Yer killin' me! Some comic politicians in the news...
"Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there, ...if you read the read the report you will see that there was nothing unlawful or unethical about replacing a cabinet member..."
~Sarah Palin
[The report actually said that "Palin had the authority to fire Monegan, but the report by former Anchorage prosecutor Stephen Branchflower concluded that she abused her power as Alaska's governor, and violated state ethics law by trying to get Wooten fired from the state police."]
source
"Let me give you the state of the race today. We have 22 days to go. We’re 6 points down. The national media has written us off. Senator Obama is measuring the drapes, and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending, take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq. But they forgot to let you decide.
My friends, we’ve got them just where we want them."
~John McCain
source
=======
Bwa ha ha ha! Phew... great stuff.
They're not serious, are they?
On a more serious and uplifting note, check out an excerpt from a recent sermon at Jeff Street.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Buckley for 'Bama!
No, not the late William F. Buckley, but his son, Christopher Buckley, is the latest conservative to not only reject McCain/Palin but gone on so far as to endorse Obama!...
I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets.
On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.
But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.
=======
source
Wow. How about that?
I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets.
On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.
But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.
=======
source
Wow. How about that?
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Storm Damage
From various Right-ish folk out there in Bloggyland:
"I thought the questions were crappy and although it was fair, it was rather boring. That played right into Obama's hands. At this point in the game, this is Obama's election to lose and unless John McCain starts getting his hands dirty, we will see an Obama presidency..."
"Sorry but he [McCain] didn't hot the home run that I wanted him to hit.
He wasn't bad,was just OK. And I'm afraid that's not going to be good enough."
"I'm not going to pull any punches here. I think the debate was terrible! The questions were the same old stuff. I think Brokaw could have done a lot better in picking the questions. I'm writing this right after the debate and I am very disappointed. I honestly don't even have an opinion on who won it."
"In light of his dismal performance in last nights debate debacle, It appears John McCain may be conceding the election...
We might grudgingly have to get used to the possibility that Barack Hussein Obama may be our next President. As distasteful as that is, it nevertheless is a distinct possibility."
"If this was McCain taking off the gloves then maybe he should put them back on.
It was an opportunity wasted and time is running out."
"We have a nations of idiots. Period. In one month from now this nation will get what they vote for. G-d help us all.
No home runs people for McCain - not a one. Sorry, but I believe even Sarah Palin and all her intelligence and charm cannot bail him out."
"As depressing as last night’s debate was (and I only lasted 10 minutes) it was a wake up call. Why am I so intent on keeping Obama from the reins of power? Will a McCain presidency only stave off the inevitable? Am I still putting my trust in princes?"
"I'm afraid that John Mccain lost by not winning. Just ot go in there and chat with Obama was a waste of tiem."
"The MSM spin is Obama won the debate which means McCain is done because he can't Win against the Bias support Obama receives.."
Do I perceive a bit of towel-throwing going on? Does it sound to you as if some on the Right are beginning to give up? That McCain is beginning to give up?
"I thought the questions were crappy and although it was fair, it was rather boring. That played right into Obama's hands. At this point in the game, this is Obama's election to lose and unless John McCain starts getting his hands dirty, we will see an Obama presidency..."
"Sorry but he [McCain] didn't hot the home run that I wanted him to hit.
He wasn't bad,was just OK. And I'm afraid that's not going to be good enough."
"I'm not going to pull any punches here. I think the debate was terrible! The questions were the same old stuff. I think Brokaw could have done a lot better in picking the questions. I'm writing this right after the debate and I am very disappointed. I honestly don't even have an opinion on who won it."
"In light of his dismal performance in last nights debate debacle, It appears John McCain may be conceding the election...
We might grudgingly have to get used to the possibility that Barack Hussein Obama may be our next President. As distasteful as that is, it nevertheless is a distinct possibility."
"If this was McCain taking off the gloves then maybe he should put them back on.
It was an opportunity wasted and time is running out."
"We have a nations of idiots. Period. In one month from now this nation will get what they vote for. G-d help us all.
No home runs people for McCain - not a one. Sorry, but I believe even Sarah Palin and all her intelligence and charm cannot bail him out."
"As depressing as last night’s debate was (and I only lasted 10 minutes) it was a wake up call. Why am I so intent on keeping Obama from the reins of power? Will a McCain presidency only stave off the inevitable? Am I still putting my trust in princes?"
"I'm afraid that John Mccain lost by not winning. Just ot go in there and chat with Obama was a waste of tiem."
"The MSM spin is Obama won the debate which means McCain is done because he can't Win against the Bias support Obama receives.."
Do I perceive a bit of towel-throwing going on? Does it sound to you as if some on the Right are beginning to give up? That McCain is beginning to give up?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Shadows and Mists
Has anyone heard this report?...
I was listening to the radio this morning and heard that McCain wants to change the debate topic for tomorrow night's Second Presidential Debate. The debate is to cover all topics (or perhaps specifically the economy?). According to this news report I heard today, McCain would like to change the topic from The Economy to Why Does Obama Have Pals That are Terrorists? (Roughly that - according to the news story, McCain would like the topic to be Obama and his ties to terrorism, or something like that.)
Well, yeah, I guess McCain at this point WOULD like to change the topic to something like that. Perhaps a second topic could be, Has Obama Quit Beating His Wife?
I tried to find this news story online and have not found it yet. Is this serious?? McCain is really grasping at straws here. And one could hardly blame him, he's having his bottom handed to him.
What I don't think he gets is that it is exactly this sort of behavior that is driving normal people away from McCain (and this sort of Republican action).
Now, if McCain seriously wanted to look into the associates of BOTH candidates - both his and Obama's - do you think he'd think that would be a worthwhile debate topic? Does McCain want to spend part of the debate talking about his involvement with the Keating Five? How about his endorsement from Oliver North - a man who McCain has not rebuked for his involvement in illegal selling weapons to IRAN so that he could illegally fund terrorists in Nicaragua? Terrorists that eventually killed tens of thousands of people!
Does McCain really prepared to make these topics of discussion in a debate? No, of course not. He wants the debate to be about Obama and his terrorist "pals."
McCain's candidacy is officially toast.
I was listening to the radio this morning and heard that McCain wants to change the debate topic for tomorrow night's Second Presidential Debate. The debate is to cover all topics (or perhaps specifically the economy?). According to this news report I heard today, McCain would like to change the topic from The Economy to Why Does Obama Have Pals That are Terrorists? (Roughly that - according to the news story, McCain would like the topic to be Obama and his ties to terrorism, or something like that.)
Well, yeah, I guess McCain at this point WOULD like to change the topic to something like that. Perhaps a second topic could be, Has Obama Quit Beating His Wife?
I tried to find this news story online and have not found it yet. Is this serious?? McCain is really grasping at straws here. And one could hardly blame him, he's having his bottom handed to him.
What I don't think he gets is that it is exactly this sort of behavior that is driving normal people away from McCain (and this sort of Republican action).
Now, if McCain seriously wanted to look into the associates of BOTH candidates - both his and Obama's - do you think he'd think that would be a worthwhile debate topic? Does McCain want to spend part of the debate talking about his involvement with the Keating Five? How about his endorsement from Oliver North - a man who McCain has not rebuked for his involvement in illegal selling weapons to IRAN so that he could illegally fund terrorists in Nicaragua? Terrorists that eventually killed tens of thousands of people!
Does McCain really prepared to make these topics of discussion in a debate? No, of course not. He wants the debate to be about Obama and his terrorist "pals."
McCain's candidacy is officially toast.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Happy Birthday!
Democracy is a great institution and, therefore, it is liable to be greatly abused.
Democracy is an impossible thing until the power is shared by all, but let not democracy degenerate into mobocracy.
Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep.
Democracy and violence can ill go together.
Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side.
Experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.
I do believe that woman will not make her contribution to the world by mimicking or running a race with men.
Democracy, disciplined and enlightened, is the finest thing in the world.
Economics that hurt the moral well-being of an individual or a nation are immoral and, therefore, sinful.
The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.
My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest.
The spirit of democracy cannot be established in the midst of terrorism, whether governmental or popular.
A reformer cannot afford to have close intimacy with him who he seeks to reform.
Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.
Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions.
If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior.
If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with women.
My earthly possessions consist of six spinning wheels, prison dishes, a can of goat's milk, six homespun loin-cloths and towels, and my reputation which cannot be worth very much.
Happy Birthday, Gandhi.
Democracy is an impossible thing until the power is shared by all, but let not democracy degenerate into mobocracy.
Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep.
Democracy and violence can ill go together.
Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side.
Experience convinces me that permanent good can never be the outcome of untruth and violence.
I do believe that woman will not make her contribution to the world by mimicking or running a race with men.
Democracy, disciplined and enlightened, is the finest thing in the world.
Economics that hurt the moral well-being of an individual or a nation are immoral and, therefore, sinful.
The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.
My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest.
The spirit of democracy cannot be established in the midst of terrorism, whether governmental or popular.
A reformer cannot afford to have close intimacy with him who he seeks to reform.
Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.
Today machinery merely helps a few to ride on the backs of millions.
If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior.
If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with women.
My earthly possessions consist of six spinning wheels, prison dishes, a can of goat's milk, six homespun loin-cloths and towels, and my reputation which cannot be worth very much.
Happy Birthday, Gandhi.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
All the Riches I Want or Need...
Conservative columnist Glen Beck on our "financial disaster:"
So now that we're here, what do we do? I am massively conflicted about this bailout program. The idea of government stepping in to bail out international banks that were reckless with their own business literally makes my stomach churn. We are privatizing gains and socializing losses.
As George Will wrote this week: "Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism."
Unfortunately, he's right. In fact, it would have to take an absolute disaster to make me even consider supporting something like this. Welcome to that absolute disaster.
I will have to say that I have absolutely no strong opinions about Wall Street or "the Market" in general, as I just don't understand it much. I'm inclined to think that I don't understand it because it's not a logic-based system, but more of a faith-based belief system in a faith language that is foreign to me.
Full disclosure: I don't invest. I don't have an IRA or retirement fund. I plan on working until I die. I'm not hung up about it and if it feels okay to you, then I'm not upset that others do the investment thing, it's just not something that fits within my belief system.
Partly, again, because I don't understand it all.
So, my inclination is to say: What the heck's going on? Why are we even thinking of giving hundreds of billions of dollars to for-profit corporations?? While I don't generally agree with Beck, this sure sounds like we've privatized profits and are considering socializing losses? What gives?
Now, I understand that some say that this kind of "disaster" might mean (or WILL mean) that many (millions?) of regular people will lose their money or some of it and for that reason, we ought to support this sort of bail-out.
I remain skeptical, but am concerned for the regular folk who might be hurt, if that is indeed the case.
So my one thought and two questions are:
1. If we even consider this bail out, there ought to be a good many strings attached.
2. Wouldn't this kind of thing argue against the privatization of Social Security?
3. Can anyone explain this to someone like me who is not a part of the capitalist religion?
So now that we're here, what do we do? I am massively conflicted about this bailout program. The idea of government stepping in to bail out international banks that were reckless with their own business literally makes my stomach churn. We are privatizing gains and socializing losses.
As George Will wrote this week: "Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism."
Unfortunately, he's right. In fact, it would have to take an absolute disaster to make me even consider supporting something like this. Welcome to that absolute disaster.
I will have to say that I have absolutely no strong opinions about Wall Street or "the Market" in general, as I just don't understand it much. I'm inclined to think that I don't understand it because it's not a logic-based system, but more of a faith-based belief system in a faith language that is foreign to me.
Full disclosure: I don't invest. I don't have an IRA or retirement fund. I plan on working until I die. I'm not hung up about it and if it feels okay to you, then I'm not upset that others do the investment thing, it's just not something that fits within my belief system.
Partly, again, because I don't understand it all.
So, my inclination is to say: What the heck's going on? Why are we even thinking of giving hundreds of billions of dollars to for-profit corporations?? While I don't generally agree with Beck, this sure sounds like we've privatized profits and are considering socializing losses? What gives?
Now, I understand that some say that this kind of "disaster" might mean (or WILL mean) that many (millions?) of regular people will lose their money or some of it and for that reason, we ought to support this sort of bail-out.
I remain skeptical, but am concerned for the regular folk who might be hurt, if that is indeed the case.
So my one thought and two questions are:
1. If we even consider this bail out, there ought to be a good many strings attached.
2. Wouldn't this kind of thing argue against the privatization of Social Security?
3. Can anyone explain this to someone like me who is not a part of the capitalist religion?
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
The Bible and Economics
Part of an ongoing series looking at all the many passages in the Bible that deal with wealth and poverty issues. You can see the links to the other passages in the series under the heading "The Bible and Economics" below.
Today, I thought I'd try to tackle a book that has a different sort of "feel" to it than many of the other passages: Genesis. In Genesis you will find "heroes" who happen to be wealthy - such as Abraham...
So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him, and Lot with him. Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver and in gold.
He went on his journeys from the Negev as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai, to the place of the altar which he had made there formerly; and there Abram called on the name of the LORD.
Now Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents.
And the land could not sustain them while dwelling together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to remain together.
~Genesis 13: 1-6
They also took Lot [that is, Lot was kidnapped], Abram's nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom.
Then a fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew. Now, he was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, and these were allies with Abram.
When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
He divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.
He brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people.
~Genesis 14: 12-16
Abram/Abraham's stories show Abraham to be a rich man - as shown above - but I don't believe the Bible makes the case that this was necessarily a good or bad thing, just that it was the case. There are verses like Genesis 26: 4, that say, "I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" - indicating that God is giving Abraham and his descendents land and blessing Abraham, but that isn't to say that material wealth is what Abraham was blessed with...
There are also passages like this:
"When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them.
"This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary, half a shekel as a contribution to the LORD.
"Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD.
"The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves."
~Genesis 30: 12-15
Sort of the "flat tax" approach to paying tithes/tributes. Which is interesting, because elsewhere in the Bible, you have more progressive-sounding ideas, like in the story of the Manna ("And when they measured it by the omer, he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.") or with the Jerusalem church collection ("The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea." and "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.")
Anyway, I'm including these passages in here for what they're worth, as they are part of what the Bible says about wealth and poverty issues. Thoughts?
Today, I thought I'd try to tackle a book that has a different sort of "feel" to it than many of the other passages: Genesis. In Genesis you will find "heroes" who happen to be wealthy - such as Abraham...
So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him, and Lot with him. Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver and in gold.
He went on his journeys from the Negev as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai, to the place of the altar which he had made there formerly; and there Abram called on the name of the LORD.
Now Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents.
And the land could not sustain them while dwelling together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to remain together.
~Genesis 13: 1-6
They also took Lot [that is, Lot was kidnapped], Abram's nephew, and his possessions and departed, for he was living in Sodom.
Then a fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew. Now, he was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol and brother of Aner, and these were allies with Abram.
When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he led out his trained men, born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
He divided his forces against them by night, he and his servants, and defeated them, and pursued them as far as Hobah, which is north of Damascus.
He brought back all the goods, and also brought back his relative Lot with his possessions, and also the women, and the people.
~Genesis 14: 12-16
Abram/Abraham's stories show Abraham to be a rich man - as shown above - but I don't believe the Bible makes the case that this was necessarily a good or bad thing, just that it was the case. There are verses like Genesis 26: 4, that say, "I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven, and will give your descendants all these lands; and by your descendants all the nations of the earth shall be blessed" - indicating that God is giving Abraham and his descendents land and blessing Abraham, but that isn't to say that material wealth is what Abraham was blessed with...
There are also passages like this:
"When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them.
"This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary, half a shekel as a contribution to the LORD.
"Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD.
"The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves."
~Genesis 30: 12-15
Sort of the "flat tax" approach to paying tithes/tributes. Which is interesting, because elsewhere in the Bible, you have more progressive-sounding ideas, like in the story of the Manna ("And when they measured it by the omer, he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.") or with the Jerusalem church collection ("The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea." and "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.")
Anyway, I'm including these passages in here for what they're worth, as they are part of what the Bible says about wealth and poverty issues. Thoughts?
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Simple Solutions
Here's another excerpt from the very fine collection of essays, The Essential Agrarian Reader, which I have mentioned of late. This essay is from Wendell Berry and it echoes a bit of Barbara Kingsolver's introduction, where she states:
I'm tired of the presumption of a nation divided between rural and urban populations whose interests are permanently at odds, whose votes will always be cast different ways, whose hearts and minds share no common ground. This is as wrong as blight, a useless way of thinking, similar to the propaganda warning us that any environmentalist program will necessarily be anti-human.
[When asked to write an article about this supposed divide, Kingsolver replied:] Sorry, but I'm the wrong person to ask: I live in red, tend to think blue, and mostly vote green. If you're looking for oversimplification, skip me...
Berry's excerpt below touches on this, in that he points out it's not a Democrat vs Republican issue, not an urban/rural issue, not liberal/conservative. Rather, it's an Industrial vs Holistic, a Centralized vs Decentralized debate. Or, at least that is how I'm reading it. What do you think?
To the corporate and political and academic servants of global industrialism, the small family farm and the small farming community are not known, not imaginable, and therefore, unthinkable, except as damaging stereotypes. The people of "the cutting edge" in science, business, education, and politics have no patience with local love, local loyalty, and local knowledge that make people truly native to their places and therefore good caretakers of their places.
This is why one of the primary principles of industrialism has always been to get the worker away from home... The office or the factory is the place for work...
The industrial mind is an organizational mind, and I think this mind is deeply disturbed and threatened by the existence of people who have no boss...
The industrial contempt for anything small, rural, or natural translates into contempt for uncentralized economic systems, any sort of local self-sufficiency in foor or other necessities. The industrial "solution" for such systems is to increase the scale of work and trade. It is to bring Big Ideas, Big Money, and Big Technology into small rural communities, economies and ecosystems...
The result is that problems correctable on a small scale are replaced by large-scale problems for which there are no large-scale corrections. Meanwhile, the large-scale enterprise has reduced or destroyed the possibility of small-scale corrections. This exactly describes our present agriculture.
Forcing all agriculture localities to conform to economic conditions imposed from afar by a few large corporations has caused problems of the largest possible scale, such as soil loss, genetic impoverishment, and groundwater pollution, which are correctable only by an agriculture of locally adapted, solar-powered, diversified small farms - a correction that, after a half century of industrial agriculture, will be difficult to achieve.
The industrial economy thus is inherently violent. It impoverishes one place in order to be extravagant to another, true to its colonialist ambition. A part of the "externalized" cost of this is war after war.
I'm tired of the presumption of a nation divided between rural and urban populations whose interests are permanently at odds, whose votes will always be cast different ways, whose hearts and minds share no common ground. This is as wrong as blight, a useless way of thinking, similar to the propaganda warning us that any environmentalist program will necessarily be anti-human.
[When asked to write an article about this supposed divide, Kingsolver replied:] Sorry, but I'm the wrong person to ask: I live in red, tend to think blue, and mostly vote green. If you're looking for oversimplification, skip me...
Berry's excerpt below touches on this, in that he points out it's not a Democrat vs Republican issue, not an urban/rural issue, not liberal/conservative. Rather, it's an Industrial vs Holistic, a Centralized vs Decentralized debate. Or, at least that is how I'm reading it. What do you think?
To the corporate and political and academic servants of global industrialism, the small family farm and the small farming community are not known, not imaginable, and therefore, unthinkable, except as damaging stereotypes. The people of "the cutting edge" in science, business, education, and politics have no patience with local love, local loyalty, and local knowledge that make people truly native to their places and therefore good caretakers of their places.
This is why one of the primary principles of industrialism has always been to get the worker away from home... The office or the factory is the place for work...
The industrial mind is an organizational mind, and I think this mind is deeply disturbed and threatened by the existence of people who have no boss...
The industrial contempt for anything small, rural, or natural translates into contempt for uncentralized economic systems, any sort of local self-sufficiency in foor or other necessities. The industrial "solution" for such systems is to increase the scale of work and trade. It is to bring Big Ideas, Big Money, and Big Technology into small rural communities, economies and ecosystems...
The result is that problems correctable on a small scale are replaced by large-scale problems for which there are no large-scale corrections. Meanwhile, the large-scale enterprise has reduced or destroyed the possibility of small-scale corrections. This exactly describes our present agriculture.
Forcing all agriculture localities to conform to economic conditions imposed from afar by a few large corporations has caused problems of the largest possible scale, such as soil loss, genetic impoverishment, and groundwater pollution, which are correctable only by an agriculture of locally adapted, solar-powered, diversified small farms - a correction that, after a half century of industrial agriculture, will be difficult to achieve.
The industrial economy thus is inherently violent. It impoverishes one place in order to be extravagant to another, true to its colonialist ambition. A part of the "externalized" cost of this is war after war.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Let us Remember...
In memory of all that was lost on 9/11, and in hope of a better tomorrow, with prayers of wisdom and strength to implement that better tomorrow...
One of the gravest dangers to us now, second only to further terrorist attacks against our people, is that we will attempt to go on as before with the corporate program of global "free trade", whatever the cost in freedom and civil rights, without self-questioning or self-criticism or public debate...
Starting with the economies of food and farming, we should promote at home, and encourage abroad, the ideal of local self-sufficiency. We should recognize that this is the surest, the safest, and the cheapest way for the world to live. We should not countenance the loss or destruction of any local capacity to produce necessary goods...
The key to peaceableness is continuous practice. It is wrong to suppose that we can exploit and impoverish the poorer countries, while arming them and instructing them in the newest means of war, and then reasonably expect them to be peaceable...
Excerpts from Wendell Berry, following 9/11
One of the gravest dangers to us now, second only to further terrorist attacks against our people, is that we will attempt to go on as before with the corporate program of global "free trade", whatever the cost in freedom and civil rights, without self-questioning or self-criticism or public debate...
Starting with the economies of food and farming, we should promote at home, and encourage abroad, the ideal of local self-sufficiency. We should recognize that this is the surest, the safest, and the cheapest way for the world to live. We should not countenance the loss or destruction of any local capacity to produce necessary goods...
The key to peaceableness is continuous practice. It is wrong to suppose that we can exploit and impoverish the poorer countries, while arming them and instructing them in the newest means of war, and then reasonably expect them to be peaceable...
Excerpts from Wendell Berry, following 9/11
Sexism and Cynicism
Okay, let me say that at first I was jokingly saying that I was glad that the GOP had finally developed some concern about the problems of sexism, but it's getting to the point that I must say I find it a more than a bit cynical and disingenuous that the Republicans are dropping the gender card every few minutes now that "they got a girl."
IF this means that in the future, Republicans are more concerned about sexism, that would be a good thing, but it just seems that this is nothing more than a Rovian attempt at Machiavellian politics and it's thoroughly disgusting.
This latest "pig in lipstick" fluff put forth by the McCain camp is just ridiculous. McCain himself used that expression when talking about Hillary Clinton last year. Was he being sexist? Where were the scores of Rightwing pundits and enthusiasts coming out to blast McCain for sexism when he did the same thing with Clinton (well, not exactly the same thing: Obama was clearly talking about McCain - not Palin - in his comments)?
Nowhere.
Obama is absolutely right to go on the attack about this cynical silly blather. How dare the GOP try to use the serious problems of sexism for pathetic attempts at political gain? It undermines the Democratic process. This is exactly the sort of politicking from which Obama represents a change.
We've too many serious problems to deal with to allow the Republicans to try to change the subject to a non-issue. Shame on them.
For what it's worth, I did a google search on "republicans on sexism," "republicans sexism 2007," "republicans sexism 2000," "republicans sexism 2003," "republicans on sexism quotes," and a few other terms so I could check to see all the many quotes where Republicans complained about issues of sexism and gave speeches saying that sexism needed to be addressed. Then I checked "sexism mccain quotes," "sexism mccain 2000," mccain on sexism 1996," etc, etc.
The results?
I could not find ONE SINGLE quote pre-2008 where the Republicans talked about sexism.
So how 'bout this? I'll start a contest:
FIND THE REPUBLICAN QUOTE ON SEXISM!*
Prizes and fame ** to whoever can find a SINGLE Republican quote where they rail against the evils of sexism anytime in all of history, prior to August 2008.
The Republicans have been a party since the 1850s, I believe. Surely at SOME point in all of the last 150 years SOME Republican had SOME kind words to say in defense of women's rights?
Anyone? One quote?
[* "I dig chicks," does not count as speaking against sexism...]
[** Well, "prizes and fame" may be a bit of a stretch, how 'bout a pencil sharpener and a kind word from me at this blog? Not that I'm especially concerned that a quote will be forthcoming...]
IF this means that in the future, Republicans are more concerned about sexism, that would be a good thing, but it just seems that this is nothing more than a Rovian attempt at Machiavellian politics and it's thoroughly disgusting.
This latest "pig in lipstick" fluff put forth by the McCain camp is just ridiculous. McCain himself used that expression when talking about Hillary Clinton last year. Was he being sexist? Where were the scores of Rightwing pundits and enthusiasts coming out to blast McCain for sexism when he did the same thing with Clinton (well, not exactly the same thing: Obama was clearly talking about McCain - not Palin - in his comments)?
Nowhere.
Obama is absolutely right to go on the attack about this cynical silly blather. How dare the GOP try to use the serious problems of sexism for pathetic attempts at political gain? It undermines the Democratic process. This is exactly the sort of politicking from which Obama represents a change.
We've too many serious problems to deal with to allow the Republicans to try to change the subject to a non-issue. Shame on them.
For what it's worth, I did a google search on "republicans on sexism," "republicans sexism 2007," "republicans sexism 2000," "republicans sexism 2003," "republicans on sexism quotes," and a few other terms so I could check to see all the many quotes where Republicans complained about issues of sexism and gave speeches saying that sexism needed to be addressed. Then I checked "sexism mccain quotes," "sexism mccain 2000," mccain on sexism 1996," etc, etc.
The results?
I could not find ONE SINGLE quote pre-2008 where the Republicans talked about sexism.
So how 'bout this? I'll start a contest:
FIND THE REPUBLICAN QUOTE ON SEXISM!*
Prizes and fame ** to whoever can find a SINGLE Republican quote where they rail against the evils of sexism anytime in all of history, prior to August 2008.
The Republicans have been a party since the 1850s, I believe. Surely at SOME point in all of the last 150 years SOME Republican had SOME kind words to say in defense of women's rights?
Anyone? One quote?
[* "I dig chicks," does not count as speaking against sexism...]
[** Well, "prizes and fame" may be a bit of a stretch, how 'bout a pencil sharpener and a kind word from me at this blog? Not that I'm especially concerned that a quote will be forthcoming...]
Monday, September 8, 2008
BREAKING NEWS!
(CNN) – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave CNN praise for prospective Republican vice president Sarah Palin’s qualifications this weekend.
“She’s governor of a state here in the United States.” Rice told CNN’s Zain Verjee.
=======
There you have it, folks! Some straight talk from the Republicans!
And Rice is absolutely right! No spin, there. Palin IS the governor of a state here in these United States. Undisputedly so, as far as I know.
Stay tuned for more clear, true and absolutely factual statements from the Republicans…
(…I’m hoping to make this an ongoing series. Or at least have one more clear, true and absolutely factual statement from the Republicans before the November election. Don’t let me down, Republicans…)
“She’s governor of a state here in the United States.” Rice told CNN’s Zain Verjee.
=======
There you have it, folks! Some straight talk from the Republicans!
And Rice is absolutely right! No spin, there. Palin IS the governor of a state here in these United States. Undisputedly so, as far as I know.
Stay tuned for more clear, true and absolutely factual statements from the Republicans…
(…I’m hoping to make this an ongoing series. Or at least have one more clear, true and absolutely factual statement from the Republicans before the November election. Don’t let me down, Republicans…)
"Stop Yelling at Each Other"
Congratulations to Senator McCain for keeping his acceptance speech last week a bit more noble and genuine than his comrades have done. Senator McCain mostly avoided the cheap and divisive direct attacks that had characterized the Republic Convention thus far. For that, I'm thankful.
McCain said:
And, finally, a word to Sen. Obama and his supporters. We'll go at it -- we'll go at it over the next two months -- you know that's the nature of this business -- and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and my admiration.
Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, and that's an association that means more to me than any other.
We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. No country -- no country ever had a greater cause than that. And I wouldn't be an American worthy of the name if I didn't honor Sen. Obama and his supporters for their achievement...
...Please, please, please. My friends, my dear friends, please. Please don't be diverted by the ground noise and the static.
You know, I'm going to talk about it some more. But Americans want us to stop yelling at each other, OK?
Very classy and right on. This part of McCain is the part that I've seen in the past that I can respect and appreciate. Just as I appreciate Obama's consistent striving to stay on the high road. Congratulations to both candidates for that.
Now, if McCain's and Obama's followers would heed that call to remember that we're all on the same side, that we're all Americans, and keep the debate to actual positions, not character attacks and misrepresentations.
I would point out that this portion of McCain's speech would have held more water if he'd called on the carpet those from the night before who were engaged in exactly the sort of ugly campaigning that he's calling his party to avoid.
McCain is right: Let's stop yelling at each other, demonizing the Other. I hope he heeds that call himself and demands it from his followers.
McCain went on to articulate his Campaign Premise: CHANGE IS COMING.
This, I must say, I find a bit less inspiring. We desperately need change. People want us to move away from the politics of divisiveness and away from the arrogance and ignorance that was a cornerstone of the Bush administration. We've HAD eight years of the Republicans having their way and change IS desperately needed and wanted.
What I didn't hear from his speech is an answer to the obvious question: IF change is needed after eight years of neo-conservative Republican rule, how is placing another neo-conservative Republican in office going to effect that change?
So, in short, I agree wholeheartedly with McCain that we need to stop the ugly divisive politics that too many on both sides have engaged in in years past. Amen. AND, we DO need a change from the current direction of US policy as implemented by Bush and supported by McCain.
Let's make it so.
McCain said:
And, finally, a word to Sen. Obama and his supporters. We'll go at it -- we'll go at it over the next two months -- you know that's the nature of this business -- and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and my admiration.
Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, and that's an association that means more to me than any other.
We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. No country -- no country ever had a greater cause than that. And I wouldn't be an American worthy of the name if I didn't honor Sen. Obama and his supporters for their achievement...
...Please, please, please. My friends, my dear friends, please. Please don't be diverted by the ground noise and the static.
You know, I'm going to talk about it some more. But Americans want us to stop yelling at each other, OK?
Very classy and right on. This part of McCain is the part that I've seen in the past that I can respect and appreciate. Just as I appreciate Obama's consistent striving to stay on the high road. Congratulations to both candidates for that.
Now, if McCain's and Obama's followers would heed that call to remember that we're all on the same side, that we're all Americans, and keep the debate to actual positions, not character attacks and misrepresentations.
I would point out that this portion of McCain's speech would have held more water if he'd called on the carpet those from the night before who were engaged in exactly the sort of ugly campaigning that he's calling his party to avoid.
McCain is right: Let's stop yelling at each other, demonizing the Other. I hope he heeds that call himself and demands it from his followers.
McCain went on to articulate his Campaign Premise: CHANGE IS COMING.
This, I must say, I find a bit less inspiring. We desperately need change. People want us to move away from the politics of divisiveness and away from the arrogance and ignorance that was a cornerstone of the Bush administration. We've HAD eight years of the Republicans having their way and change IS desperately needed and wanted.
What I didn't hear from his speech is an answer to the obvious question: IF change is needed after eight years of neo-conservative Republican rule, how is placing another neo-conservative Republican in office going to effect that change?
So, in short, I agree wholeheartedly with McCain that we need to stop the ugly divisive politics that too many on both sides have engaged in in years past. Amen. AND, we DO need a change from the current direction of US policy as implemented by Bush and supported by McCain.
Let's make it so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)