Monday, December 24, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The War on Christmas (and Children!)
If you're not aware, Christmas is coming. Next week, in fact. This wonderful time of year is significant to many people in many different ways. For example, being close to Christmas means it's a really really bad time for your younger brother to overload the washing machine, causing it to short out, which leads to the whole house shorting out and not being able to be fixed from the fuse box, which also leads to a complete power outage that means that gas is flowing into the furnace without the furnace being on, which leads to people smelling gas, which leads to a half an hour of freezing to death waiting for the power and gas company repairmen to get there to fix the damn thing while all you wanted to do was make lemon poppyseed muffins. Not that that's what I did last night.
But this holiday season is also a time when we get reminded of the most important battlefront in today's biggest cultural conflict: The War on Christmas.
It's a big deal. Just ask our friend Bill O'Reilly:
Essentially, then, this War on Christmas is being blamed entirely on the "Secular Progressives" and "Liberals" who don't believe in Jesus and want to force everyone to get abortions at their gay weddings. It's clearly the most pressing issue facing the good Christian people of America today. And you can count on our Republican presidential candidates to way in. Guess who said this:
Other candidates, though, are using this War to help shore up their support. Mike Huckabee, for example (who also may be totally insane) recently released an ad where he more or less apologizes to Iowa for all the political ads, and wishes them all a Merry Christmas where they can celebrate Jesus' birth.
So the War on Christmas continues. Huckabee and his companions on the right have a convenient bogeyman to rail against--the eternal evil godless commie/liberal. It's surprising, then, that these prominent conservatives, Bill O'Reilly included, haven't dug deeper to get at the true causes of the War, because may involve another favorite target--Hollywood--and threaten something that the right holds dear--our children. (except when they're poor and need health care, of course)
Now, it's hard to assign this raging war to any one particular cause--in fact, it seems to be the result of a gradual degradation of "traditional American values" and a decrease over several decades of the willingness of Americans to offend people that celebrate the winter solstice, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or Festivus. This increase in tolerance, then, seems to be part of the problem.
On the other hand, we have a pretty good idea of when this whole decline began. In fact, this timeframe comes from none other than Bill O'Reilly's November 15, 2005 show:
Thirty years before 2005, then, is when this whole thing started. In other words, 1975 was when the evil liberals and secular progressives---including enemies like Representative John Dingell. (click on his name, he's awesome)
1975. Year of Watergate Convictions, Vietnam stuff, Bohemian Rhapsody, Bill marrying Hillary and the death of Francisco Franco (who is still dead). But it was also the year that one of America's most iconic entertainment figures came out and said the following:
On top of all this, this horrible horrible propaganda is still dragged out every Christmastime and shown to children around the world. This screed, straight from the trash can of American popular culture, is clearly responsible for the entire War on Christmas that we are now faced with. If Bill O'Reilly and other conservatives really want to win this War, they have to fight the battle at the source: the evil insidious forces that are corrupting our children.
Oscar the Grouch, you've got a lot to answer for.
But this holiday season is also a time when we get reminded of the most important battlefront in today's biggest cultural conflict: The War on Christmas.
It's a big deal. Just ask our friend Bill O'Reilly:
So yeah. Bill is talking here with John Gibson, author of a book called The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.O'REILLY: See, I think it's all part of the secular progressive agenda --
GIBSON: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: -- to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square. Because if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious- based, usually.
Essentially, then, this War on Christmas is being blamed entirely on the "Secular Progressives" and "Liberals" who don't believe in Jesus and want to force everyone to get abortions at their gay weddings. It's clearly the most pressing issue facing the good Christian people of America today. And you can count on our Republican presidential candidates to way in. Guess who said this:
This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.Mike Huckabee? Duncan Hunter? Fred Thompson? Rudy? Mitt? Nope. It was none other than the libertarian sensation Ron Paul, who most of his supporters claim is totally the best candidate EVER but in reality is batshit insane. I know because google told me so.
Other candidates, though, are using this War to help shore up their support. Mike Huckabee, for example (who also may be totally insane) recently released an ad where he more or less apologizes to Iowa for all the political ads, and wishes them all a Merry Christmas where they can celebrate Jesus' birth.
So the War on Christmas continues. Huckabee and his companions on the right have a convenient bogeyman to rail against--the eternal evil godless commie/liberal. It's surprising, then, that these prominent conservatives, Bill O'Reilly included, haven't dug deeper to get at the true causes of the War, because may involve another favorite target--Hollywood--and threaten something that the right holds dear--our children. (except when they're poor and need health care, of course)
Now, it's hard to assign this raging war to any one particular cause--in fact, it seems to be the result of a gradual degradation of "traditional American values" and a decrease over several decades of the willingness of Americans to offend people that celebrate the winter solstice, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa or Festivus. This increase in tolerance, then, seems to be part of the problem.
On the other hand, we have a pretty good idea of when this whole decline began. In fact, this timeframe comes from none other than Bill O'Reilly's November 15, 2005 show:
But you know, look, the bottom line on this is 30 years ago in this country, unheard of. We would not be having this conversation.
SMITH: Absolutely right.
O'REILLY: Every store in the United States was going "Merry Christmas," "Happy Holidays" "Happy Hanukkah. We hope everybody is happy.
SMITH: This is my -- this is my...
O'REILLY: I'm getting the last word here. It's my show.
Now there is an anti-Christian bias in this country.
Thirty years before 2005, then, is when this whole thing started. In other words, 1975 was when the evil liberals and secular progressives---including enemies like Representative John Dingell. (click on his name, he's awesome)
1975. Year of Watergate Convictions, Vietnam stuff, Bohemian Rhapsody, Bill marrying Hillary and the death of Francisco Franco (who is still dead). But it was also the year that one of America's most iconic entertainment figures came out and said the following:
I hate Christmas.There it was. A beloved children's figure coming out and declaring war on Christmas, Christianity and the whole world. But it didn't stop there. Oh no, he went on to say:
Horrible, despicable trash. But it continues:
Here comes Santa, girls and boys!
So who needs that big red noise?
I’ll tell him where to leave his toys.
I hate Christmas.
Beaming faces everywhere.This horrible anti-Christmas message was beamed into homes across America, showing an entire generation of young children that it was ok, and in fact cool, to hate Christmas. It's no wonder that now, when these children have grown up, we are faced with a divided nation.
Happiness is in the air.
I’m telling you, it isn’t fair!
I hate Christmas!
People loaded with good will,
Giving presents. What a thrill!
That slushy nonsense makes me ill.
I hate Christmas!
...
Christmas carols to be sung.
Decorations to be hung.
Oh, yeah? Well, I stick out my tongue!
I hate Christmas!Christmas bells play loud and strong.
Hurts my ears, all that ding-dong.
Besides, it goes on much too long!
I hate Christmas!
On top of all this, this horrible horrible propaganda is still dragged out every Christmastime and shown to children around the world. This screed, straight from the trash can of American popular culture, is clearly responsible for the entire War on Christmas that we are now faced with. If Bill O'Reilly and other conservatives really want to win this War, they have to fight the battle at the source: the evil insidious forces that are corrupting our children.
Oscar the Grouch, you've got a lot to answer for.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Conscience of a Liberal
We have a complicated relationship, Paul Krugman and I.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html
Lately, I've been finding it difficult to stay together. Any rational human being has to accept that no two people would see eye to eye on every iota of thought conceivable. My mother and I fight over which member of Radiohead we like best (yes, my mom listens to Radiohead), despite being damn close on most things. I fight with my roomate on the necessity to buy decent chicken, despite acknowledging that he and I see eye to eye on nearly everything. But once in a while, you can learn something about someone else that shakes the foundation of your relationship to the core: a belief in a construct so fundamental that it defines the rest of that relationship. In the best of scenarios, this has been with my ex-girlfriend. Believe me when I tell you all that realizing this was certainly for the best.
However, I'm a bit more disturbed by what I now see in Paul Krugman. Ever the brilliant ideologue of my darling liberal wing, Paul Krugman has explained to me practical economics in terms that I can understand both as a mind and a liberal, without requiring me to sacrifice a fraction of my political beliefs. He made the scourge of the horrendously un-democratic eighties into a phenomenon explained by titanic corporate interests, in no way related to the economic failings of a wayward Democratic Party. He, in short, was the liberal for me.
That's why this op-ed was disconcerting. Perhaps I'm alone in doing this, but I don't associate liberalism with a specific set of values and policy goals confined to populism on economic issues and libertarianism (I hate the concept too--see Hope's post below) on social issues. I agree whole-heartedly, 100,000% with these policy notions, believe me. And I despise corporate interests. It's cancerous to American democracy and fundamentally contradictory to our own democratic processes.
However, I arrived at these policy conclusions by a much more powerful notion--the idea of a greater personal philosophy that doesn't govern just what I think of politics, but also what I think of life. I think I owe no less to my decisions than the full-force of m intellect. I sound like a gas-bag, but bare with me here: my idea of liberalism is more of an approach to life than a quarantined set of political expressions. And Paul Krugman just proved to me that he doesn't feel at all the same way.
Paul Krugman would have us believe that to rant on the litany of political philosophies that define liberalism is pragmatic. He'd say (in fact, he DOES say) that the grandeur of the "big table" will yield Democrats nothing in politics but for us to buckle to special interests and lose our goals once again to the pernicious interests of powerful lobbies entirely removed from the Democratic process. He says that Barack Obama comes off as "naive." He's likening John Edwards to FDR, he's saying that John Edwards, showing so much more of an "I'm angry, heed my warnings, be mad as hell" kind of bravado, will curb the insidious influence of lobbies by shutting them out.
This is not liberal. Liberalism is about the pursuit of consent in society, and American liberalism in particular emphasizes that the government has been playing an active role in achieving this consensus. Liberalism, however, is an awkward political ideology in the face of competition: it tends to settle with dissent rather than to fight it. It tends to take dissenters seriously, asking what they mean, and implementing gradual changes sure to gain the full support of our own democracy. Barack Obama is the ultimate liberal candidate, and not because he advocates the best health care plan (he doesn't), or the best urban poverty action plan (not great, but I argue, still better than Edwards), or the most cohesive foreign action plan (I might have to give this one to Biden). Barack Obama is an ideal liberal because his policy ends are driven deeply by the concepts of giving health care to every American. He believes this must be done gradually to convince the American people that this is something that they need. Barack Obama would rather show America that he is right than hammer a message on late night news, shrieking to people about why we need "x" or "y." I agree with what these people are saying, but I don't always agree with why.
This is especially true now, when Americans had what Krugman was suggesting three years ago. They got a message--perhaps more mean-spirited and reckless--that was hammered into their minds. Terrorism, Iraq, threat. Now people feel like they were had by a bunch of people concerned strictly with their own ends. It was a remarkable electoral strategy, but not one to be adopted at the cost of making the country pissed at its government for God knows how long.
And what I find most entertaining about all this is that Krugman had hoped to explain why Edwards was better from a strategic standpoint--that there really isn't nearly as much merit to this "big tent" construct, and that we're bound to get a lot more done by raising hell. He cites polling data, accounting specifically for why the notion of campaigning on populism is "convenient" and "palatable" at this time of national discontent.
No liberal in her or his right mind would think this. This again is catering to the lurid idea of believing that polls are a more appropriate substitute than the national dais where we get to discuss all this. Liberals don't believe that Americans are stupid, and they know that they have time on their side. They believe that with years and years of history to support their works, people will come around even if they don't know the power of liberal ideology. They will eventually come to embrace that history has been very good to liberals, that people are more enfranchised now--more empowered now--than they have ever been. To stress a bottom line, Paul Krugman is in no way any better than the partisans on the Right that he derides. What he doesn't realize is that to replace partisans on the Right with partisans on the left will only exacerbate how Americans feel about their won government right now. A liberal, a real liberal, would work to restore confidence in the American system. She or he wouldn't bow to the anemic notion that liberalism of policy has to work within the conservative status quo.
I realize that much of that was a bit ridic, but to give you some perspective on what I'm thinking, read this article by David Brooks. I thought for sure that I would never see a day when I loved something written by someone who repulses me, and I would be repulsed by someone who, I thought, loved me. Life is funny that way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html
Lately, I've been finding it difficult to stay together. Any rational human being has to accept that no two people would see eye to eye on every iota of thought conceivable. My mother and I fight over which member of Radiohead we like best (yes, my mom listens to Radiohead), despite being damn close on most things. I fight with my roomate on the necessity to buy decent chicken, despite acknowledging that he and I see eye to eye on nearly everything. But once in a while, you can learn something about someone else that shakes the foundation of your relationship to the core: a belief in a construct so fundamental that it defines the rest of that relationship. In the best of scenarios, this has been with my ex-girlfriend. Believe me when I tell you all that realizing this was certainly for the best.
However, I'm a bit more disturbed by what I now see in Paul Krugman. Ever the brilliant ideologue of my darling liberal wing, Paul Krugman has explained to me practical economics in terms that I can understand both as a mind and a liberal, without requiring me to sacrifice a fraction of my political beliefs. He made the scourge of the horrendously un-democratic eighties into a phenomenon explained by titanic corporate interests, in no way related to the economic failings of a wayward Democratic Party. He, in short, was the liberal for me.
That's why this op-ed was disconcerting. Perhaps I'm alone in doing this, but I don't associate liberalism with a specific set of values and policy goals confined to populism on economic issues and libertarianism (I hate the concept too--see Hope's post below) on social issues. I agree whole-heartedly, 100,000% with these policy notions, believe me. And I despise corporate interests. It's cancerous to American democracy and fundamentally contradictory to our own democratic processes.
However, I arrived at these policy conclusions by a much more powerful notion--the idea of a greater personal philosophy that doesn't govern just what I think of politics, but also what I think of life. I think I owe no less to my decisions than the full-force of m intellect. I sound like a gas-bag, but bare with me here: my idea of liberalism is more of an approach to life than a quarantined set of political expressions. And Paul Krugman just proved to me that he doesn't feel at all the same way.
Paul Krugman would have us believe that to rant on the litany of political philosophies that define liberalism is pragmatic. He'd say (in fact, he DOES say) that the grandeur of the "big table" will yield Democrats nothing in politics but for us to buckle to special interests and lose our goals once again to the pernicious interests of powerful lobbies entirely removed from the Democratic process. He says that Barack Obama comes off as "naive." He's likening John Edwards to FDR, he's saying that John Edwards, showing so much more of an "I'm angry, heed my warnings, be mad as hell" kind of bravado, will curb the insidious influence of lobbies by shutting them out.
This is not liberal. Liberalism is about the pursuit of consent in society, and American liberalism in particular emphasizes that the government has been playing an active role in achieving this consensus. Liberalism, however, is an awkward political ideology in the face of competition: it tends to settle with dissent rather than to fight it. It tends to take dissenters seriously, asking what they mean, and implementing gradual changes sure to gain the full support of our own democracy. Barack Obama is the ultimate liberal candidate, and not because he advocates the best health care plan (he doesn't), or the best urban poverty action plan (not great, but I argue, still better than Edwards), or the most cohesive foreign action plan (I might have to give this one to Biden). Barack Obama is an ideal liberal because his policy ends are driven deeply by the concepts of giving health care to every American. He believes this must be done gradually to convince the American people that this is something that they need. Barack Obama would rather show America that he is right than hammer a message on late night news, shrieking to people about why we need "x" or "y." I agree with what these people are saying, but I don't always agree with why.
This is especially true now, when Americans had what Krugman was suggesting three years ago. They got a message--perhaps more mean-spirited and reckless--that was hammered into their minds. Terrorism, Iraq, threat. Now people feel like they were had by a bunch of people concerned strictly with their own ends. It was a remarkable electoral strategy, but not one to be adopted at the cost of making the country pissed at its government for God knows how long.
And what I find most entertaining about all this is that Krugman had hoped to explain why Edwards was better from a strategic standpoint--that there really isn't nearly as much merit to this "big tent" construct, and that we're bound to get a lot more done by raising hell. He cites polling data, accounting specifically for why the notion of campaigning on populism is "convenient" and "palatable" at this time of national discontent.
No liberal in her or his right mind would think this. This again is catering to the lurid idea of believing that polls are a more appropriate substitute than the national dais where we get to discuss all this. Liberals don't believe that Americans are stupid, and they know that they have time on their side. They believe that with years and years of history to support their works, people will come around even if they don't know the power of liberal ideology. They will eventually come to embrace that history has been very good to liberals, that people are more enfranchised now--more empowered now--than they have ever been. To stress a bottom line, Paul Krugman is in no way any better than the partisans on the Right that he derides. What he doesn't realize is that to replace partisans on the Right with partisans on the left will only exacerbate how Americans feel about their won government right now. A liberal, a real liberal, would work to restore confidence in the American system. She or he wouldn't bow to the anemic notion that liberalism of policy has to work within the conservative status quo.
I realize that much of that was a bit ridic, but to give you some perspective on what I'm thinking, read this article by David Brooks. I thought for sure that I would never see a day when I loved something written by someone who repulses me, and I would be repulsed by someone who, I thought, loved me. Life is funny that way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?hp
Monday, December 17, 2007
Libertarian? Since When Is That An Option?
Are people so sick of democrats and republicans that they're ready for 4 years of complete and total anarchy? You know there's one thing to be said about republicans, they make decisions (albeit misguided ones) that they usually stand behind unless they find it's not in their best interest or attractive to their constituency, and are then subject to all kinds of hypocrisies. (Enter Larry Craig, the closeted, self hating, bathroom cruiser) But either way, they have a set of beliefs that they think are going to improve America and enact policy based on those beliefs. (disclaimer: beliefs don't exclude love of money, money grubbing, or sacrificing the poor to gain more money) But libertarians really grind my gears because they think the solution to all the government's ails is no government at all. Honestly, give me a break. But maybe the rest of America disagrees, considering Ron Paul's recent success. I'm definitely not saying he's viable but he's creating quite a stir and in the money primary, there's a lot to be said about raising $6 million in a day. Perhaps, libertarians are potentially the third party that isn't laughed out of every election (Sorry Nader), giving American's a choice between hell, purgatory and or a free for all. Can anyone say ridiculous... Canada's looking more and more attractive each day.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/17/cafferty-ron-pauls-money-bomb/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/17/cafferty-ron-pauls-money-bomb/
Giving Kittens Mittens!
This is a great response to the Sweet Freedom video that was posted a while ago. It elucidates, ever so humorously, how even the most innocuous, uncontroversial issue (the kittens are cold and need mittens) can be complicated in Congress to the point that it is almost impossible to get anything done about it. Plus, it's got bacon (it's pork, yuk yuk), and a Scottish accent. You know you love the Scottish accent.
and now for something completely different!
So my nerdiness not only manifests itself through my political interests, but also my obsession with music. Thus, I have decided, in my infinite boredom here at home, to merge the two into one post. This is what you have been waiting for:
1.Belief- John Mayer
A more mainstream song, that was overshadowed by Waiting on the World to Change (another good one, but not quite list-worthy). Best lyrics:
2.Sons and Daughters- The Decemberists
This one is a little more subtle, but in their live performances they make a point of clarifying that this is a song about hoping that the war will end. Protest lyrics, when they go crazy musically:
3.Little Bombs- Dashboard Confessional
Say what you want about emo music, but you can't deny the lyrics in this one:
4.Heaven Runs On Oil- Nightmare of You
This came out about 3 years ago, and is one of my long time favorites. Best part:
5.Shake The Sheets- Ted Leo and the Pharmacists
This one is definitely Ryan's favorite and it's a very direct criticism of the administration in general. The whole song is pretty scathing, but a good part:
There you have it. Feel free to buy (illegally download) the songs, or just look up the videos on YouTube. I promise they won't disappoint, and that my next post will be more directly related to recent news.
Alex's Top 5 Political Songs of Our Time
(so far...)
Since I have not figured out how to upload music onto this thing, or if it even possible, I am going to resort to quoting lyrics. With no further ado, in no particular order:(so far...)
1.Belief- John Mayer
A more mainstream song, that was overshadowed by Waiting on the World to Change (another good one, but not quite list-worthy). Best lyrics:
We're never gonna win the world
We're never gonna stop the war
We're never gonna beat this
If belief is what we're fighting for
What puts a hundred thousand children in the sand
Belief can
Belief can
What puts the folded flag inside his mother's hand
Belief can
Belief can
2.Sons and Daughters- The Decemberists
This one is a little more subtle, but in their live performances they make a point of clarifying that this is a song about hoping that the war will end. Protest lyrics, when they go crazy musically:
Hear all the bombs fade away
Hear all the bombs fade away
3.Little Bombs- Dashboard Confessional
Say what you want about emo music, but you can't deny the lyrics in this one:
How do you deal with the consequence,
Now that we bear the weight of your arrogance?
I know you and your cons,
Your petty little bombs,
But who will you blame your troubles on now?
We all pay in time,
So how will you clear your conscience when your lies unwind?
4.Heaven Runs On Oil- Nightmare of You
This came out about 3 years ago, and is one of my long time favorites. Best part:
And it's like a good book reads:
Always question your country
There's knives in their blue eyes
So read up and turn off the telly
And say you do!
Say you love us like I know you will
And that our deaths won't be in vain
Or in the name of gasoline
5.Shake The Sheets- Ted Leo and the Pharmacists
This one is definitely Ryan's favorite and it's a very direct criticism of the administration in general. The whole song is pretty scathing, but a good part:
I want to take it to the president, him and all the cabinet, with a broom.
I want to sweep the Halls of Arrogance, sweep the walls of the excrement of these baboons.
But I respect and prize the covenant -- I respect the process, I respect the rules.
When will we find a chord as resonant as to shake the sheets and make us move?
There you have it. Feel free to buy (illegally download) the songs, or just look up the videos on YouTube. I promise they won't disappoint, and that my next post will be more directly related to recent news.
Chris Dodd is cool; Reid needs a spine; Lieberman finds one more reason for me to dislike him
The Huffington Post was full of some interesting stories today. More on the whole FISA controversy. As you may know, there are essentially two bills, one that says 'awww, it's ok telecommunications companies, I forgive you for allowing the government to listen in on my phone calls without a warrant. I mean, what's a violation of civil liberties among friends, right?' and another that, well, doesn't say that. Both versions of the bill (from what I gather from the CBS article linked to from the HP) include "provisions [Bush] said were required to pursue wiretaps of individuals with a minimum of judicial oversight," and the only difference is the so-called immunity provision for telecommunications companies that allowed wiretaps, etc. without warrants in the past.
Harry Reid initially just wanted to put forward the telecomm company friendly bill (put forward by the Senate Intelligence Committee) for a vote. However, many people were obviously ticked off by this, Chris Dodd included. Increasing his awesomeness ten-fold, Chris Dodd is threatening a filibuster on the vote, which is going to make for some great CSPAN watching. Explaining his actions, Dodd said:
So basically, Dodd placed a hold on the legislation, which Reid "apparently" (CBS' words, not mine) is ignoring. Caving in to constituent pressure and the pleas of interns in his office after having to answer the 5 millionth complaint from a constituent about this bill (ok, I made that last part up, but it is probably true. I started my first day interning for Sen. Durbin after the Federal Marriage Amendment debate in the Senate...), Reid is now bringing both versions of the bill up for a vote. Why would he do that?
(p.s. If I disappear in the near future, I am likely being interrogated by the government for my library record. I had to write two lengthy papers this quarter: one on Al-Jazeera and other Arab media outlets and the other on the protection of hateful or offensive speech which included several books about the Nazi march on Skokie in the 70s.)
Harry Reid initially just wanted to put forward the telecomm company friendly bill (put forward by the Senate Intelligence Committee) for a vote. However, many people were obviously ticked off by this, Chris Dodd included. Increasing his awesomeness ten-fold, Chris Dodd is threatening a filibuster on the vote, which is going to make for some great CSPAN watching. Explaining his actions, Dodd said:
“Providing retroactive immunity to companies that may have violated the law will
set a dangerous precedent...Companies who violated the trust of thousands of
their customers will be immune to prosecution and the details of their actions
will stay hidden."
So basically, Dodd placed a hold on the legislation, which Reid "apparently" (CBS' words, not mine) is ignoring. Caving in to constituent pressure and the pleas of interns in his office after having to answer the 5 millionth complaint from a constituent about this bill (ok, I made that last part up, but it is probably true. I started my first day interning for Sen. Durbin after the Federal Marriage Amendment debate in the Senate...), Reid is now bringing both versions of the bill up for a vote. Why would he do that?
“I have determined that in this situation, it would be wrong of me to simplyExasperated sigh. But in other news, Sen. Lieberman finds another reason for me to dislike him! As if I needed another one. The Huffington Post leads me to an article on Politico that states that Leiberman is endorsing McCain tomorrow. I mean, back in the days of the "Straight Talk Express," McCain wasn't such a bad guy, for a Republican, of course. And out of the hodgepodge of Republican candidates now, he may even still shine the brightest. But Lieberman, come on. Who are you trying to woo? The moderates who loved McCain in 2000 have largely left him. Too many 'stand by the presidents' later, McCain is hardly the bastion of moderation and independence that he used to be. If Lieberman is trying to form some kind of independent/moderate alliance, he picked the wrong partner. As the article states, this endorsement is only bad news for McCain, who is still trying to prove that he's "a real conservative," whatever that means anymore. In the end, I'm not against independents or moderation, but I am for standing for something...anything, believing in something...anything. Lieberman needs to figure out both of those things, or lose any base he had for sheer confusion.
choose one committee’s bill over the other," Reid said in a statement.
(p.s. If I disappear in the near future, I am likely being interrogated by the government for my library record. I had to write two lengthy papers this quarter: one on Al-Jazeera and other Arab media outlets and the other on the protection of hateful or offensive speech which included several books about the Nazi march on Skokie in the 70s.)
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Op-ed
for those of you who don't read the nyt cover-to-cover (assuming i'm not the only one), this is an excellent op-ed piece by Frank Rich re: Huckabee, Obama, and all the candidates in between.
unlike my esteemed colleagues, i have no witty remarks to make or insightful analysis to give, i just wanted to give everyone the heads-up about an enjoyable read.
so ... enjoy :D
unlike my esteemed colleagues, i have no witty remarks to make or insightful analysis to give, i just wanted to give everyone the heads-up about an enjoyable read.
so ... enjoy :D
Huckabee and AIDS...oh boy.
A friend sent me this link:
"Huckabee Stands by AIDS Statement"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/09/AR2007120900585.html
Basically, this article details how Mike Huckabee once advocated quarantining people with HIV/AIDS.
Last time I checked you could NOT get HIV/AIDS by being near, touching, or kissing someone with HIV/AIDS. But I haven't checked in awhile.
This is ridiculous! Really? I didn't realize that HIV/AIDS was a political issue. I wonder if the Republican Party has an official stance...
For those interested, here is the original article:
"Huckabee Wanted to Isolate AIDS Patients"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120800713.html
"Huckabee Stands by AIDS Statement"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/09/AR2007120900585.html
Basically, this article details how Mike Huckabee once advocated quarantining people with HIV/AIDS.
Last time I checked you could NOT get HIV/AIDS by being near, touching, or kissing someone with HIV/AIDS. But I haven't checked in awhile.
This is ridiculous! Really? I didn't realize that HIV/AIDS was a political issue. I wonder if the Republican Party has an official stance...
For those interested, here is the original article:
"Huckabee Wanted to Isolate AIDS Patients"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120800713.html
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Random stuff and a rant about renewable energy.
Before this somewhat lengthy bit of procrastination (not that I don't find the works of Fanon and De Beauvoir fascinating, but they aren't nearly as fun as Michelson and Morley) officially starts, has anyone else had problems accessing the blog? For some reason it hasn't loaded for me twice in the past few days. Strange.
To update on my long-winded election posts, Kevin Rudd has been officially sworn in and is starting to govern. Anson Chan won the Hong Kong Island by-election, which is pretty awesome. We'll see if she can hold on to the seat in the full elections in 2008 (which you'll get to hear plenty about, trust me). Also, sorry that the videos regarding Anson Chan aren't nearly as entertaining (but are much nicer) than the Kevin Rudd ones. To replace the Daily Show and Colbert while they've been on strike, I've started watching back episodes of The Chaser's War on Everything, which is like an Australian version of those shows combined with ridiculous stunts and what life would be like as a musical, which explains much of what I've been linking too.
BUT ANYWAYS. Our friends in the House of Representatives passed their energy bill today. From our ever-confident media at Forbes:
So, fuel efficiency standard, check. Ethanol/Biofuels--not great, until we perfect cellulosic ethanol, but I'll take it. Could be a lot worse. Then there's taxes on Oil Companies. Sweet.
But the part that I'm happiest about is the 15% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Essentially, this would require all electric utilities to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2020. If you produce more than 15%, you can sell the credit for the excess amount to utilities that produce less than 15%. This creates a market-based incentive to increase production of energy from renewable sources.
Except guess what? For all their love of the free market and all that, Republicans aren't liking it:
Ok, so there might be some reasoning here. Unfortunately, they must not have heard from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who told us back in 2001 that
Still, Bush has said he'll veto the energy bill as it stands now:
It's almost as if the RPS was a good idea...but no, that can't be. Right? There's no way we'd be able to come up with one policy that'd be really good for the economy and renewable energy. So we should just give up. Benjamin Sovacool, a Post Doc at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, disagrees in 2006:
I can't wait for Bush to veto this. It'll be fun to add "helping renewable energy" to "giving health care to poor kids" and "ending the Iraq war" on the veto list.
To conclude: Renewable Energy Good. Republicans illogical. Anson Chan Good. Kevin Rudd: apparently enjoys strip clubs, but a good leader. Procrastination good. Humor when procrastinating: hard to find, but we'll see. Recycling last year's debate evidence good.
Have fun/good luck with finals! (I just finished midterms yesterday, so it's finals season. Oh joy).
To update on my long-winded election posts, Kevin Rudd has been officially sworn in and is starting to govern. Anson Chan won the Hong Kong Island by-election, which is pretty awesome. We'll see if she can hold on to the seat in the full elections in 2008 (which you'll get to hear plenty about, trust me). Also, sorry that the videos regarding Anson Chan aren't nearly as entertaining (but are much nicer) than the Kevin Rudd ones. To replace the Daily Show and Colbert while they've been on strike, I've started watching back episodes of The Chaser's War on Everything, which is like an Australian version of those shows combined with ridiculous stunts and what life would be like as a musical, which explains much of what I've been linking too.
BUT ANYWAYS. Our friends in the House of Representatives passed their energy bill today. From our ever-confident media at Forbes:
The House measure has four main components. First, it increases vehicle fuel efficiency to a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, up from the current level of 25 mpg. Second, it dramatically boosts production of ethanol and other biofuels, which the president has encouraged. Third, it requires utilities to obtain at least 15% of their electricity from renewable resources, such as wind and solar power. Finally, it includes a $21 billion tax package providing incentives for renewable energy production, paid for largely by taxes on Big Oil.
So, fuel efficiency standard, check. Ethanol/Biofuels--not great, until we perfect cellulosic ethanol, but I'll take it. Could be a lot worse. Then there's taxes on Oil Companies. Sweet.
But the part that I'm happiest about is the 15% Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Essentially, this would require all electric utilities to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources by the year 2020. If you produce more than 15%, you can sell the credit for the excess amount to utilities that produce less than 15%. This creates a market-based incentive to increase production of energy from renewable sources.
Except guess what? For all their love of the free market and all that, Republicans aren't liking it:
Many Senate Republicans--especially in the Southeast where wind power is scarce--aren't comfortable with the "renewable portfolio standard" mandating utilities provide a minimum amount of clean energy production. They're not trying to be anti-green; they simply fear a mandate will raise electricity rates on their constituents and allies in the corporate world.
Ok, so there might be some reasoning here. Unfortunately, they must not have heard from the Union of Concerned Scientists, who told us back in 2001 that
Because an RPS creates a more diverse and competitive market for energy supply,these market forces would reduce natural gas prices and bills.Now, granted, this talks about a 20% RPS. But a 15% RPS is almost as good, and would still save billions of dollars on natural gas. So that objection isn't as bad as the republicans think it would be.Diversifying the electricity mix with renewable energy also helps stabilize electricity prices by easing pressure on natural gas prices and supplies. Under a 20% RPS, average consumer natural gas prices are 3% lower than business as usual in 2010 and 9% lower in 2020. These lower prices would save gas consumers $10 billion per year by 2020.
With ongoing natural gas savings after 2020, an RPS would likely produce net savings for consumers.
Still, Bush has said he'll veto the energy bill as it stands now:
the bill contains several highly objectionable provisions that would impose higher costs on American taxpayers, electricity consumers, and businesses. Specifically, the bill raises taxes in a way that will increase energy costs facing consumers. It would also impose a national renewable electricity standard that would ignore the specific energy and economic needs of individual States. If H.R. 6 were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.Oh, here's a new objection. The needs of the States won't be met. That'd be really damning if they were being met in the present system. From Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, in 2006:
Many RPS programs remain in very early stages of implementation, and many states are facing serious implementation challenges. How should renewable energy be defined? How should individual states deal with intra-state and inter-state transmission capacity, an issue that calls for greater inter-state collaboration in policy development?So...the states aren't doing so well either, are they. Darn. Looks like they can't use that argument.
...
These states are also, however, pushing up against the limits of what states can do without federal support and coordination. Engagement between state and federal policy makers on this issue has been surprisingly limited, and is overdue.
It's almost as if the RPS was a good idea...but no, that can't be. Right? There's no way we'd be able to come up with one policy that'd be really good for the economy and renewable energy. So we should just give up. Benjamin Sovacool, a Post Doc at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, disagrees in 2006:
For too long, the pursuit of a ‘‘silver bullet’’ national renewable energy strategy, embraced by all and burdensome to none, has kept the capacity of renewable generation ludicrously below its potential.The debate over a national RPS remains contentious even though many of the issues have been resolved by empirical data or can be avoided by structuring the program in a smart way.
...
A national RPS program is not like finding a life partner; it’s okay to settle on less than perfection.Policymakers need not love every aspect of the program to acknowledge that its adoption
would benefit our nation’s electricity markets and make substantial progress toward a more
coherent and secure national energy strategy.
So wait, this is a good idea? We passed something good! Hooray. We love renewable energy.
I can't wait for Bush to veto this. It'll be fun to add "helping renewable energy" to "giving health care to poor kids" and "ending the Iraq war" on the veto list.
To conclude: Renewable Energy Good. Republicans illogical. Anson Chan Good. Kevin Rudd: apparently enjoys strip clubs, but a good leader. Procrastination good. Humor when procrastinating: hard to find, but we'll see. Recycling last year's debate evidence good.
Have fun/good luck with finals! (I just finished midterms yesterday, so it's finals season. Oh joy).
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Just when you think Pres. Bush can't get any more egg on his face...
This afternoon, I went to Norris, and I picked up a New York Times at the College Readership Program stand that's right next to the elevator bank on the first floor. I went up to get some work done, and I actually started to read their headline story.
What I saw certainly didn't shock me. Sure, it angered me a bit, but it certainly didn't shock me. Today, the National Intelligence Estimate has produced the finding that Iran really did halt its nuclear weapons program in 2003, true to the Iran government's word that they haven't been actively seeking nuclear weapons in the recent past. This is perhaps directly contradictory to the evolution of the next great objective behind Pres. Bush's foreign policy--the cornerstone of his agenda for his remaining time in office.
While doubts still loom among some of our less illustrious politicos, the sixteen spy agencies under the authority of the Executive concur that Iran has not been seeking to build nucelar weapons sicne at leat 2003. While this doesn't mean that they have terminated the program entirely, it does mean that the hype surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions has been drastically misleading. Here's a good NYTimes article for a bit of reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
But my consternation, my anger in this comes from a nice little flow chart that the NYTimes put together this morning to show the progression of events leading up to the administration's current policy on Iraq. It looks something like this:
In Nov. 2004, Pres. Bush said: "The Iranians agreed to suspend, but not to terminate, their nuclear weapons program. Our position is that they ought to terminate their nuclear weapons program."
In Feb. 2005, Pres. Bush said: "Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve."
In Dec. 2005, Vice-Pres. Cheney said: "There is every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons. We're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do, as well."
In Aug. 2007, Pres. Bush said: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of holocaust."
In Oct. 2007, Pres. Bush said: "We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
In Oct. 2007, Vice-Pres. Cheney said: "They are working aggressively to develop the capacity to enrich uranium, and the end of that process will be the development of nuclear weapons."
Notce a pattern here? Notice how this pattern matches up eerily with a similar pattern that happened years ago?
I'll admit that I worship subtlety in all things, and that to say that the administration is copying its failed policy in Iraq and applying to Iran is probably ignoring that subtlety. But this is classic of the Bush-neoconservative agenda: take fear, shove it in your face, and tell you that they only way to make it stop is by going out and smothering it with the girth of our military might. Never mind the allies/enemies, what they say, or diplomacy. We're here to scare you so you have nothing else to think other than "attack."
It's a horrible enough strategy, even if what they're incinuating is actually true. It's downright repulsive-and illegal-if it's done when it's also flat out false.
But all in a day's work for the neocons. I expect any time today that someone will appear in the White House saying something like, "Well, actually, the President was speaking about 'noo-kyoo-lar' weapons, not 'noo-klee-ar.' Obviously, there's a difference."
What I saw certainly didn't shock me. Sure, it angered me a bit, but it certainly didn't shock me. Today, the National Intelligence Estimate has produced the finding that Iran really did halt its nuclear weapons program in 2003, true to the Iran government's word that they haven't been actively seeking nuclear weapons in the recent past. This is perhaps directly contradictory to the evolution of the next great objective behind Pres. Bush's foreign policy--the cornerstone of his agenda for his remaining time in office.
While doubts still loom among some of our less illustrious politicos, the sixteen spy agencies under the authority of the Executive concur that Iran has not been seeking to build nucelar weapons sicne at leat 2003. While this doesn't mean that they have terminated the program entirely, it does mean that the hype surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions has been drastically misleading. Here's a good NYTimes article for a bit of reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
But my consternation, my anger in this comes from a nice little flow chart that the NYTimes put together this morning to show the progression of events leading up to the administration's current policy on Iraq. It looks something like this:
In Nov. 2004, Pres. Bush said: "The Iranians agreed to suspend, but not to terminate, their nuclear weapons program. Our position is that they ought to terminate their nuclear weapons program."
In Feb. 2005, Pres. Bush said: "Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror, pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve."
In Dec. 2005, Vice-Pres. Cheney said: "There is every reason to believe that they are seriously pursuing nuclear weapons. We're not the only ones who believe that. Obviously, the Europeans do, as well."
In Aug. 2007, Pres. Bush said: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of holocaust."
In Oct. 2007, Pres. Bush said: "We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
In Oct. 2007, Vice-Pres. Cheney said: "They are working aggressively to develop the capacity to enrich uranium, and the end of that process will be the development of nuclear weapons."
Notce a pattern here? Notice how this pattern matches up eerily with a similar pattern that happened years ago?
I'll admit that I worship subtlety in all things, and that to say that the administration is copying its failed policy in Iraq and applying to Iran is probably ignoring that subtlety. But this is classic of the Bush-neoconservative agenda: take fear, shove it in your face, and tell you that they only way to make it stop is by going out and smothering it with the girth of our military might. Never mind the allies/enemies, what they say, or diplomacy. We're here to scare you so you have nothing else to think other than "attack."
It's a horrible enough strategy, even if what they're incinuating is actually true. It's downright repulsive-and illegal-if it's done when it's also flat out false.
But all in a day's work for the neocons. I expect any time today that someone will appear in the White House saying something like, "Well, actually, the President was speaking about 'noo-kyoo-lar' weapons, not 'noo-klee-ar.' Obviously, there's a difference."
Monday, December 3, 2007
Too much patriotism can give you diabetes
Sticking with our meeting's theme of political humor, I thought I'd share one of my favorite political youtube videos. I love machelli, so if you haven't seen any of his videos, you should check them out. His new one is especially good. It critiques CNN's screening policy for questions for the Republican youtube debate (filtering out questions that asked them to defend their positions on issues, calling them 'gotcha' questions). Anyway, here is a pretty funny video (in my opinion) comparing American politics to candy bars. Enjoy.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
"Nuh uh, I'm more feminist than you."
Now this is a fight I'd actually like to see. There was an article in the NYTimes today that really caught my eye, "Feminist Pitch by a Democrat Named Obama."
I should preface this all, I suppose, by saying 'the College Democrats don't endorse candidates before the primaries, blah blah blah, Democrat Love, etc.' Besides, a lot of us are supporting different candidates at the moment, which I think is awesome, so It'd be pretty difficult for us to endorse someone anyway. I'm officially undecided, although I'm leaning towards certain candidates.
At any rate, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about one of the simultaneously most loved and hated candidates (or is that just how she's been framed?) in the field--Hillary Clinton.
Is she the 'women's candidate'?
Should a 'true feminist' vote for Hillary just because she's a woman?
Well, I hope everyone discusses amongst themselves, but for now, here is my two cents:
We've come a long way from the era where old, white men were our only option for president. Now we awesomely have a woman, a black man, and a Latino man running for president. And a mormon, if that excites you. Now this isn't the first time a woman or an African-American has run for president (as Obama would kindly remind you, Sen. Biden), and actually, I'm not sure if this is the first time we've had a Latino candidate (unless you count Matt Santos...and I do), but according to the MSM and pundits, this is the first time any of them have had a real shot at actually getting elected.
So, it's complicated. Do we vote for these candidates because we want a more diverse presidency? Or do we vote for them on their own merits? Luckily, the choice isn't hard...I think that every Democrat in the field has something to recommend them. However, to demonstrate 'just how far we've come' towards diversity, I think it's important that people don't just vote for say, Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman.
I should preface this all, I suppose, by saying 'the College Democrats don't endorse candidates before the primaries, blah blah blah, Democrat Love, etc.' Besides, a lot of us are supporting different candidates at the moment, which I think is awesome, so It'd be pretty difficult for us to endorse someone anyway. I'm officially undecided, although I'm leaning towards certain candidates.
At any rate, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion about one of the simultaneously most loved and hated candidates (or is that just how she's been framed?) in the field--Hillary Clinton.
Is she the 'women's candidate'?
Should a 'true feminist' vote for Hillary just because she's a woman?
Well, I hope everyone discusses amongst themselves, but for now, here is my two cents:
We've come a long way from the era where old, white men were our only option for president. Now we awesomely have a woman, a black man, and a Latino man running for president. And a mormon, if that excites you. Now this isn't the first time a woman or an African-American has run for president (as Obama would kindly remind you, Sen. Biden), and actually, I'm not sure if this is the first time we've had a Latino candidate (unless you count Matt Santos...and I do), but according to the MSM and pundits, this is the first time any of them have had a real shot at actually getting elected.
So, it's complicated. Do we vote for these candidates because we want a more diverse presidency? Or do we vote for them on their own merits? Luckily, the choice isn't hard...I think that every Democrat in the field has something to recommend them. However, to demonstrate 'just how far we've come' towards diversity, I think it's important that people don't just vote for say, Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
