Gonzales helped him slip through legal standards of interrogation. How can we expect to get anything done if Israel and Palestine do not compromise on peace agreements? The only way the Jews will have a home is if both sides can leave each other well enough alone. Building settlements in the West Bank will only exacerbate the situation. What do you want with Social Security? It’s already going bankrupt, what more could you want? Are tax cuts for the wealthy really going to help our economy? Our government has the means and the resources to alleviate economic hardship at least a little, and create markets for cleaner energy, enticing venture capitalists and corporate R & D divisions to build and deploy wind turbines and solar panels to the scale we need them for. If our government does not take this step, when will our energy companies decide to take the initiative? They’ve had 8 years to take the initiative, and all our industries have been able to produce are even bigger cars that consume more oil and give more money to our enemies abroad—even as the fighting was most intense.
Also of note, though I must examine it separately, is the Republican position on the judicial system. The term “Activist Judge” is a farce. I mentioned above the Dover Area School District case in 2005. Before the trial, Christian conservative pundits praised Judge John Jones III for believing almost exactly like them, being fairly confident that Creationism would be seen in a more scientific light. However, Judge Jones III, like all judges, is bound by the US Constitution and must rule in accordance with it. The Creationist movement has been exposed as an inherently religious phenomenon, and it was decided that it was a violation of the First Amendment to include it in a science curriculum. A court case such as that one, as well as the one that will come in Texas over the history curriculum, arises because someone—and that person can be anyone—recognizes a violation of our laws. These came about by injecting political ideology (which often carries with it deliberate misinformation) into a public school. The judge then has a task of evaluating fairly the arguments and appropriateness of the actions taken by both sides and rules whether or not they do in fact adhere to or violate US law as it is written. This is true in all cases of this type, often involving religious matters in public policy, and as a refresher, here is, once again, the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof.”
The only way for the Republicans to earn some respect now is if they begin to make responsible choices. And that means shutting down Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Progressivism is not a cancer on this country, and few people—if any at all—are serious socialists. Would a major political party be acting responsibly if it attempted to bring back Joseph McCarthy’s HUAC? Is that something that a political party in the United States of America—where people have the right to express themselves and assemble freely even in the face of opposition—feels it should do? Sir, I suggest you rethink how your party and your constituents conduct themselves if you wish to regain power. No major Democrat has ever publicly stated that conservatism is a cancer on its face, nor has any major Democrat ever brought a gun to a campaign rally, or openly supported assassinating any opposing political leader (Solomon Forell). A political party in such a state has no place in government. In the words of Michael Steele, RNC chairman, “We don’t do policy.” Even if people disagree with the Democrats on healthcare, I’m sure they are more well-liked than Glenn Beck.
1) Friedman, Tom. Hot, Flat, & Crowded. ©Picador 2007 Revised 2009. New York. p. 135
The Dysfunction of the Legislature
For quite a while, people have been complaining about Congress not doing what we view as what its supposed to be doing, specifically over the long-stalled fight over health reform.
Everyone sees this problem, from my dad (who is center-right), to myself (left). However, few people are able to offer a viable solution to this problem. They either offer a very short-term solution, or one in which our rights are sacrificed in an extreme fashion (ie violence).
We can pick out some juicy examples from both sides, from Byrd, who is older than the tree in my front yard, to the Republican senators who collaborated with Jack Abramoff (our collective memory is so comfortably short!). In 2006, we voted out who we saw as the worst offenders, but of course the incoming class proceeded to only gorge themselves on the work of their predecessors. By now a lot of us see the futility of our election system.
The problem is sometimes people descend into fantasies of revolution and bloodshed, often for rhetorical effect, but still we cannot let a call to violence linger in the minds of our gullible public*, lest we lose everything.
My solution is an Executive Order that imposes term limits of three two year terms, a maximum total of six years and declares public all financial gifts given to legislators by corporate and other private interests and posts this information on legislators' web pages. I would start there, but if anyone else has anything to add, I'd be happy to modify it.
Why should this come from the Executive? Because no legislator is stupid enough to put a stop to the good life. Come to think of it, I'm not sure the Executive would be so keen to do it either. He might lose political leverage. The Judiciary would have to do it.
The somewhat naive sentiment that the Founding Fathers supposedly had about being a legislator (that it was a boring job, people would want to return to normal life after their "turn") is costing us quite a lot. It turned out that these people could write the best rules for themselves--the best healthcare, amass a small fortune from financial gifts, and fail to follow their own regulations.
This problem isn't just going to hurt us now--it will continue to hurt us in the future, and will eventually cripple us. Yes, I want health reform, but there are too many other things this country needs to pass in order to prosper, and the partisanship on both sides is destroying our democracy.
We have one country. We could have more countries, but I'm sure too many citizens love America as it is to just split it up. Only in the last few decades have we had to contend with serious legitimacy problems when agendas on the right particularly during W. Bush tenure eroded freedoms. I'm not just talking about the PATRIOT Act, but also DOMA and the threat posed to abortion and euthanasia (remember Terri Schaivo? Hows that for an example of a Republican congressional disaster?).
The Republicans are currently claiming that Obama is a radical Socialist/Communist/Nazi/Muslim and all other nonsensical and dangerous terms. Membership in far-right militias and weapons purchases are increasing as they had in the 90s. Now Republican senators are crying "Obama's gonna shove this bill down the throats of the American people!" Even if you think the bill was somehow done poorly, you know that we need some form of health reform.
Do you know why, though, the Democrats don't particularly believe that the Republicans are sincere when they ask to "start over"? "Death panels and Socialism!" Simple as that. The Republican representatives spent the beginning of the process--when they could have helped to ensure that the bill was done correctly--vilifying the Democrats and the Obama administration to their constituents, so when it came time to actually pass the bill, they say "Oh no! We didnt get any input! They didnt ask for our opinions!", even though everyone knows they were fooling around instead. Here's an illustration: A student in class spends the entire 5 months doodling instead of taking notes. When the final exam comes around, the students claim that they didnt get the notes and couldnt study for the exam. Too bad.
The problem is now the question of a "bad bill." I can't believe the Republicans, but we also have "Blue Dog Democrats" and Good Ole' Joe Lieberman. What do they want? Is there actually something bad about the healthcare bill, or is the opposition just bullshitting? I really can't tell. Kurt came over last night, and he could not give us a very good example of a problem with the bill. "Backroom deals!" Well, you do have to negotiate and see what is actually possible for pharmaceutical companies and doctors to do, so I don't immediately fault them. I'd need more evidence to be convinced of any wrongdoing.
I admit that I have spent much of this essay vilifying Republicans, and there are a few things Democrats as yet are not willing to do. For example, no one really wants to touch environmental reform, and Obama has not yet put enough funding into R & D for cleaner energy.
To you small government people, the businesses upon which you would depend are not willing to take the risk to get us what we need: The government has the means and the resources to at least indicate a market for cleaner energy, and the businesses, armed with a price point ("We need to make a solar panel/wind turbine/hydroelectric plant that costs under $2000/$5,000/$5 mil") will follow. We also need to neuter the influence of coal and petroleum, and only the government can do that. The government, however, should not have to impose greater efficiency standards. It is sad that we have stagnated for so long, as businesses have once thrived by themselves on innovation. Do we need to tell AMD and Intel to make faster and more energy-efficient processors? No. So why do we need to tell GM and Ford to make more energy-efficient vehicles? I dont think Toyota was pushed to make the Prius.
I said "We also need to neuter the influence of coal and petroleum, and only the government can do that." I didn't say they will. There are things our government needs to do that it just won't, and it will hurt us in the long run. For example, we do NEED to get off of petroleum. I don't care if you believe in climate change or not: By using gasoline, we are supporting governments we do not agree with. If we want Iran to halt construction of nuclear materials, we should stop buying their oil. If we don't want the Saudi government to fund terrorism, we stop buying their oil. Same for everywhere else. In those countries, oil deposits are nationalized.
Funny thing about oil regimes, by the way. Page 135 of Tom Friedman's Hot Flat & Crowded: "The way I like to put it is: The motto of the American Revolution was 'No taxation without Representation!' The motto of the petrolist authoritarian state is 'No taxation, so no representation either.' Oil-backed regimes that do not have to tax their people for revenue--because they can just drill an oil well and sell the oil abroad--do not have to listen to their people or represent their wishes." Maybe you think that the way we are taxed is unfair, but I'd rather be taxed and have a say than to not be taxed and have no say. I think of the problem not unlike Socrates did in The Crito: Socrates has been imprisoned after The Apology and is about to be executed the next morning, and Crito tries to convince Socrates that he should escape because the courts were clearly wrong. Socrates replies that by living in Athens, he has entered into a kind of contract that he agrees with the laws of the state. I don't agree entirely with this, as there certainly are Unjust Laws, but I do see this dynamic, and I also see that this dynamic exists in relation to taxes, as demonstrated in Tom Friedman's comparison. How much or how little we should be taxed remains to be examined, however (but lets not fly planes into buildings to bring it up, or call the President a n----- over it).
Our government (particularly the legislature), so long as these influences exist, and so long as the prospect of reelection exists (the two kind of go hand-in-hand), probably will not see the problem in favor of the people they claim to represent. We need to solve this problem complying with two conditions: 1) it must be non-violent and democratic, and 2) the solution must be permanent (replacing old legislators does not fix the problem).
*Gullible public: Bill Maher made a good case that the American people are not very intelligent, and so long with the Tea Partiers, Sarah Palin's popularity, Christian revisionism/creationism, and the vitriol against Obama, I'd say he's unfortunately right.
Everyone sees this problem, from my dad (who is center-right), to myself (left). However, few people are able to offer a viable solution to this problem. They either offer a very short-term solution, or one in which our rights are sacrificed in an extreme fashion (ie violence).
We can pick out some juicy examples from both sides, from Byrd, who is older than the tree in my front yard, to the Republican senators who collaborated with Jack Abramoff (our collective memory is so comfortably short!). In 2006, we voted out who we saw as the worst offenders, but of course the incoming class proceeded to only gorge themselves on the work of their predecessors. By now a lot of us see the futility of our election system.
The problem is sometimes people descend into fantasies of revolution and bloodshed, often for rhetorical effect, but still we cannot let a call to violence linger in the minds of our gullible public*, lest we lose everything.
My solution is an Executive Order that imposes term limits of three two year terms, a maximum total of six years and declares public all financial gifts given to legislators by corporate and other private interests and posts this information on legislators' web pages. I would start there, but if anyone else has anything to add, I'd be happy to modify it.
Why should this come from the Executive? Because no legislator is stupid enough to put a stop to the good life. Come to think of it, I'm not sure the Executive would be so keen to do it either. He might lose political leverage. The Judiciary would have to do it.
The somewhat naive sentiment that the Founding Fathers supposedly had about being a legislator (that it was a boring job, people would want to return to normal life after their "turn") is costing us quite a lot. It turned out that these people could write the best rules for themselves--the best healthcare, amass a small fortune from financial gifts, and fail to follow their own regulations.
This problem isn't just going to hurt us now--it will continue to hurt us in the future, and will eventually cripple us. Yes, I want health reform, but there are too many other things this country needs to pass in order to prosper, and the partisanship on both sides is destroying our democracy.
We have one country. We could have more countries, but I'm sure too many citizens love America as it is to just split it up. Only in the last few decades have we had to contend with serious legitimacy problems when agendas on the right particularly during W. Bush tenure eroded freedoms. I'm not just talking about the PATRIOT Act, but also DOMA and the threat posed to abortion and euthanasia (remember Terri Schaivo? Hows that for an example of a Republican congressional disaster?).
The Republicans are currently claiming that Obama is a radical Socialist/Communist/Nazi/M
Do you know why, though, the Democrats don't particularly believe that the Republicans are sincere when they ask to "start over"? "Death panels and Socialism!" Simple as that. The Republican representatives spent the beginning of the process--when they could have helped to ensure that the bill was done correctly--vilifying the Democrats and the Obama administration to their constituents, so when it came time to actually pass the bill, they say "Oh no! We didnt get any input! They didnt ask for our opinions!", even though everyone knows they were fooling around instead. Here's an illustration: A student in class spends the entire 5 months doodling instead of taking notes. When the final exam comes around, the students claim that they didnt get the notes and couldnt study for the exam. Too bad.
The problem is now the question of a "bad bill." I can't believe the Republicans, but we also have "Blue Dog Democrats" and Good Ole' Joe Lieberman. What do they want? Is there actually something bad about the healthcare bill, or is the opposition just bullshitting? I really can't tell. Kurt came over last night, and he could not give us a very good example of a problem with the bill. "Backroom deals!" Well, you do have to negotiate and see what is actually possible for pharmaceutical companies and doctors to do, so I don't immediately fault them. I'd need more evidence to be convinced of any wrongdoing.
I admit that I have spent much of this essay vilifying Republicans, and there are a few things Democrats as yet are not willing to do. For example, no one really wants to touch environmental reform, and Obama has not yet put enough funding into R & D for cleaner energy.
To you small government people, the businesses upon which you would depend are not willing to take the risk to get us what we need: The government has the means and the resources to at least indicate a market for cleaner energy, and the businesses, armed with a price point ("We need to make a solar panel/wind turbine/hydroelectric plant that costs under $2000/$5,000/$5 mil") will follow. We also need to neuter the influence of coal and petroleum, and only the government can do that. The government, however, should not have to impose greater efficiency standards. It is sad that we have stagnated for so long, as businesses have once thrived by themselves on innovation. Do we need to tell AMD and Intel to make faster and more energy-efficient processors? No. So why do we need to tell GM and Ford to make more energy-efficient vehicles? I dont think Toyota was pushed to make the Prius.
I said "We also need to neuter the influence of coal and petroleum, and only the government can do that." I didn't say they will. There are things our government needs to do that it just won't, and it will hurt us in the long run. For example, we do NEED to get off of petroleum. I don't care if you believe in climate change or not: By using gasoline, we are supporting governments we do not agree with. If we want Iran to halt construction of nuclear materials, we should stop buying their oil. If we don't want the Saudi government to fund terrorism, we stop buying their oil. Same for everywhere else. In those countries, oil deposits are nationalized.
Funny thing about oil regimes, by the way. Page 135 of Tom Friedman's Hot Flat & Crowded: "The way I like to put it is: The motto of the American Revolution was 'No taxation without Representation!' The motto of the petrolist authoritarian state is 'No taxation, so no representation either.' Oil-backed regimes that do not have to tax their people for revenue--because they can just drill an oil well and sell the oil abroad--do not have to listen to their people or represent their wishes." Maybe you think that the way we are taxed is unfair, but I'd rather be taxed and have a say than to not be taxed and have no say. I think of the problem not unlike Socrates did in The Crito: Socrates has been imprisoned after The Apology and is about to be executed the next morning, and Crito tries to convince Socrates that he should escape because the courts were clearly wrong. Socrates replies that by living in Athens, he has entered into a kind of contract that he agrees with the laws of the state. I don't agree entirely with this, as there certainly are Unjust Laws, but I do see this dynamic, and I also see that this dynamic exists in relation to taxes, as demonstrated in Tom Friedman's comparison. How much or how little we should be taxed remains to be examined, however (but lets not fly planes into buildings to bring it up, or call the President a n----- over it).
Our government (particularly the legislature), so long as these influences exist, and so long as the prospect of reelection exists (the two kind of go hand-in-hand), probably will not see the problem in favor of the people they claim to represent. We need to solve this problem complying with two conditions: 1) it must be non-violent and democratic, and 2) the solution must be permanent (replacing old legislators does not fix the problem).
*Gullible public: Bill Maher made a good case that the American people are not very intelligent, and so long with the Tea Partiers, Sarah Palin's popularity, Christian revisionism/creationism, and the vitriol against Obama, I'd say he's unfortunately right.
The Problem of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
I've been thinking about the case of the 9/11 mastermind for a few weeks now, and though I've staked out some of my positions in an earlier essay, I haven't given much substantial justification for them.
When I argued with my friend's mom over the topic, I only quietly cited the Constitution--which is a sufficient reason enough for us to be civil towards Mr Mohammed--but there is a deeper and better rationale behind this treatment.
Some people just want to get it over with, sometimes feeling that whatever we do to him--including possible Geneva Convention violations--would be justified because of how evil his actions were. But the truth is, that isn't America. It's as if he were the biggest insect on the planet, and we have trapped him and are preparing simply to get rid of him.
But wait a minute. He's the 9/11 mastermind. We can't just throw him away! We have an opportunity to juxtapose the very best of America against the horrors of Wahhabi ideology. No, this won't sway Mr Mohammed's faithful militias, but it may turn the tide of popular opinion to our favor where we need it most.
Let the man speak. Loudly. Let him call fire and brimstone from the skies. Let him derail us as decadents and infidels. By giving him the opportunity to voice his opinion we are already taking the higher moral ground. The very point is that they do not allow dissenters to speak where he comes from. So let us show him what it is he is fighting against. We can only win.
It isn't just a formality, it isn't simply due process. We have an opportunity to show a part of the world that often only sees Abu Ghraib our better half. Maybe they can see what others see in us.
How would I try KSM? I want a show. I want a loud conflict of ideologies. I want the trial to be seen across the globe, and especially broadcast on al-Jazeera. My only criticism of a military tribunal is that I don't think it could be as public as we need it to be.
The only question that remains is how we will punish him. I've given a lot of thought to this question, and I have come to the conclusion that we should not give him the death penalty. KSM's only goal in life was to end it and take as many people with him as possible for an ultimate reward. Let's deny him that reward. I feel that if we kill him in expedience, he would win. No, I don't believe in an afterlife or any gods, but I would still playing his game insofar as to prevent him from finding peace with himself.
If we aren't going to kill him, what should we do? Here's where I will admit I get a little nasty. Solitary confinement for the maximum possible allowance: KSM should spend as much time completely alone as possible according to the appropriate guidelines. He should be left alone as much as possible--not even harassment. And parole? I will just say that KSM should be up for parole about the same time as when we terraform Mars.
When I argued with my friend's mom over the topic, I only quietly cited the Constitution--which is a sufficient reason enough for us to be civil towards Mr Mohammed--but there is a deeper and better rationale behind this treatment.
Some people just want to get it over with, sometimes feeling that whatever we do to him--including possible Geneva Convention violations--would be justified because of how evil his actions were. But the truth is, that isn't America. It's as if he were the biggest insect on the planet, and we have trapped him and are preparing simply to get rid of him.
But wait a minute. He's the 9/11 mastermind. We can't just throw him away! We have an opportunity to juxtapose the very best of America against the horrors of Wahhabi ideology. No, this won't sway Mr Mohammed's faithful militias, but it may turn the tide of popular opinion to our favor where we need it most.
Let the man speak. Loudly. Let him call fire and brimstone from the skies. Let him derail us as decadents and infidels. By giving him the opportunity to voice his opinion we are already taking the higher moral ground. The very point is that they do not allow dissenters to speak where he comes from. So let us show him what it is he is fighting against. We can only win.
It isn't just a formality, it isn't simply due process. We have an opportunity to show a part of the world that often only sees Abu Ghraib our better half. Maybe they can see what others see in us.
How would I try KSM? I want a show. I want a loud conflict of ideologies. I want the trial to be seen across the globe, and especially broadcast on al-Jazeera. My only criticism of a military tribunal is that I don't think it could be as public as we need it to be.
The only question that remains is how we will punish him. I've given a lot of thought to this question, and I have come to the conclusion that we should not give him the death penalty. KSM's only goal in life was to end it and take as many people with him as possible for an ultimate reward. Let's deny him that reward. I feel that if we kill him in expedience, he would win. No, I don't believe in an afterlife or any gods, but I would still playing his game insofar as to prevent him from finding peace with himself.
If we aren't going to kill him, what should we do? Here's where I will admit I get a little nasty. Solitary confinement for the maximum possible allowance: KSM should spend as much time completely alone as possible according to the appropriate guidelines. He should be left alone as much as possible--not even harassment. And parole? I will just say that KSM should be up for parole about the same time as when we terraform Mars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)