Like so many others, I enjoyed President Obama's State of the Union address, wherein he established himself once again as the smartest person in the room (especially that room). He took his time, chiding Congress as much as he chided the banks, with an unexpected extra dollop of attention paid to the Supreme Court.
He looked very much like a man engaged to his job. Unlike Ronald Reagan, he did not dwell on the horrific mistakes of his predecessor in his first Address, although he did mention them a couple of times. It's not his saying it that makes it so - the United States is considerably better off today than it was when Obama was sworn into office.
For those both left and right of center this may be a bitter pill to swallow, but his one-year grade as president has to be an A-minus.
The economic cliff we were approaching has been averted. Yes, we have deficits, but they amount to a smaller percentage of GDP than did Reagan's or Papa Bush's deficits. And Jimmy Carter didn't plop two wars down on the Gipper's desk, either.
One of those wars is winding down. The other has received something it has desperately needed from the outset - a shot of dedication in the arm.
Obama also gets high marks for having at least lanced the boil of health care reform, a windmill at which American presidents have been tilting since the days of Harry S Truman. He has done this by staying out of the fight, insisting that Congress do the hard work. For good or ill, in the process, more public input has affected this legislation than any other of its kind.
At no time has he allowed his critics to hit the mark; unlike Bush, Obama has no inner dictator. All we've heard from the shrill voices of conservative media is Obama's penchant for Chicago-style politics. If anything, he has been too hands-off, with many Democrats yearning for the skull-cracking style of LBJ.
Through all of this, he has borne with dignity and grace the ceaseless nagging of his opponents, as well as the constant second-guessing by those who should be his biggest supporters. His commitment to bipartisanship (despite the fact that no such thing exists) is commendable and indicative of his character.
On its own, his first year looks like a neat trick, but an even better year is in front of him. Despite what you've been hearing, 2o1o is poised to be pretty good. In the State of the Union address, Obama said that jobs would be his top priority. There are four good reasons to believe that considerable job creation is forthcoming.
First is the census, which anticipates hiring 1.4 million people this time around. Second is the stimulus, which still has about half of its funding to distribute, with more than a few construction projects scheduled. Third is the growing demand for green technology.
The fourth engine of employment comes in the form of the 2o1o political campaigns themselves. This was already going to be the case, with Republicans hoping for a resurgence that belies their track record of governance. With the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited amounts of money to be poured into campaigns, we are assured of a robust mid-term election.
And why not? Dreaming is free. Let the GOP think they're going to make up ground. They can't. Look at their performance at the Address. They sat on their hands at the mere mention of anything that the American people want and need. The Republican Party isn't just the Party of No. It's the Party of No Way, of No Ideas, of No Decency.
Yes, they've always been that, but this year is different. Conservatives have been divided by a Tea Party movement that threatens to irreparably fracture the Party. They have resorted to frat-boy tactics (only without the benefit of exposure to collegiate academics). Look no further than the recent "Phonegate" scandal in Louisiana for an example.
Anybody who wants to throw in with that crowd is welcome to do so. Go ahead. Hitch your wagon to a star. Or, at the rate they're going, a black hole.
pH 1.29.1o
Friday, January 29, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
Haymaker (Or: "I Got Your Free Speech Right Here, Bitch")
The question was already being asked, even before the Supreme Court decided to unravel the Bill of Rights, which it did when it ruled that corporations in America have the same rights as do human beings: When do we break out the pitchforks and torches?
I got the question from a blue-collar worker about those crooked bankers and their obscene bonuses. I heard it from a small-business owner regarding conservative media that won't stop obsessing about Barack Obama. It was asked by a trans-national tech guy upset by GOP-managed state budget cuts that are aimed strictly at those on the bottom rungs of society.
They're asking me because, hey, I care about this stuff. I pay attention. I stay involved. I shine this cyber-flashlight into the dark corners that they don't dare notice. They figure I would know... When? Soon?
My answer has been, until this recent emasculation of century-old campaign finance laws, "Not yet". There's always got to be a better way, I have supposed, than to go dragging out the powerful and reducing them to fertilizer. Now I don't know.
The tea-baggers have shown us all that it's okay to get as riled up as we've been since the Civil War. Guns at town-hall meetings? That's acceptable behavior today. Screaming down elected officials? Just playing the game. Punching your ideological foes in the mouth to the point where they feel compelled to bite off your fingers? It's all good.
Five Supreme Court Justices who were appointed by Republican presidents have stepped into this imbroglio. Rather than merely ruling on the merits of a case involving a Hilary Clinton hack film, Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Scalia decided that corporations have First Amendment protection allowing them to give as much money as they like to political campaigns.
Given the types of judges that Republican presidents have been keen to appoint, this day was predictable, and may be irreversible. Their actions are worthy of impeachment by Congress; fat chance. Whatever the case, these five are never to be taken seriously again when they claim to care (or even know) about the Constitution of the United States.
The decision is as ridiculous as it is subversive. Simply put, corporations are not people. They aren't born. They have no life span. They can't be imprisoned or executed for the crimes they commit.
In the past few years, many of them have received billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money. We pumped their profits into our gas tanks. That money will be turned back on us in the form of campaign contributions which will be used to squash anyone who opposes them. Anyone.
Republicans, of course, have no problem with this because Big Business generally throws the money their way. That's what happens when they know a Party can be bought and sold for a mere pittance. Everyone else is calling it the end of democracy. Some are even comparing it to Mussolini's Italy - where the fascists also wore black shirts.
Maybe it is. If so, one can take solace in the pages of history, since Il Duce's grotesque experiment didn't last more than a few years and, anyway, it all ended quite badly for him:
http://www.pierretristam.com/images/110606-mussolini.jpg
Have we been driven that far? "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God," said Thomas Jefferson, and he meant it. But we don't have Jefferson's gumption. Not yet.
Can't we simply use our magnificent social network technology - Twitter, for instance - to organize a punitive boycott of, say, Home Depot if that corporation uses its profits to wipe out a pro-union candidate (as it surely will)? Wouldn't that work?
It seems like Americans sure hope so. If not, then all I can tell a fellow citizen is that pitchforks only cost about thirty bucks these days, and you can still find them at most any hardware store. Like Home Depot.
pH 1.25.1o
I got the question from a blue-collar worker about those crooked bankers and their obscene bonuses. I heard it from a small-business owner regarding conservative media that won't stop obsessing about Barack Obama. It was asked by a trans-national tech guy upset by GOP-managed state budget cuts that are aimed strictly at those on the bottom rungs of society.
They're asking me because, hey, I care about this stuff. I pay attention. I stay involved. I shine this cyber-flashlight into the dark corners that they don't dare notice. They figure I would know... When? Soon?
My answer has been, until this recent emasculation of century-old campaign finance laws, "Not yet". There's always got to be a better way, I have supposed, than to go dragging out the powerful and reducing them to fertilizer. Now I don't know.
The tea-baggers have shown us all that it's okay to get as riled up as we've been since the Civil War. Guns at town-hall meetings? That's acceptable behavior today. Screaming down elected officials? Just playing the game. Punching your ideological foes in the mouth to the point where they feel compelled to bite off your fingers? It's all good.
Five Supreme Court Justices who were appointed by Republican presidents have stepped into this imbroglio. Rather than merely ruling on the merits of a case involving a Hilary Clinton hack film, Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas and Scalia decided that corporations have First Amendment protection allowing them to give as much money as they like to political campaigns.
Given the types of judges that Republican presidents have been keen to appoint, this day was predictable, and may be irreversible. Their actions are worthy of impeachment by Congress; fat chance. Whatever the case, these five are never to be taken seriously again when they claim to care (or even know) about the Constitution of the United States.
The decision is as ridiculous as it is subversive. Simply put, corporations are not people. They aren't born. They have no life span. They can't be imprisoned or executed for the crimes they commit.
In the past few years, many of them have received billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money. We pumped their profits into our gas tanks. That money will be turned back on us in the form of campaign contributions which will be used to squash anyone who opposes them. Anyone.
Republicans, of course, have no problem with this because Big Business generally throws the money their way. That's what happens when they know a Party can be bought and sold for a mere pittance. Everyone else is calling it the end of democracy. Some are even comparing it to Mussolini's Italy - where the fascists also wore black shirts.
Maybe it is. If so, one can take solace in the pages of history, since Il Duce's grotesque experiment didn't last more than a few years and, anyway, it all ended quite badly for him:
http://www.pierretristam.com/images/110606-mussolini.jpg
Have we been driven that far? "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God," said Thomas Jefferson, and he meant it. But we don't have Jefferson's gumption. Not yet.
Can't we simply use our magnificent social network technology - Twitter, for instance - to organize a punitive boycott of, say, Home Depot if that corporation uses its profits to wipe out a pro-union candidate (as it surely will)? Wouldn't that work?
It seems like Americans sure hope so. If not, then all I can tell a fellow citizen is that pitchforks only cost about thirty bucks these days, and you can still find them at most any hardware store. Like Home Depot.
pH 1.25.1o
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The End of Health Care Reform as We Know It
Even as President Barack Obama celebrates his first year in office, a political beanbag comes flying out of right field, as the Democrats have lost Ted Kennedy's senate seat to a Republican. This guarantees that the struggles of the past year will soon be looked back upon as the good old days.
Scott Brown is the new senator from Massachusetts, having Hailed Mary over his Democratic opponent, one Martha Coakley. Now, glum liberals are left to ponder what might've been, with their "filibuster-proof" majority rendered to the footnotes of history. Gleeful conservatives, at the same time, find their sails filled in a way that must seem unfamiliar to them.
Each side will spin the results of this special election to their own liking. Is it a referendum on the Democrats? Or on health care reform? Or even on Obama himself? The left wing will say no; it's just a sign that it wasn't really Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts anymore. The right wing will say that it is, and they'll gyrate to country music while saying it.
The Tea Party types will try to take the credit for Brown's unexpected victory (as will the RNC) and will trumpet this as America's return to conservative principles. Progressives will try to diminish this by blaming Coakley herself for not trying hard enough. Neither is entirely true. Both are right.
Can it be that America, after all the Bushies put her through, is still a center-right nation beholden to conservatism? Or is it something that she is afflicted with, the way a dog has fleas whether it wants to have them or not? Once those questions have been put through the sifter, an even harder one will have to be addressed by all:
Is health care reform dead? This is about the united stakes of America. The bill that has been churning in the sausage grinder all year long is not, when you really look at it, that good for anyone except the big insurance companies. Sure, it would have made them accept folks with pre-existing condtions, but it didn't cap premiums and it didn't give us a public option.
Nobody liked it, not from the time it burst forth from Max Baucus's Finance Committee, and for various reasons. The biggest afront it posed came in the form of The Mandate. Only the most dedicated of liberals didn't get squeamish in the face of that. In a free country, the government doesn't issue mandates, at least not where matters of choice are concerned.
With a year of hard work likely frittered to the wind, we are much more likely to see something done in reconciliation, where existing programs can be tweaked by Congress without a 60-vote majority. In other words, they'll lower Medicare's eligibility age to zero, putting those insurance companies completely out of business.
Then you'll hear some howling from Republicans and the insurance companies they so love. And they'll still be too stupid to realize they have only themselves to blame.
pH 1.2o.1o
Scott Brown is the new senator from Massachusetts, having Hailed Mary over his Democratic opponent, one Martha Coakley. Now, glum liberals are left to ponder what might've been, with their "filibuster-proof" majority rendered to the footnotes of history. Gleeful conservatives, at the same time, find their sails filled in a way that must seem unfamiliar to them.
Each side will spin the results of this special election to their own liking. Is it a referendum on the Democrats? Or on health care reform? Or even on Obama himself? The left wing will say no; it's just a sign that it wasn't really Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts anymore. The right wing will say that it is, and they'll gyrate to country music while saying it.
The Tea Party types will try to take the credit for Brown's unexpected victory (as will the RNC) and will trumpet this as America's return to conservative principles. Progressives will try to diminish this by blaming Coakley herself for not trying hard enough. Neither is entirely true. Both are right.
Can it be that America, after all the Bushies put her through, is still a center-right nation beholden to conservatism? Or is it something that she is afflicted with, the way a dog has fleas whether it wants to have them or not? Once those questions have been put through the sifter, an even harder one will have to be addressed by all:
Is health care reform dead? This is about the united stakes of America. The bill that has been churning in the sausage grinder all year long is not, when you really look at it, that good for anyone except the big insurance companies. Sure, it would have made them accept folks with pre-existing condtions, but it didn't cap premiums and it didn't give us a public option.
Nobody liked it, not from the time it burst forth from Max Baucus's Finance Committee, and for various reasons. The biggest afront it posed came in the form of The Mandate. Only the most dedicated of liberals didn't get squeamish in the face of that. In a free country, the government doesn't issue mandates, at least not where matters of choice are concerned.
With a year of hard work likely frittered to the wind, we are much more likely to see something done in reconciliation, where existing programs can be tweaked by Congress without a 60-vote majority. In other words, they'll lower Medicare's eligibility age to zero, putting those insurance companies completely out of business.
Then you'll hear some howling from Republicans and the insurance companies they so love. And they'll still be too stupid to realize they have only themselves to blame.
pH 1.2o.1o
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Arizona: In a Nutshell
As red states go there aren't many that can match the particular shade of crimson found in Arizona. Despite its national torment, the GOP has maintained a stranglehold on our state legislature for time immemorial, which makes for an excellent case study, as Democrats are literally (and continuously) blocked from participating in the budget process.
How have the Republicans fared? Not well, if you can believe such iffy indicators as bookkeeping and arithmetic, which project a budget deficit of around $2 billion. The only thing more telling than past performance is their laundry list of solutions to the economic morass that has materialized on their watch.
Republican governor Jan Brewer, who has been on the job for well over a year now, keeps saying the solution lies in a "temporary" one-cent state sales tax. Given that most Arizonans already pay about eight cents on the dollar, this would represent a net tax hike of 12.5 percent across the board, recession or no recession.
Meanwhile, the governor is pushing - well, pulling - for a "phased reduction" in corporate income tax rates, even though Arizona ranks in line with other states of similar scale, such as North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia, and far lower than such places as Indiana, Minnesota or Pennsylvania. She says this will lead (somehow) to job creation.
It's as if Reaganomics hadn't already fallen flat on its face, as George W. Bush's wetnursing of Big Business yielded just 4.8 million jobs over an eight-year period, and bled red ink the whole way. (Compare that to the tenure of Bill Clinton, whose tax-and-spend policies created some 23 million jobs, and balanced the federal budget at the same time.)
As usual, conservative lawmakers have also reached for the meat axe, hoping to chop their way out of the shortfall they created. The latest trimming came to $100 million, but the legislature wanted to hack off much more, with Brewer vetoing more than double that amount in proposed cuts to K-12 education.
They've also slated no fewer than eight state parks for closure. This is not merely a travesty for the locals, or a reduction in fees collected; it also makes Arizona less of a destination for tourists and the money they spend. How much sense does that make when tourism impacts our economy to the tune of a million dollars a day?
ADOT had its workforce cut by one-third, and will close 12 of its MVD offices this year, mandating that some residents travel 100 round-trip miles for services. Arizona Department of Public Safety (i.e., highway patrol) saw a budget reduction of 15 percent. State university funding shrank by $141 million.
In the meantime, many municipal services are being slashed, including public transit. Arizona has lost a greater percentage of jobs than most states, even Michigan. A good many states are in the same leaky boat, but only here do the attempted fixes amount to a game of Blind Man's Bluff.
All in all, nobody seems to be particularly optimistic about the near future, and yet they also seem quite content to keep sending Republicans back into their elected offices. Mental health experts will readily identify this behavior as sadomasochism.
In Arizona, we just call it business as usual.
pH 1.o9.1o
How have the Republicans fared? Not well, if you can believe such iffy indicators as bookkeeping and arithmetic, which project a budget deficit of around $2 billion. The only thing more telling than past performance is their laundry list of solutions to the economic morass that has materialized on their watch.
Republican governor Jan Brewer, who has been on the job for well over a year now, keeps saying the solution lies in a "temporary" one-cent state sales tax. Given that most Arizonans already pay about eight cents on the dollar, this would represent a net tax hike of 12.5 percent across the board, recession or no recession.
Meanwhile, the governor is pushing - well, pulling - for a "phased reduction" in corporate income tax rates, even though Arizona ranks in line with other states of similar scale, such as North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia, and far lower than such places as Indiana, Minnesota or Pennsylvania. She says this will lead (somehow) to job creation.
It's as if Reaganomics hadn't already fallen flat on its face, as George W. Bush's wetnursing of Big Business yielded just 4.8 million jobs over an eight-year period, and bled red ink the whole way. (Compare that to the tenure of Bill Clinton, whose tax-and-spend policies created some 23 million jobs, and balanced the federal budget at the same time.)
As usual, conservative lawmakers have also reached for the meat axe, hoping to chop their way out of the shortfall they created. The latest trimming came to $100 million, but the legislature wanted to hack off much more, with Brewer vetoing more than double that amount in proposed cuts to K-12 education.
They've also slated no fewer than eight state parks for closure. This is not merely a travesty for the locals, or a reduction in fees collected; it also makes Arizona less of a destination for tourists and the money they spend. How much sense does that make when tourism impacts our economy to the tune of a million dollars a day?
ADOT had its workforce cut by one-third, and will close 12 of its MVD offices this year, mandating that some residents travel 100 round-trip miles for services. Arizona Department of Public Safety (i.e., highway patrol) saw a budget reduction of 15 percent. State university funding shrank by $141 million.
In the meantime, many municipal services are being slashed, including public transit. Arizona has lost a greater percentage of jobs than most states, even Michigan. A good many states are in the same leaky boat, but only here do the attempted fixes amount to a game of Blind Man's Bluff.
All in all, nobody seems to be particularly optimistic about the near future, and yet they also seem quite content to keep sending Republicans back into their elected offices. Mental health experts will readily identify this behavior as sadomasochism.
In Arizona, we just call it business as usual.
pH 1.o9.1o
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The Last Mindbender
Yes, I know. I wrapped up my year early. Haven't written a damn thing since December 1st of 2oo9. You've been ignored, neglected, left in a small dark room on your own. What got to me? Was it a medically-induced coma due to the horrific effects of H1N1 flu? (No... I beat that on my own, actually, long before 12/1.) Did Homeland Security finally decide enough was enough and send out the cloaks to bring me in? No... Well, what then?
It was nothing. I got tired of swinging away on the 565-yard, par-6 hole that was 'o9 and so, like that other golfer you may have heard a lot about lately, I picked up my ball. That's what you have to do sometimes. Just pick up the ball and go on to the next hole and hope you'll have better luck there.
Besides, you know how holiday weekends are, filled with obligations and parties and shopping and shipping and writing out cards and wiping ear sweat off the screen on your cell phone. We're all bound by the same ties, at least for this certain part of the year, right? Hell, without you readers, I even made time to go see a movie at the theater, which is a rare treat for me.
We went and saw Avatar. Nobody hasn't heard of Avatar, the super-digital 3D smash hit by James Cameron, which is still selling out IMAX screens weeks after its release. It was every millimeter as stunning as you've heard it was. So amazing are the special effects that the fairly pedestrian plot and the three hours in a theater seat are so easily forgiven as to go unnoticed.
On the way home, though, Avatar begin to strike me as something different. The themes contained in the movie were, well, pretty liberal. Extremely, in fact, liberal. I'm not one of these sadists who wants to ruin the movie for everyone, so I'll generalize as much as possible in my agenda-checklist:
- The first line of narrative dialogue disparages the Veterans Administration and its care of wounded soldiers. Hello, Walter Reed.
- The human militia that protects the corporate interests on Planet Pandora are made up of former troops just looking to make a buck. Goodbye, Blackwater.
- Corporate greed causes a shocking disregard for anything that might be remotely considered sacred in pursuit of profits driven by untapped planetary resources. There are too many Earthly comparisons, but oil may suffice as the most obvious.
- Fear of other races versus acceptance of other races.
- Destruction of the environment as opposed to preservation of the environment.
- The notion that people with disabilities can (and should) still contribute to causes greater than themselves.
- The belief in Earth (well, Pandora) as God and God as Earth (or Pandora).
Cameron did everything but advocate for an Avatar abortion. That's probably because he was unable to have an affair with any of the actual Avatar actresses (see Titanic). These are the least of things which have already offended conservative bloggers, although the mainstream media has clearly turned the other cheek and acted as if they had seen nothing at all.
For the distinct minority's part, their mechanized responses have been joyous to read. I haven't even mentioned the parts about socialized medicine, populist unity or conservative rejection of the scientific method. But it's all in there, trust me. And it's all aimed at - you guessed it - the children.
Is Avatar indeed a progressive splinter that will cause the minds of young people to ooze out the liberal agenda for as long as they live? Is it subliminal indoctrination to the extreme? Yes, it is, and that leaves me just one more thing to say about it.
Good!
pH 1.o5.1o
It was nothing. I got tired of swinging away on the 565-yard, par-6 hole that was 'o9 and so, like that other golfer you may have heard a lot about lately, I picked up my ball. That's what you have to do sometimes. Just pick up the ball and go on to the next hole and hope you'll have better luck there.
Besides, you know how holiday weekends are, filled with obligations and parties and shopping and shipping and writing out cards and wiping ear sweat off the screen on your cell phone. We're all bound by the same ties, at least for this certain part of the year, right? Hell, without you readers, I even made time to go see a movie at the theater, which is a rare treat for me.
We went and saw Avatar. Nobody hasn't heard of Avatar, the super-digital 3D smash hit by James Cameron, which is still selling out IMAX screens weeks after its release. It was every millimeter as stunning as you've heard it was. So amazing are the special effects that the fairly pedestrian plot and the three hours in a theater seat are so easily forgiven as to go unnoticed.
On the way home, though, Avatar begin to strike me as something different. The themes contained in the movie were, well, pretty liberal. Extremely, in fact, liberal. I'm not one of these sadists who wants to ruin the movie for everyone, so I'll generalize as much as possible in my agenda-checklist:
- The first line of narrative dialogue disparages the Veterans Administration and its care of wounded soldiers. Hello, Walter Reed.
- The human militia that protects the corporate interests on Planet Pandora are made up of former troops just looking to make a buck. Goodbye, Blackwater.
- Corporate greed causes a shocking disregard for anything that might be remotely considered sacred in pursuit of profits driven by untapped planetary resources. There are too many Earthly comparisons, but oil may suffice as the most obvious.
- Fear of other races versus acceptance of other races.
- Destruction of the environment as opposed to preservation of the environment.
- The notion that people with disabilities can (and should) still contribute to causes greater than themselves.
- The belief in Earth (well, Pandora) as God and God as Earth (or Pandora).
Cameron did everything but advocate for an Avatar abortion. That's probably because he was unable to have an affair with any of the actual Avatar actresses (see Titanic). These are the least of things which have already offended conservative bloggers, although the mainstream media has clearly turned the other cheek and acted as if they had seen nothing at all.
For the distinct minority's part, their mechanized responses have been joyous to read. I haven't even mentioned the parts about socialized medicine, populist unity or conservative rejection of the scientific method. But it's all in there, trust me. And it's all aimed at - you guessed it - the children.
Is Avatar indeed a progressive splinter that will cause the minds of young people to ooze out the liberal agenda for as long as they live? Is it subliminal indoctrination to the extreme? Yes, it is, and that leaves me just one more thing to say about it.
Good!
pH 1.o5.1o
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)