An Alaskan journalist's perspective on local and national issues

Archive for August, 2011

Dismissing Something Off-hand as Sexist is Wrong

There is a rather disturbing trend in the media that we consume where a group of people will look at something and quickly dismiss it at something that is sexist.  Both genders do this, and unfortunately, it is becoming a huge problem.  Michael Crichton did a number, or rather, had a great thought about this towards the end of his book, Disclosure.  It is becoming far too easy for people to just dismiss something off-hand because they believe that is sexist.  Unfortunately, people do this without regard for why things may or may not be this way.

A friend of mine posted an article on her Facebook page that talked about this with a book.  This is a book that I had never read, but the concepts in it were very good.  It discussed the idea of examining the fantasy genre.  It brought up some points that I believe are pretty good.  I truly believe that dismissing a work off-hand, for any reason, is wrong.  When I first decided to go and see the sequel to Tron, which was absolutely terrible, I was told by a feminist friend of mine that it was apparently viewed as sexist by some members of her community.  The knowledge of this had my opinion jaded.  I looked for how it could be demeaning to women, and honestly, I couldn’t find it.  In fact, the main female character, played by Olivia Wilde, was pretty badass, to put it bluntly.  The movie may have been terrible, but her character was still interesting.

It has come up in a lot of other works that I am a fan of.  I love certain elements of Japanese animation.  There have been works that are completely incredible.  My favorite film, in fact, is of Japanese animation.  It was called The Sky Crawlers.  It was a work by Mamoru Oshii, one of the best filmmakers who is alive today.  But I have heard from a lot of women who are big on the feminist position that anime is totally sexist.  They cite repeatedly how women in these shows are often adorned quite out of the range of possibilities, and they seem to be sexualized.  I sometimes agree with that, by the way, but other times, I find it not to be in bad taste.  Let me give you an example.

A favorite anime of mine, Cowboy Bebop, has the female lead named Faye Valentine.  She is made to be a sexual appeal to the show, a very femme fatale character, but she is also a very dynamic character.  Over the course of the series, you see her gradually evolve into one of the show’s most important characters.  She may be done for looks, but I don’t think that that is something that one can blame on a genre.

Unfortunately, sex has sold in this country for a very long time.  It sells everywhere.  I hear a lot of feminists say that women are exploited.  Well ladies, by the same logic that you say women are exploited, you would have to say that men are exploited too.  I have heard people say that women who star in porn are being objectified, and give an unrealistic view of what woman are supposed to be, or rather, an very shallow view.  Do you truly believe that it is different for men?  Men are given this image that very few men are able to measure up to, if you know what I mean.  And those who claim that women are exploited because of good looks, it also goes the other way.

Really, the idea of sexualizing in society is not a one-way street.  Certain areas of both genders want to look at it that way, but nothing in life is as simple as cut and dry.  The fact is that sexism in a culture that is portrayed often says something about the world that it was made in.  The article linked above made a great comparison about how Jane Austen made these worlds have a great meaning in books like Pride and Prejudice, and how it was done very well in Mad Men.  People who watch this don’t aspire to have this kind of world.  Or at least, very few of them do.

And really, when you think about it, for anything that is meant to portray Medieval times, what exactly should women be like?  If you want to be realistic, then back in the day, they were just brood-mares for the state, or for their families.  They were meant to cook, clean, have sex with their husbands, and then produce lots of offspring.  Fiction allows a person to make whatever kind of world and character that they want.  And honestly, if all women in every single piece were some marvelous leaders who are not stupid in any way, would that seem realistic to you?  When the fact is that most people are not exceptional, so why should all characters of a gender be that way?  Not only is it unrealistic, it’s also boring.  Overcoming weakness and character growth are essential to any work of fiction.

The fact is that it goes both ways that people dismiss something as sexist.  With women, it is much more predominate, but with both genders, I view it as equally wrong.  There are works where sexism is horribly used, like the Twilight series, but with good works of fiction, sexism in a culture is used to give a good perspective into that culture.  That is my little rant.

Peace out,


Why are the Poor Defending the Rich So Much?!

I don’t get this new paradigm of the poor, and those who are hopelessly poor, defending the rich with such steadfast devotion.  I was talking to a family member today about my views on politics.  I should have learned a long time ago not to do that.  I have an uncle who I don’t talk about religion with because of the fact that he is so hardcore about it.  With me, talking to conservatives is the exact same way.

There was a very brilliant cartoon done by Ted Rall.  It summed up what I had to deal with today almost perfectly.  It was called “The Tea Party Made Simple.“  These people will defend, almost to the death (metaphorically and ideologically speaking) that the rich need to be protected, like they are going to lose so much.  Really, the idea that the rich are so delicate and going to give up completely is so completely ridiculous.  It is built up on an idea that was completely disprove, and seen by the intellectual and philosophical community as a joke.

The bulk of the modern conservative economic model is much akin to the Libertarian economic model (or at least the predominate model that they and their Messiah, Ron Paul, follow).  It is based around the economic ideas of Ayn Rand.  Ayn Rand is a very interesting character to look at when it comes to economics.  The bulk of the philsophical community wrote off what she said (and quite rightly so) as morally repugnant garbage.  There was a professor who did a rather nice paper about this that was put on the website of a really great YouTube vlogger, Liberal Viewer.  It talks about how the model of selfishness that the conservatives seem to idolize, and the Libertarians worship as gospel, is a completely flawed and totally pointless model to live by.

Now, this family member lives by what seems to be Rand’s idea – that only those who produce matter, and that those who do not produce should be cast aside and forgotten.  That altruism and decency and going out of your way to help others is a worthless cause.  This is, in fact, morally repugnant.  I give credit  to Rand for being able to make this concept sound very good, but the fact is that when you get into the meat of her arguments, you find out that what she wants is nothing more than a selfish, be as greedy as you want and don’t give a crap about anybody else, model, and really, isn’t a philosophy at all.

But back to the argument with the family member, she believes a lot of the talking points of Rand.  I don’t want to call her a Randroid, because that seems a tad bit harsh, and I doubt she has ever studied these ideas in detail, but the talking points are the same – government bad, private business good.  Alan Greenspan was much the same.  It seems that the Libertarians, Tea Party, and Republicans learned absolutely nothing from this man admitting the idea of no regulation being the right one to be wrong.

There was an episode of “FRONTLINE” which talked about what happened to our economy in detail.  Here’s a link to it –  A woman named Brooksley Born saw what was coming.  The person I had this argument with, she believes it was a government mistake that happened.  I partially agree, but in a completely different way.  This episode showed that was happened was the government’s fault.  There was not enough regulation on Wall Street, and there needed to be.

Now, before the market collapsed, nobody would hear anything about regulation.  Things were doing awesome, absolutely awesome.  If you were told in 2005 that things were about to collapse from a shady practice by banks who were not being watched closely enough, you would have been laughed offstage.  That was the country that we lived in.  Wall Street was doing incredibly well.  Nobody could have seen the problem that was growing just under the skin.

Enter the world of Over-the-Counter Derivatives.  These were an almost unregulated area of the banking industry.  They are pretty much bets between companies and banks.  They are insurance policies on Wall Street which protect them from problems.  This is a $27 trillion market.  This was a metric ton of money, and the government knew almost nothing about them.  Even those on Wall Street were mostly in the dark.  And since it was completely in the dark, there was a huge market for fraud.  The banks that were involved in this knew that these were too complicated for the average person to understand, and that was how they took multiple companies to the cleaners.  The fact is that these OTCs, as they are called, were, and still are, nothing more than a complete scam.

So, here we are, with trillions of dollars, and nobody knows what is going on.  What happens if something goes wrong?  If something were to go wrong, the OTCs could bring down the entire market.  And that is EXACTLY what happened.  The game went wrong, and everything fell apart.  Greenspan on his dream team all were involved in keeping the truth secret, and after talking with a family member today, I am starting to think their efforts worked.

The Fox News narrative is that the government needs to step back, to stay out.  This is flawed.  This is deeply flawed.  And what’s more, they have an entire army of people who are willing to throw rationality and critical thinking out the window based on personal greed and a strange idea that the rich don’t have the money to lose.

I was asked, “If you made $5 million annually, would you want to give some of that up?  That you worked so hard to get?”  I find this question bizarre, ridiculous, and pathetically naive to the way things are.  The very number, $5 million.  To make that much money annually, it is almost too incredible to dream.  Would I give more of that up?  Would I want to be taxed?  HELL YES!  Are you kidding me?  She actually asked me that, thinking, I guess, that she had backed me into an ideological corner.  I am not a rich man.  Far from it.  I would say that I am more of the lower-middle class.  There is no more true middle class.  You are upper or lower.  If I could make that kind of money in a year, I would give so much of it in taxes, to help the poor, to help strengthen our nation’s safety net, that it isn’t a thought to me.  It’s done, and I wouldn’t look back.

This idea that the rich need to be catered to, and need their hands held is just so pathetic.  It is so worthless and really shows that the people who fight for this are nothing more than ignorant fools who just want to have an idea going on that really means nothing.  The wealth inequality in this country is absolutely insane!  How do these people justify this?  I wanted to get some understanding here, but really, her perspective makes no sense.  The cartoon I linked to above, I really think that it says everything perfectly.  These people are, I guess, being screwed out of the imaginary business that they have in their head.

So, should we raise taxes on the wealthy?  DUH!  No-brainer.  And that is because the conservatives in this country seem to have no brains.

Peace out,


Accepting Inevitable Failure? I Hope Not…

There has been a recent episode that I have been involved in that has brought me to question what I am doing right now and the future that I have.  Honestly, when these issues are critically examined, the fact is that my future doesn’t look so good.  Now, this will sound like a very unprofessional and very personal little rant, but it isn’t.  Really, this is a critical examination of the future and the fact that my future doesn’t look so good.

I have thought, for years, about what I wanted to do.  On paper, it sounded pretty good.  Surely, I thought, there are lots of areas that I could find employment.  Now I realize that that was just a childish notion, and now I am beginning to realize that maybe there isn’t much of a place in the world for one such as me.

I love politics.  I love it.  As horribly flawed as the system is, as screwed up and rigged as the game is, I love it.  I love every single bit about it.  What happens here, what happens in this country, it affects the world, and each of us.  It affects everybody in the world, and people in this country often forget that little detail.  For some, like a friend of mine, it is because they are too busy with their own lives to pay attention.

Part of the reason I want to be so involved in the national discussion of politics and hopefully working to affect real change is to help people like my friend Emily.  She is a great person.  She’s one of a rare breed who can help others, or try and help others, and asks nothing in return.  She is also the victim of the way things are in this country.  Every time a Libertarian comes at me talking about how people succeed based on their merits, a huge talking point of their little savior, Ron Paul, and his angel, Ayn Rand, I want to kick them in the face.  She busts her ass, and she is barely getting by in the world.  She may lose her home at the end of the month.  When the GOP talks about how the poor are lazy, I just want to scream.  My friend busts her ass (I used that word because I mean this that strongly, not to be unprofessional) every single day, trying to get ahead.  She is going to college but, like me, her degree that she is shooting for may leave her with nowhere to go, so don’t talk to me about how the poor are so lazy!

Sorry to get rantish there, but that is a button-issue of mine.  The bulk of the poor in this country are not sponges who are leeching from the system, but people who are trying their best to make something of their lives.  But the fact is that it is becoming harder and harder to make anything of one’s life anymore.  It is a tragic fact of life right now, and people are not as accepting as they should be.

And this is where I find myself.  I want to talk about politics, to report on politics.  The problem is that while I have a column in the newspaper with my name and this moniker, Lefty on the Left, I haven’t done any straight reporting on this subject.  Well, honestly, I don’t really believe in completely objective reporting.  Bias is always there.  I make no effort to hide mine.  Edward R. Murrow, “the Moses of broacast news,” as Bill Moyers called him, said that it is okay to have a bias, as long as you don’t try to hide it.

Although, maybe, just maybe, I can find a niche to belong to, a place to exist.  Maybe there will be a publication or something that can see the work that I have done with The Northern Light and they can be willing to give a guy a chance.  It’s all I can hope for at this point.  But the future looks kind of bleak.  I don’t want it to look so bleak, but it does.  I feel very much like Charles Kane, and missing the days of my childhood, when I was truly happy.  Although, I believe that most everybody does that.

Seriously, if you haven’t seen Citizen Kane, see it.  That film was truly a classic, and lately, has been how I am feeling, minus all the financial success that Kane had.

Peace out,


Stop Worshipping Ron Paul!

There are two characters in the world of politics who seemingly are immune from any significant amount of scorn.  Anybody who says anything bad about them is quickly put to shame.  They have the plethora of supporters who seem to never notice the fact that these characters are not the people that they desperately believe them to be.  They want them to be these great people because if they aren’t, if the ideas about them are wrong, then apparently, the group who follows them are suddenly no longer able to support themselves.  They would lose all credibility.  These two people are Ron and Rand Paul.

The growing Libertarian crowd has flocked around these two hypocrites in gloriously huge ways.  Rand Paul isn’t the one that will be discussed primarily here because he isn’t the one who is making a run at the presidency, but he is no less of a hypocrite than his father.  But it is Ron Paul that will be being trashed in this posting.  He really needs to be.  Somebody needs to point out what a complete and utter hypocrite this guy is.

One really unpleasant point about talking about this character is that if anybody says anything bad about him, they are sure to be lambasted and insulted by his little cultish followers.  Really, there is something very cult-like about the worship that these people have for him.  Like something is gospel the moment it leaves the lips of this man.

He has said that he is against government inhibiting the rights of the people, that he is for small government.  And yet, in the next breath, he can turn around and say how he is for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.  Here’s a quote from the man himself –

The government doesn’t have the right to invade your home or have cameras in your home.”

Yeah, they just have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies. There was a comment on the Huffington Post article that was linked above –

Ron Paul idiots live in the country of ME.  It is all about WHAT I WANT AND MY MONEY.  I never saw a federal document that addressed, “ME the people” .  It is always WE the people.  You want ME, go live on an island somewhere.”

Touche, elr50!  That’s what it appears to be when the Libertarians talk about their political views anymore.  But back to Ron Paul, he is also a hypocrite to his own ideals in his belief that there should be no seperation of church and state.  Here’s another quote from the horse’s mouth –

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.”

As TJ Kincaid, a brilliant YouTube vlogger, put it, Thomas Jefferson might have a problem with that –

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

The fact is that this country was founded on the belief that these two concepts should be kept incredibly far apart.  What’s more, the fact that Ron Paul doesn’t believe that, how is he for all people’s rights, again?  Even Bush II believed that these things needed to be seperate (even though his religion guided almost everything he did as a President).  Yeah, the government deserves the right to tell you how to believe.  That seems to for the rights of people, doesn’t it?

So, what makes this father-son duo so popular?  Well, they are against the wars in the Middle East, and they want to legalize drugs.  These are the only two selling points on a couple of guys who are nothing more than two more fundamentalist Christian politicians trying to push their political ideals on everybody else.  What’s more, people are buying into this!  People are setting aside their personal issues with their agendas for them!

The fact is that these people have blinders on.  They will follow blindly the rules of somebody who is just another crazy fundamentalist because they preach the message they want to hear – the the government won’t take the money that my greedy ass earned and give it to poor people, that we can have free drugs, and the troops will come home.  That is all that they want to hear, and the fact that Ron wants to destroy our nation’s already crappy infrastructure, that he wants to make women have no control over their bodies, that he wants to eliminate the freedom of belief that our Founding Fathers gave us, that apparently is completely able to be ignored.

As TJ saw it, and as I do too, the problem with people who are fans of Ron Paul is that they seem to have blinders on.  They also seem to take this man’s word as gospel, to give him “Messiah-like properties.”  They seem to believe he can do no wrong, and anybody who says otherwise is the enemy.  That is not a good progressive message, and it is also a very bad way to be in general, because if the future were to go the way that he wants it.  Well, it’s not really worth thinking about.

Peace out,


This I Believe

True to a segment that NPR has on its Morning Edition, I have decided that I would do my own segment in this.  The rules are simple – say what you believe, do not be discouraging, do not use only negative statments.  That in mind, here is my own version of This I Believe –

I believe as the late George Carlin believed – that if a person believes that there is a solution, they are part of the problem.  There is no cure-all method to what ails this country right now.  There is no panacea for the modern American political climate.  There is no Advil for the cultural divides that are growing every single day in this country.

I believe that America has a lot of issues right now.  Things are becoming more heated over the years as people in this country are becoming more and more zealous in the defense of their personal and political credos.  This is an interesting time in American history that, once again, is at the crossroads of its own destiny.  It is at a point where things are changing so fast that people are struggling to catch up and they don’t know what to do.

This is never an easy thing for people to be able to live with.  I above all others can understand how hard this is.  Given the career path that I want to follow, it is only natural that I wonder where the future is going to be and if I have a place in it.  That is the big question above all others that I think terrifies people in power in this country is that the world is changing so fast and America may not have the place that it used to have in the world that will grow around it.  This new world where things are totally different than the one we understand.

With technology improving every single day and with all the things in society that are changing, it is only natural to get a little lost.  This isn’t a bad thing.  People’s reactions to this have sometimes been unhealthy, but to feel lost in this ever-changing world is not wrong.  In fact, it is one of the few parts of what is happening in this world today that makes any legitimate sense.

I believe that the American people need to become more involved.  Really, to not be involved in politics has never made much sense to me.  It has never been something that has made much sense since what is happening in politics right now affects everybody.  To choose to not pay attention does leave one thinking that when things go wrong, people have very little right to complain.

But while people also need to take things seriously,  I do believe that people also need to have some fun.  George Carlin was an amazing influence to me because he was able to understand that there are some severe problems in modern society, but if you are looking too hard at it all the time, you are destined to wear yourself out and to give up.  While he openly admitted that he didn’t care what happened to society, he tried still to make his efforts to get people to think worth something.

I believe that those who think there is a solution are part of the problem because the cultural, political, and social divides are so great and changing so fast in this modern age that to believe that one idea is a perfect fit is not productive.  There needs to be an open mind and an open dialogue on all things.  Because if there is a perfect solution, no one person can find it.  It must be a collaborative effort with people looking toward a brighter future and being able to help everybody.

There lies the problem.  With so many cultural and social divides, like faith, party affiliations, and things like that, sometimes people are so dedicated to their ideologies that they aren’t willing to talk.  This is the problem with modern politics.  People, I think, have lost their way in a growing world where the narrative has been for them to pick a side.

So there is no perfect fit.  There are good ideas, bad ideas, and ideas that shouldn’t be on the table at all.  But in the end, if we can come together as a species, willing to try and fix things as best we can, until we have to come together again, then perhaps Carlin is wrong in the belief that there is no hope.

That is my version of This I Believe.  Not perfect, I know, but there you go.

Peace out,


The New Paradigm of Sources

There is a bit of contention that is coming up in the world of journalism about which sources are good to use and which are not good and professional.  With the age of more and more information and people being on the internet more and more, society is starting to change in the way that it views things and how it interacts with the rest of the world.  But the world of journalism is having a hard time with this one.  They are having a hard time because, like so many elements in journalism, changing with the times isn’t easy.

Journalism has been kind of an intellectual game for some time.  It is a fairly recent development, historically speaking, when there was the pathetic hack-journalism that is entertainment news.  Whenever an episode of TMZ comes on, the world gets dumber by at least two IQ points.  And the world of journalism has enough of a problem with the endless series of attacks that it falls under from the conservative elements stating that if a newspaper or TV news station doesn’t have a conservative spin on news, it is part of the “liberal media.”

Now, true objectivity in journalism is impossible.  Anybody who says otherwise is a little naive.  Personal bias exists everywhere.  Everything that people do is because of a bias to do it, or to not do it.  True objectivity is a myth because nobody is able to completely detach themselves form their own existence when they are writing.  It isn’t possible.  So the myth of true objective journalism is part of a belief system that needs to change.

But back to the concept of intellectual journalism, for a long time, sources were only those who had a lot of exposure and were clearly experts on a national level.  Look at MSNBC.  They have all their contributors being big-time people in the field in which they are commenting.  Never mind that they are also being paid to be on these shows, which kind of takes the objectivity argument away.  But now things are changing.  Things are changing because the internet is providing a way for those who are knowledgeable in different fields but don’t get a great deal of academic explosure to get the exposure they are looking for.

The greatest example of this is YouTube.  If you can get past all the videos of babies sliding across the floor and people being idiots with skateboards and stuff like that, then there is a plethora of knowledge out there for the taking.  YouTube is becoming a very quiet hub for some of the social and academic commentators to be able to get their opinions out.  And a great deal of these are able to drawn a pretty decent following.  But in the world of journalism, citing these people is still problematic.  And the reason is simple – it is not a respected outlet for information.

YouTube has garnered the reputation of being full of idiots and people who want to sound smart, and there is no denying that there are a lot of misinformed people on YouTube.  But then you get the diamonds in the rough who are able to back up what they are saying, cite sources, and even be able to discuss at length the issue that they feel strongly about.  So for the journalist community to dismiss this off-hand seems rather conservative, in their own way (the definition of conservatism is being against change, for the record, which is why it was used here).  They are not wanting to look at a new paradigm due to the image that it has been given by society.

There is a greater lesson that can be learned from things like this – that change doesn’t come easy.  It is never easy for a group of people or even for a certain person, to change their entire way of thinking.  It is pretty difficult, and history has shown that it doesn’t come easy.  As the critic on the movie Ratatouille said,

The world is often unkind to new talent.”

And this is a part of American culture that people need to start accepting more of, because it is difficult to get out of one’s comfort zone.  Of course, one should fact-check what they are told, but when a source has a great quote, when it is able to make a very good point, where it comes from shouldn’t matter, if it is factually correct, and is able to be on topic with what the person is saying, so long as the fact are correct.

For a columnist like myself, YouTube is a very unique place to get a good quote from, because it has become an area with an open market on political commentary, along with social commentary of all kinds.  All it takes is one being able to look through all the crap, and find those who are respectable.  Easy, no, but worth it, I think so.  The winds of change are blowing, and journalists have to be willing to keep up.

Peace out,


A New Conservative Paradigm

The economy is heading very quickly in the wrong direction.  This is not a good thing, not in the slightest way.  America is now in a very precarious position and the future doesn’t look so good.  This whole thing about the economy and everything that is going on recently, it is just getting more and more confusing.  But a good source of information, and I did some more research on this, gave me a good bit about how things in this economy are.  Really, it is how things in this entire country are.  I will lay it out as it comes to me, as it is, because things are much more complicated than people think they are.

The whole debt ceiling debate was just opportunism from the Tea Party Republicans.  They realized that there is a President in office who is supported by nobody in any significant areas.  People think that Obama is weak, and there was a time when he could have fought harder, but the fact is that Obama has no significant support, and people aren’t seeing the whole picture.

I believe there was a time, a very brief time, when he could have at least done something, back when Democrats had control of Congress, both houses.  But now that time has passed, long since passed.  Back when people were going crazy at the end of 2010, when the Republicans took control of the House, a lot of liberals thought it was going to be the end of the world.  Everybody with a modicum of political knowledge knew that it would just be an ugly stalemate.

A friend of mine had a thought, about history and how things are, about why the liberal ideology has no real chance, unless something big turns around.  After losing Reagan in 1980, the conservative movement didn’t sit back, waiting for the next election.  They started at the bottom, infiltrating PTA’s, city councils.  They did the opposite of the bullshit idea of economics.  They let their campaign trickle up.  It has worked.  Now they have all the power brokers, all the power in this country.

I did a little research after he told me there.  It was compelling.  It is a brilliant strategy, and does put to bed some of the questions and fills in some of the missing pieces that I had had in my mind when I was thinking about the current state of things.  Conservativism means not accepting change, or quick change, depending on what dictionary you read.  This makes a lot of sense because they don’t want things to change.  Back in the fall of 2007, when it all came to a head, the Republicans wanted business as usual to resume because, for years, business as usual was good for everybody.  Everybody was rolling in money.  Who wouldn’t want that kind of lifestyle to continue?

What about the Democrats?  Did they do something similar?  Nope.  Not a chance.  After 2000, when they lost to Bush, they only sat back and licked their wounds.  They didn’t plan ahead for the future.  Some believe that the Democrats are simply lacking any significant political battle skills, and there is some truth to that.

As for me, what do I think?  The bit above is a friend’s theory.  The truth is somewhere between that and the prevailing theory among political commentators like myself that it is all a big plan of the rich.  The rich do have control of this nation, that has always been the truth.  But this little deal, the Tea Party Republicans, they are throwing a wrench in things.  Boehner apparently actually wanted to increase taxes while decreasing spending.  It was the Tea Party crowd who threw a wrench in the cogs of that.  Now, why Obama didn’t just decide to use his power under the 14th Amendment is a mystery that will probably never get solved.

In any case, the truth is in the middle of the conspiracy of the corporate machine and the evil manaical overlords, and the very careful and detailed plan by Republicans to get in a position where all the levers and gears are owned by their people, and the American public is none the wiser.

If that is the whole truth, then perhaps the Democrats need to start a similar undertaking.  One group apparently has this thought going on.  The idea to start at the ground up.  If it has worked before, it can work again.  Here is hoping that the American public will inevitably care about what happens in their future.  With the economy heading very quickly again in the wrong direction, people should start caring.

The truth is a very scarce commodity these days.

Peace out,


Democrats say debt ceiling deal “a historic win”

It is almost poetic to watch the victory lap that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is taking after the announcement of the debt ceiling deal that was come to yesterday.  It is really kind of appropriate because it reflects upon a modern standard that is not only pathetic, but actually should bother people a great deal more than it actually does.  Really, this whole slap in the face of economics, reality, and the American people.  It ignores the way the world is and then replaced with this this happy-go-lucky vision that is so pathetically ignorant that people should be clamoring in the street about how horrible and how pathetic this “deal” really is.

The new deal has created as “Super Congress” that will be charged with cutting $1.5 trillion dollars, after having already made $1 trillion in cuts already.  But while they made all of these cuts happen, guess what didn’t happen?  They are not, and the new Super Congress cannot, increasing revenue at all.  It isn’t even on the table.  It isn’t allowed to be on the table.  When the new Super Congress is made, this idea cannot even be questioned.  This is stupid on a level of epic significance because it ignores all the logic in the world.

America is in dire economic straits right now.  But the fact is that it goes beyond that.  This country and the debt problem that it has is way beyond being able to fix with just cuts.  If it is tackled with only cuts, and no increases in revenue, the fact is that ALL entitlement programs will disappear in the blink of an eye.  And since an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want their Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Veterans Benefits to disappear, you can imagine that people don’t want that to happen.

Well, that is what is going to happen if there isn’t a smarter method devised than this bogus and pathetic shamble that was thrown together in which Obama believes that he has actually accomplished something.  This particular reporter has a theory about how one could actually create a smarter method of dealing with America’s debt.  The first part would involved letting all the Bush Tax Cuts expire, all of them.  The middle class wouldn’t even really feel it.  The only demographic that would be severely affected would be the rich.  Yeah, because they are so suffering ever since they have been making a metric ton of money after the fall in late 2007.

The next thing that a person does is massively cut the military budget.  China, the largest population of people on the face of the planet, has a much small military than us.  America has a larger military than the top 15 or so nation’s combined.  And what’s more, there is no reason for the military budget to be that huge.  There is no reason at all.  So massively slashing that would be another area that could be worked on.

Next, legalize pot, or better-yet, legalize all drugs.  There would be hundreds of billions of dollars that would be brought in from that.  Not to mention that the system would get a lot better because the prison system is just choked with drug offenders and it is a waste of money.  This would be a massive influx of revenue when these things would be legalized and then taxed.

And the final part would be to examine the entitlement programs.  All liberals should love them, and most people in general love them, but the fact is that there is abuse.  There are exploitations of loopholes.  It happens all the time.  So looking critically at the entitlement programs is a very good thing to do.  And not only that, perhaps we could slash Medicare and Medicaid, get rid of them entirely, and then bring in universal healthcare.  It has been a massive success in Europe and everywhere else that has it.  Ironically enough, America is spending more on healthcare than any nation on Earth.  We spend more even though we don’t have universal healthcare.  The logic isn’t connecting.

So, these things could actually be done and could actually solve America’s debt problem.  But what is being done?  A cuts-only approach, and the fact is that this approach does not and has never worked.  None of the Republicans great economic ideas have worked.  Reagan’s idea of “trickle-down economics” was a farce that put America into a recession in his term.  The two wars that Bush got into and paid for them with the surplus that Clinton had has been a massive contributor to our debt.  And this cuts-only approach is yet another idea that came from a horribly greedy place and will hurt the middle class.

One must ask themselves how the corporate monsters go to sleep at night, knowing that they have a political party who directly benefits them and who pretty much does everything that they possibly can to keep the rich richer and the poor poorer.  There is a twisted paradigm when America’s own government works against the country itself, while the person who runs it thinks that he has won something.  Obama believes he did the right thing.

It used to be that the liberals believed that he was spineless and lazy, but now the question is genuinely becoming if he is not a turncoat to his own party.  And he will attack his own party when the blame game begins.  He will attack the former base who once supported him with such enthusiasm because that is what he does.  He has done it before.  Back during the debate to extend the Bush Tax Cuts, he said that it was the liberals holding America hostage, even though it was completely the other way around.

If he keeps up like this, there is no way he is getting reelected in 2012.  There really does need to be somebody to run against Obama in the 2012 election primaries.  There was somebody or other on YouTube who said something really enlightened, “the only changed Obama has brought when going from a Democrat to a Republican.”  His “change” has been nothing but a three-card monte game, and now it is time for a new page to be turned, before our economy is driven into the ground.

This wasn’t a “historic win” for anybody except the Republicans.  For the American people, this was a tragic failure

Peace out,


Tag Cloud