I'm not going to be as nice as David Atkin--the whining of those high rollers who want to buy America because their motives are being exposed is about a lot more than their fragile egos. We're talking about men who make a living by having others carry out their dirty work, men who destroy livelihoods for a few extra dollars, men who don't let their manicured nails ever get dirty, men who close their consciences in the name of free enterprise, men who buy what they want--the costs be damned.
Their despair over the outrage of their attempts to buy our democracy is about gutlessness. It's about cowardice. It's about screwing the American people in the same way they screw their employees and customers, without being able to hide behind the walls of corporate America.
It's about men who aren't men at all.
Peace,
emaycee
Thursday, May 31, 2012
We could be heroes...
There's been a lot of hullaballo (so to speak) over some words spoken by Chris Hayes on his show "Up with Chris Hayes" concerning the use of the word "hero" with regard to those serving in our military. Near as I can tell, Hayes was trying to make the point that we use the word hero perhaps too frequently in terms of the military, and this feeds our too frequent marches to war. He also admits he might be mistaken.
It seems to me much of the charade of anger on the right is because of the god-awful treatment of Vietnam vets upon their return home--there's a lot of retrograde guilt on all sides for what happened, and the right, being good at exploiting, is well, exploiting this to keep the military-industrial complex humming along. This does not mean that Hayes is wrong. Nor does it mean that our service men should be vilified. But in truth, one could make the case that the guy (or gal) going to work each day and paying the taxes that helps support our defense is, in his own way, a hero as well. It also begs the question why we as a nation refuse to give equal praise to those who seek peace.
But in the end, the biggest problem is that it makes it that much harder for another type of hero, a truth teller if you will, to convince the American people that spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined is a travesty, and the good that could be accomplished with the excess of money spent on defense. And that maybe, just maybe, we all might be a lot better off if we concentrated on peace first and more weapons second.
Peace,
emaycee
It seems to me much of the charade of anger on the right is because of the god-awful treatment of Vietnam vets upon their return home--there's a lot of retrograde guilt on all sides for what happened, and the right, being good at exploiting, is well, exploiting this to keep the military-industrial complex humming along. This does not mean that Hayes is wrong. Nor does it mean that our service men should be vilified. But in truth, one could make the case that the guy (or gal) going to work each day and paying the taxes that helps support our defense is, in his own way, a hero as well. It also begs the question why we as a nation refuse to give equal praise to those who seek peace.
But in the end, the biggest problem is that it makes it that much harder for another type of hero, a truth teller if you will, to convince the American people that spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined is a travesty, and the good that could be accomplished with the excess of money spent on defense. And that maybe, just maybe, we all might be a lot better off if we concentrated on peace first and more weapons second.
Peace,
emaycee
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
How not to run a Senate campaign
It was probably a longshot that Pete Hoekstra would defeat Debbie Stabenow this year for the Michigan Senate seat--Stabenow is the incumbent, thanks to Obama's auto bailout and a little buyer's remorse over the 2010 elections Democrat and Independent turnout is likely to be higher, and Stabenow has never been quite the lightining rod for hate that Gov. Granholm was (just quietly goes about her business and gets the job done).
Still, between the racist ad he ran on Super Bowl Sunday and his recent appeal to the birthers....
For a member of a party that advocates less government and less spending...doesn't it seem a bit odd that he'd like to set up a commission to verify the birth records of the Presidential nominees? I mean, couldn't we just take the word of the state's birth records department and FUCKING FACE REALITY?
Just wondering.
Peace,
emaycee
Still, between the racist ad he ran on Super Bowl Sunday and his recent appeal to the birthers....
For a member of a party that advocates less government and less spending...doesn't it seem a bit odd that he'd like to set up a commission to verify the birth records of the Presidential nominees? I mean, couldn't we just take the word of the state's birth records department and FUCKING FACE REALITY?
Just wondering.
Peace,
emaycee
Sunday, May 27, 2012
The same sad echo
It wasn't as if I thought Nolan Finley would ever win a Pulitzer (a Pukelitzer, maybe) for commentary, but Jesus Christ, he and the Detroit News have gone completely off the deep end with their ass kissing of the Antoinettes. His latest diatribe is against all the ballot proposals being worked on here in Michigan--why, heck, if we don't watch out we're gonna end up like all those evil folk in Californey.
Finley's concern is laughable--I certainly didn't hear a whimper from him when republicans were pushing through ballot proposals to enact racism (Affirmative Action Initiative) and Homophobia (Defense of Marriage Act) into law. Methinks Finley's big concern is the ballot proposal to ensure collective bargaining will remain a right for Michigan workers and end once and for all the charade of right to work for less laws. Despite his near constant attempts to turn the UAW into some sort of bogeyman, most people in Michigan are smart enough to realize that the UAW has helped increase all of our wages, and the right to collectively bargain is actually immensely popular. His rants are merely a sop to a bunch of rich white men.
The part that got me the most, though, was when he wrote of the ballot proposal to increase wind power in Michigan (which frankly, isn't high on my priority list) and noted that it was "reportedly" backed by a California billionaire environmentalist.
You know, "reportedly" Nolan Finley has a brain, but when it comes to a piece in a big city newspaper, I'd like some proof, not just Antoinette wishful thinking.
Peace,
emaycee
Finley's concern is laughable--I certainly didn't hear a whimper from him when republicans were pushing through ballot proposals to enact racism (Affirmative Action Initiative) and Homophobia (Defense of Marriage Act) into law. Methinks Finley's big concern is the ballot proposal to ensure collective bargaining will remain a right for Michigan workers and end once and for all the charade of right to work for less laws. Despite his near constant attempts to turn the UAW into some sort of bogeyman, most people in Michigan are smart enough to realize that the UAW has helped increase all of our wages, and the right to collectively bargain is actually immensely popular. His rants are merely a sop to a bunch of rich white men.
The part that got me the most, though, was when he wrote of the ballot proposal to increase wind power in Michigan (which frankly, isn't high on my priority list) and noted that it was "reportedly" backed by a California billionaire environmentalist.
You know, "reportedly" Nolan Finley has a brain, but when it comes to a piece in a big city newspaper, I'd like some proof, not just Antoinette wishful thinking.
Peace,
emaycee
Da Yoopers
The Free Press recently gave front page space to the advocates for the Upper Peninsula (U.P.--for non-natives, it's that section of Michigan above the mitten, separated by Lakes Michigan and Huron) seceding from Michigan and becoming the 51st state. The U.P. is a largely rural area, fairly conservative (though Bart Stupak, a conservative Democrat, did represent them for many years) that's known mostly for being cold (some areas average over 400 inches of snow a year) and barren (less than 3% of Michigan's 11 million citizens live there, and it represents 30% of our land mass).
Needless to say, before I had read the article, it was, "Gee, I wonder what goofy redneck reason they have for that desire?" but after reading it (it remains highly unlikely that the U.P. will secede) you can see that they are raising legitimate concerns that the republicans in Lansing are overstepping their bounds when it comes to mining rights in the U.P.--the article doesn't mention it, but one has to believe the republicans are trying to kiss some corporate ass somewhere on this deal, even though taxes being collected by Lansing are part of it as well.
What was interesting, though, is that it isn't just down here where Gov. Snyder isn't all that popular. I would have figured that the U.P. was one of his safe havens, but judging from the people's reactions (and Gov. Snyder's spokesman's defensive response) he isn't all that popular up there, either.
I still think it's a very longshot that he is defeated in 2014 (too much money, too much of the major media believing the hype that Snyder has actually accomplished something, all evidence to the contrary), but it does give some hope that we might be able to at least make his campaign have to work for it.
Peace,
emaycee
Needless to say, before I had read the article, it was, "Gee, I wonder what goofy redneck reason they have for that desire?" but after reading it (it remains highly unlikely that the U.P. will secede) you can see that they are raising legitimate concerns that the republicans in Lansing are overstepping their bounds when it comes to mining rights in the U.P.--the article doesn't mention it, but one has to believe the republicans are trying to kiss some corporate ass somewhere on this deal, even though taxes being collected by Lansing are part of it as well.
What was interesting, though, is that it isn't just down here where Gov. Snyder isn't all that popular. I would have figured that the U.P. was one of his safe havens, but judging from the people's reactions (and Gov. Snyder's spokesman's defensive response) he isn't all that popular up there, either.
I still think it's a very longshot that he is defeated in 2014 (too much money, too much of the major media believing the hype that Snyder has actually accomplished something, all evidence to the contrary), but it does give some hope that we might be able to at least make his campaign have to work for it.
Peace,
emaycee
Friday, May 25, 2012
Peace, love, and dopes
A while back I was sent this online training by Move.on for the 99% Spring. There is the call for non-violent action, training tips on how not to appear threatening, how to peacefully capture the attention of the powers that be, etc., etc.
Frankly, it's a whole hell of a lot of hogwash.
To be blunt, I had a lot of hope for the Occupy Movement, but unfortunately, it was misplaced. The Occupy Movement is already done. I think it's really great that here and there they are keeping folks from being foreclosed upon or that they're disrupting shareholder meetings with valid questions, but in the end, it's been about as effective as stopping a flurry of bullets by swinging a baseball bat at them. You might get lucky and hit one or two, but in the end, you're going to lose.
The powers that be seemed to have little trouble dispatching the Occupy Movements in numerous cities. As we're seeing right now in Wisconsin (I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling this movie is not going to have a happy ending--in fact, I think we're going to lose so bad that it's going to be an embarrassment of major proportions), them that has the gold makes the rules. Last month's Liberal darling, Ilya Sherman, went down quite easily in Illinois. This month's, Norman Saloman, is well behind in California.
Digby noted earlier this week that we're fighting an uphill battle--the truth is, as much as we might not like it, most American just don't hold Liberal views. Don't think so? House republicans passed a budget that cut 25% from aid for the poor to not have to cut defense spending (where we spend more than the rest of the world combined)--and the outrage, except among the usual suspects (Digby, Daily Kos, Think Progress, etc.) has been exactly where? David Atkins posits that part of it might be that we Liberals just don't do as good of a job as consevatives of appealing to the masses' hearts. It may be the massive amounts of money being made by the powers that be--corporations are showing record profits and CEOs have reached a point where the average worker would have to work 244 years to make what American CEOs make in one year. That kind of money can't just buy material goods beyond the pale, but people's votes and opinions, too. I'm sure it doesn't help that major media outlets are no longer forces for the greater good (or journalism for that matter) but businesses with managers instead of writers. How else to explain The Detroit News and The Detroit Free Press both writing editorials within days of each other extolling the urgency of fixing Social Security now, when, even if the economy stays this bad (highly unlikely) we can pay full benefits for the next twenty fucking years.
In addition to the 99% Spring, I was also treated to this post linked by Digby as being a vital read on what should be our election strategy. Don't get me wrong--the writer makes a lot of good points concerning stealing republican tactics like winning at the local level, taking over the Democratic Party, and being cutthroat with errant members. In the end, though, the piece is basically an advertisement for Norman Saloman, who sounds like he would be a wonderful member of the House, but unfortunately we need about 175 more of him and about 40 more of Bernie Sanders in the Senate, and one President, to boot. Meanwhile, in the light years it will take to accomplish this, more and more of the middle class will find the American dream farther and farther out of reach, and for the poor it will become like trying to take a flying leap and landing on the moon.
Whatever can we do?
The first thing we can do is give up on the whole "What's so Funny About Peace, Love, and Understanding?" strategy. Non-violent action worked wonderfully for Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. because there was a solid base of rational people that could be won over to counterbalance those that couldn't be. Frankly, right now in America, Sarah fucking Palin would draw 45% of the vote for President even though she has as much business being President as Tom Thumb does of being the starting center for the Los Angeles Lakers. And with the amount of money being tossed around on campaigns, it's not so hard to find a willing media and a few more percentage points on any issue or candidate (Willard Romney being a fine example--as brutal as he is as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States it's nothing short of amazing it's even a race). Fuck this turning the other cheek--when we get slapped we need to respond with an elbow to their fucking teeth (or, like Sean Connery in The Untouchables, "...the Chicago way."). Second, it's the economy, the economy, the economy--we spend far too much time gnashing our teeth over saving the planet, gay marriage, or the advantages of being a vegan. They are all noble goals, they help keep the base together...but honestly, if it comes down to eating Elsie or putting your kids through college, which one wins? And that comes to our last one--winning hearts. I see all kinds of well written, fantastically logical, faultlessly researched pieces...zzzzz. Hell, I'm a believer and I skim or completely skip so many of them because they just don't grab me--how the hell do you suppose those on the fence are going to react?
In the end, though, the only way we'll win is to go medieval on their asses. Guillotine a few Wall Street bankers, execute a few hedge fund managers, and we'll be amazed at how quickly sharing their wealth won't seem like such a burden. Marie Antoinette didn't go down in history as a hero for her "let them eat cake" quip. She ended up on the wrong end of a sharp blade, and a lot of people were a lot better off for it.
Peace,
emaycee
Frankly, it's a whole hell of a lot of hogwash.
To be blunt, I had a lot of hope for the Occupy Movement, but unfortunately, it was misplaced. The Occupy Movement is already done. I think it's really great that here and there they are keeping folks from being foreclosed upon or that they're disrupting shareholder meetings with valid questions, but in the end, it's been about as effective as stopping a flurry of bullets by swinging a baseball bat at them. You might get lucky and hit one or two, but in the end, you're going to lose.
The powers that be seemed to have little trouble dispatching the Occupy Movements in numerous cities. As we're seeing right now in Wisconsin (I hope I'm wrong, but I have a feeling this movie is not going to have a happy ending--in fact, I think we're going to lose so bad that it's going to be an embarrassment of major proportions), them that has the gold makes the rules. Last month's Liberal darling, Ilya Sherman, went down quite easily in Illinois. This month's, Norman Saloman, is well behind in California.
Digby noted earlier this week that we're fighting an uphill battle--the truth is, as much as we might not like it, most American just don't hold Liberal views. Don't think so? House republicans passed a budget that cut 25% from aid for the poor to not have to cut defense spending (where we spend more than the rest of the world combined)--and the outrage, except among the usual suspects (Digby, Daily Kos, Think Progress, etc.) has been exactly where? David Atkins posits that part of it might be that we Liberals just don't do as good of a job as consevatives of appealing to the masses' hearts. It may be the massive amounts of money being made by the powers that be--corporations are showing record profits and CEOs have reached a point where the average worker would have to work 244 years to make what American CEOs make in one year. That kind of money can't just buy material goods beyond the pale, but people's votes and opinions, too. I'm sure it doesn't help that major media outlets are no longer forces for the greater good (or journalism for that matter) but businesses with managers instead of writers. How else to explain The Detroit News and The Detroit Free Press both writing editorials within days of each other extolling the urgency of fixing Social Security now, when, even if the economy stays this bad (highly unlikely) we can pay full benefits for the next twenty fucking years.
In addition to the 99% Spring, I was also treated to this post linked by Digby as being a vital read on what should be our election strategy. Don't get me wrong--the writer makes a lot of good points concerning stealing republican tactics like winning at the local level, taking over the Democratic Party, and being cutthroat with errant members. In the end, though, the piece is basically an advertisement for Norman Saloman, who sounds like he would be a wonderful member of the House, but unfortunately we need about 175 more of him and about 40 more of Bernie Sanders in the Senate, and one President, to boot. Meanwhile, in the light years it will take to accomplish this, more and more of the middle class will find the American dream farther and farther out of reach, and for the poor it will become like trying to take a flying leap and landing on the moon.
Whatever can we do?
The first thing we can do is give up on the whole "What's so Funny About Peace, Love, and Understanding?" strategy. Non-violent action worked wonderfully for Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. because there was a solid base of rational people that could be won over to counterbalance those that couldn't be. Frankly, right now in America, Sarah fucking Palin would draw 45% of the vote for President even though she has as much business being President as Tom Thumb does of being the starting center for the Los Angeles Lakers. And with the amount of money being tossed around on campaigns, it's not so hard to find a willing media and a few more percentage points on any issue or candidate (Willard Romney being a fine example--as brutal as he is as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States it's nothing short of amazing it's even a race). Fuck this turning the other cheek--when we get slapped we need to respond with an elbow to their fucking teeth (or, like Sean Connery in The Untouchables, "...the Chicago way."). Second, it's the economy, the economy, the economy--we spend far too much time gnashing our teeth over saving the planet, gay marriage, or the advantages of being a vegan. They are all noble goals, they help keep the base together...but honestly, if it comes down to eating Elsie or putting your kids through college, which one wins? And that comes to our last one--winning hearts. I see all kinds of well written, fantastically logical, faultlessly researched pieces...zzzzz. Hell, I'm a believer and I skim or completely skip so many of them because they just don't grab me--how the hell do you suppose those on the fence are going to react?
In the end, though, the only way we'll win is to go medieval on their asses. Guillotine a few Wall Street bankers, execute a few hedge fund managers, and we'll be amazed at how quickly sharing their wealth won't seem like such a burden. Marie Antoinette didn't go down in history as a hero for her "let them eat cake" quip. She ended up on the wrong end of a sharp blade, and a lot of people were a lot better off for it.
Peace,
emaycee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
