I would like to sum up "Sicko" with one word, "DUH". It's a great movie.
Also, as I walked home along Geary from the movie, I saw the various drug addicts, homeless people and even a dead guy lying on the pavement. The policeman was calling it in. A store owner was frantically trying to distance himself from it and meanwhile, there was A DEAD MAN ON THE SIDEWALK!
What would FDR think of us now? "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." Well, our world is failing that test miserably.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
The beginning of the end for Bush/Cheney?
A response by Senator Leady and Congressman Conyers to White House Counsel Fred F. Fielding concerning the White House's invoking of executive privilege in its refusal to reply to the subpoenas conerning the Attorney firings. This provides insight into the coming actions of Congress against the Executive Branch if (and when) it claims Executive Privilege concerning the subpoenas in the NSA-wiretapping case (served two days ago):
Dear Mr. Fielding:
...We had hoped our Committees’ subpoenas would be met with compliance and not a Nixonian stonewalling that reveals the White House’s disdain for our system of checks and balances.
We urge the President to reconsider this step and withdraw his privilege claim so the American people can learn the truth about these firings. If he is unwilling to withdraw these claims, we call on you to provide more specific information to facilitate ruling on those claims and our consideration of appropriate action to enforce our subpoenas. [...]
Our Committees rejected your "take it or leave it" offer of off-the-record, backroom interviews and severe limits on the scope of our requests as unacceptable, more than three months ago. Since that time, despite our many attempts to narrow the dispute and begin to obtain the information we need, you have not made any effort to work with us on a voluntary basis. Even now, in response to subpoenas authorized by our Committees, you have again merely restated your initial, unacceptable offer. Your proposal is not commensurate with our exercise of the broad investigatory power of Congress. [...]
Please provide the documents compelled by the subpoenas without further delay. If you continue to decline to do so, you should immediately provide us with the specific factual and legal bases for your claims regarding each document withheld via a privilege log as described above and a copy of any explicit determination by the President with respect to the assertion of privilege. You have until July 9, 2007, at 10 a.m. to bring this and any other information you wish to submit to our attention before we move to proceedings to rule on your claims and consider whether the White House is in contempt of Congress.
We were disappointed that we had to turn to these subpoenas in order to obtain information needed by the Committees to learn the truth about these firings and the erosion of independence at the Justice Department. We are even more disappointed now with yet further stonewalling.
Whether or not we have the benefit of the information we have directed you to provide by July 9, we will take the necessary steps to rule on your privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Rep. John Conyers, D-MI
Dear Mr. Fielding:
...We had hoped our Committees’ subpoenas would be met with compliance and not a Nixonian stonewalling that reveals the White House’s disdain for our system of checks and balances.
We urge the President to reconsider this step and withdraw his privilege claim so the American people can learn the truth about these firings. If he is unwilling to withdraw these claims, we call on you to provide more specific information to facilitate ruling on those claims and our consideration of appropriate action to enforce our subpoenas. [...]
Our Committees rejected your "take it or leave it" offer of off-the-record, backroom interviews and severe limits on the scope of our requests as unacceptable, more than three months ago. Since that time, despite our many attempts to narrow the dispute and begin to obtain the information we need, you have not made any effort to work with us on a voluntary basis. Even now, in response to subpoenas authorized by our Committees, you have again merely restated your initial, unacceptable offer. Your proposal is not commensurate with our exercise of the broad investigatory power of Congress. [...]
Please provide the documents compelled by the subpoenas without further delay. If you continue to decline to do so, you should immediately provide us with the specific factual and legal bases for your claims regarding each document withheld via a privilege log as described above and a copy of any explicit determination by the President with respect to the assertion of privilege. You have until July 9, 2007, at 10 a.m. to bring this and any other information you wish to submit to our attention before we move to proceedings to rule on your claims and consider whether the White House is in contempt of Congress.
We were disappointed that we had to turn to these subpoenas in order to obtain information needed by the Committees to learn the truth about these firings and the erosion of independence at the Justice Department. We are even more disappointed now with yet further stonewalling.
Whether or not we have the benefit of the information we have directed you to provide by July 9, we will take the necessary steps to rule on your privilege claims and appropriately enforce our subpoenas backed by the full force of law.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, Rep. John Conyers, D-MI
Monday, June 25, 2007
Pride Not Prejudice
In the last week of June, 10's of millions of people around the world stand up and say no to homophobia. It is at this time of year in order to commemorate the Stonewall Riots, in which gay people on Christopher St. in Greenwich Village for the first time fought back against homophobic police brutality.
For reference's sake: Largest Pride event in Europe: Christopher St. Day Parade in Köln/Cologne (1,000,000+); Largest in North America: Pride in San Francisco (1,000,000+); Largest in the world: Parada do Orgulho GLBT de Sao Paolo (3,500,000). (Oh, and Phoenix has one too in April at Steele Indian School Park and a parade along 3rd St.) Moscow's and Belgrade's festivals have been banned due to violence.
Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of John Edwards, was the keynote speaker at a breakfast to kick off this year's Pride festival in San Francisco. She came out in full support of gay marriage. Moreso even than her husband. This is monumental. This is the first time a major candidate or major candidate's spouse has ever supported marriage equality. Bravo. Of course, Bloomberg participated in New York....
Yesterday was one of the best days I've had in a long time. Agnieszka came over, dressed in white with a self-made rainbow flag taped to her dress. We went down the hill through the Tenderloin to Market St. As we got close, we could hear the crowd. We arrived at Market and Jones and we found a spot behind a gay couple that had made the journey from Dallas for the parade. We started watching, and this, not in the actual order it happened, is what we saw.
There were the obvious characters present: men, women, transgender and third-gender people, etc. dressed in all types of colorful and/or leather costumes, which ran the gammut from extravagant to er, um, minimalist. A few men skated by on rollerblades naked.
Then, of course, there were the politicians: Gavin Newsom the mayor; both gay supervisors as well as three or four others from the city; the city DA; the Police Commissioner; the County Sheriff; lesbian CA State Senator Carole Migden and gay CA State Assemblyman Mark Leno; Mike Gravel, Democratic Presidential Candidate from Alaska.
There were the pet (haha) causes: PETA; Greenpeace; the Humane Society.
There were the political groups, including Ramsey Clark's A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition with a float which included a Cheney and a Bush in a cage snarling at the crowds. The caption read: STOP WOMEN-HATING, THEOCRATIC, FASCIST HOMOPHOBES. Several groups held signs reading: IMPEACH!
There was the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), and also the Latinos de Ambiente waving flags of all spanish-speaking countries.
But the most interesting parts were the groups you would never expect: groups of trash collectors; police cars flying the rainbow flag and hundreds of policemen and policewomen holding the hands of their gay and lesbian partners; countless companies or product-lines including Tylenol, Macy's, Google, Wells Fargo, the San Francisco Chronicle, Delta Airlines, Comcast, AAA and Diet Pepsi all had floats. AND THE CHURCHES: Evangelicals for Gay Rights; Unitarian Universalists; Methodists; Reform and Orthodox Jews; and the Catholics. A line of Catholic Priests waved gay flags as they traversed Market St.
The highlights that brought us all to tears were: Gays and Lesbians against Deportation; People for Equal Adoption Rights; Marriage Equality Now! This last group included a float of couples who have been denied marriage rights and the time they have been together. The most touching were two men at the crest of the float, easily in their 80s with a sign that said: "Joe and Bill. 59 years. Denied."
I'll leave the parade with the captions from some of the best signs:
-"Don't Deport Our Partners" (from the group for immigrant rights)
-"If God made you, we want you" (from the evangelicals)
-"We love our 2 gay fathers" (from 2 little 6 yr. old girls from the group for adoption equality)
-"We love our son, even if he turns out to be straight" (same group but from 2 fathers)
-"Love is not a sin" (from the Catholics)
-"Closets are for clothes" (from Carole Migden)
-"Who says God didn't create Adam and Steve?" (from the Methodists)
-"My boss knows I'm gay" (from Macy's)
After the parade, we met up with Connor and his band again and sat in front of Civic Center and watched Gay and Lesbian Hip-Hop and a gay punk band I used to listen to from Lookout! Records (Green Day's original label) called Pansy Division.
Agnieszka and I discussed throughout the day how this parade would have been viewed in Poland. She is sending pictures of the parade, including our blatant critique of Bush and the massive crowds in support of gay rights to her parents. She is proud to be here in San Francisco and I was proud to go with her and to stand next to her at the festival.
1 million or so people came from all over the world to celebrate in the de facto world capital of gay rights.
Today, I couldn't possibly be prouder to be a San Franciscan or an American.
Bob Dylan - Corrina, Corrina
For reference's sake: Largest Pride event in Europe: Christopher St. Day Parade in Köln/Cologne (1,000,000+); Largest in North America: Pride in San Francisco (1,000,000+); Largest in the world: Parada do Orgulho GLBT de Sao Paolo (3,500,000). (Oh, and Phoenix has one too in April at Steele Indian School Park and a parade along 3rd St.) Moscow's and Belgrade's festivals have been banned due to violence.
Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of John Edwards, was the keynote speaker at a breakfast to kick off this year's Pride festival in San Francisco. She came out in full support of gay marriage. Moreso even than her husband. This is monumental. This is the first time a major candidate or major candidate's spouse has ever supported marriage equality. Bravo. Of course, Bloomberg participated in New York....
Yesterday was one of the best days I've had in a long time. Agnieszka came over, dressed in white with a self-made rainbow flag taped to her dress. We went down the hill through the Tenderloin to Market St. As we got close, we could hear the crowd. We arrived at Market and Jones and we found a spot behind a gay couple that had made the journey from Dallas for the parade. We started watching, and this, not in the actual order it happened, is what we saw.
There were the obvious characters present: men, women, transgender and third-gender people, etc. dressed in all types of colorful and/or leather costumes, which ran the gammut from extravagant to er, um, minimalist. A few men skated by on rollerblades naked.
Then, of course, there were the politicians: Gavin Newsom the mayor; both gay supervisors as well as three or four others from the city; the city DA; the Police Commissioner; the County Sheriff; lesbian CA State Senator Carole Migden and gay CA State Assemblyman Mark Leno; Mike Gravel, Democratic Presidential Candidate from Alaska.
There were the pet (haha) causes: PETA; Greenpeace; the Humane Society.
There were the political groups, including Ramsey Clark's A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition with a float which included a Cheney and a Bush in a cage snarling at the crowds. The caption read: STOP WOMEN-HATING, THEOCRATIC, FASCIST HOMOPHOBES. Several groups held signs reading: IMPEACH!
There was the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), and also the Latinos de Ambiente waving flags of all spanish-speaking countries.
But the most interesting parts were the groups you would never expect: groups of trash collectors; police cars flying the rainbow flag and hundreds of policemen and policewomen holding the hands of their gay and lesbian partners; countless companies or product-lines including Tylenol, Macy's, Google, Wells Fargo, the San Francisco Chronicle, Delta Airlines, Comcast, AAA and Diet Pepsi all had floats. AND THE CHURCHES: Evangelicals for Gay Rights; Unitarian Universalists; Methodists; Reform and Orthodox Jews; and the Catholics. A line of Catholic Priests waved gay flags as they traversed Market St.
The highlights that brought us all to tears were: Gays and Lesbians against Deportation; People for Equal Adoption Rights; Marriage Equality Now! This last group included a float of couples who have been denied marriage rights and the time they have been together. The most touching were two men at the crest of the float, easily in their 80s with a sign that said: "Joe and Bill. 59 years. Denied."
I'll leave the parade with the captions from some of the best signs:
-"Don't Deport Our Partners" (from the group for immigrant rights)
-"If God made you, we want you" (from the evangelicals)
-"We love our 2 gay fathers" (from 2 little 6 yr. old girls from the group for adoption equality)
-"We love our son, even if he turns out to be straight" (same group but from 2 fathers)
-"Love is not a sin" (from the Catholics)
-"Closets are for clothes" (from Carole Migden)
-"Who says God didn't create Adam and Steve?" (from the Methodists)
-"My boss knows I'm gay" (from Macy's)
After the parade, we met up with Connor and his band again and sat in front of Civic Center and watched Gay and Lesbian Hip-Hop and a gay punk band I used to listen to from Lookout! Records (Green Day's original label) called Pansy Division.
Agnieszka and I discussed throughout the day how this parade would have been viewed in Poland. She is sending pictures of the parade, including our blatant critique of Bush and the massive crowds in support of gay rights to her parents. She is proud to be here in San Francisco and I was proud to go with her and to stand next to her at the festival.
1 million or so people came from all over the world to celebrate in the de facto world capital of gay rights.
Today, I couldn't possibly be prouder to be a San Franciscan or an American.
Bob Dylan - Corrina, Corrina
Santa Cruz
So, on Saturday, Agnieszka, the other Agnieszka and I drove to Santa Cruz. After parking, we walked through downtown a bit and then the two Agnieszkas left for the beach. I stayed and walked around a bit. Then, I sat down and read the George Lakoff book, which I'm almost done with. I went into a few bookstores, a used cd store and some other shops. Santa Cruz appears even more relaxed than Berkeley. Half the men were shirtless. Some guy was loudly drumming on the city's trashcan. Another guy had a didgeridoo. A lot more teenagers than in Berkeley or San Francisco. It actually felt more like suburbia than I would have thought.
Then, we went to the beach again and played frisbee. Connor's band was playing in Santa Cruz that night, and so at about 7:30, we went over to the club and Connor and I sat out back and talked while the Agnieszkas went shopping for something to drink on the way home. It was good to see him. I recommended to him that he drive up to San Francisco for the parade on Sunday. Then we left. The most interesting thing was the show. i say about 2 minutes of a group of 16 yr.-olds playing screaming hardcore and another group of 16 yr.-olds listening. It was strange to see where I was 8 years ago. Odd.
Then, we went to the beach again and played frisbee. Connor's band was playing in Santa Cruz that night, and so at about 7:30, we went over to the club and Connor and I sat out back and talked while the Agnieszkas went shopping for something to drink on the way home. It was good to see him. I recommended to him that he drive up to San Francisco for the parade on Sunday. Then we left. The most interesting thing was the show. i say about 2 minutes of a group of 16 yr.-olds playing screaming hardcore and another group of 16 yr.-olds listening. It was strange to see where I was 8 years ago. Odd.
the car shop on the corner
Well, I know that this was a big weekend for the city, but for awhile now, I've been wanting to tell you about a mechanic shop accross the street from my work. They have a large marquee facing the intersection of Turk and Larkin and they like to put up interesting phrases. From now on, I will put up each new one that is placed. Right now, I can only think of the last two and the latest one that has gone up today (or presumably earlier this weekend).
Oldest: "You never know what you have said until you find out what others have heard." - Gore Vidal
Next: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." - Abraham Maslow
Currect: "Pride Not Prejudice" - theme of this years Gay Pride festival/parade
Oldest: "You never know what you have said until you find out what others have heard." - Gore Vidal
Next: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." - Abraham Maslow
Currect: "Pride Not Prejudice" - theme of this years Gay Pride festival/parade
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Learning
I learn lots of things living in this city. More than learning via answers though, it all uncovers itself through questions. For instance:
Why are their at least a few, if not many, Slavic-looking, old women with their heads wrapped like Eastern-European village peasants trying to sell me random bits of food as I walk along the road? Yesterday, a woman of this description, almost crying, tried to sell me a jar of Jiffy peanut butter and/or a bag of some kind of grain that was not in a sealed package. I don't understand who these women are, or where they're from....
Why is their a public food spot along the wall on Larkin between Eddy and Ellis? There is a little shelf spot on the side of a building where there are infinite half-eaten bags of chips, or loaves of bread, or cup-of-soups. I've seen people go up and grab some, taste them, and then walk on, eating their meal.
What is in the heads of prositutes? At least once a day, if not more, I'm made painfully aware of all the prostitution in this city. I already know that we are the mecca of human-trafficking for sex in the Western Hemisphere. The path seems to be from Bangkok or Seoul to Tijuana and up through LA to SF where the money is. But the women I see are not locked in basements, they are not Asian. They are generally white women. Yesterday at about 5:30, a woman got out of a car yelling, and she looked distraught and then immediately threw herself at a man sitting in his car. "Your girlfriend around?...... Can I be your girlfriend?" She was probably 25 and highly addicted to something. Today, on my way to work at 9:30 it was almost unbearable. An older woman, around 45, looking horrified of life, almost crying, with defeat in her eyes, saw me looking at her. She almost cried to me: "Hi...." I walked on.
Why do so many people nonchalantly pick food out of trash cans and cigarette ends off the street? In this city, there really is no middle-middle class. There are the ultra rich and fairly rich. There are masses of people of comparatively humble means like me who spend all their time buying swanky clothes and expensive meals to emulate the rich. On the other side, there are the working poor who barely make it and then there are the street people. There are so many people who live out of the trash can, it's not even alienating for them to dive right in.
Why does nobody care? I finally met my neighbors accross the hall. They seem nice, and are about 33. I sat with them for about 45 minutes while they (primarily) discussed three topics: their dog, their plans for tomorrow and the legal industry. The dog comments were about taking him for walks. In one story, the woman ridiculed the homeless around on their walks and mocked them using a really insulting voice. The legal industry comments were about the arrogance of lawyers, because she is one (like 10% of San Franciscans). The point discussed about tomorrows plans for them and the guy's mom were primarily about one question: Man:"Should I tell them to eat light for lunch?" Woman: "No, because then they might be expecting more and not enjoy the chips and salsa." Man: "You're right, they will have walked a lot and would really enjoy something to eat." Woman: "But don't have them eat too much for lunch, or they won't be hungry". This went on for 15 minutes and was punctuated by giving directions to the bar they were going to meet at. "You know "Score"? Well, go own that street and turn right before the "Siesta Lounge". Then "Red Room" will be on your left. (I made up these names). Crazy me, I thought streets had names. Good thing I've been to every elitist restaurant in town and have based my entire understanding of the city on the geography of hipster places.
One last story: Agnieszka and I were on Bush, a half a block from Chinatown Gate at the French church. We wanted to sit on the steps and rest, but on one side a man was sleeping, so we went to the other. After about an hour a man showed up, jerking his head crazily about trying to take off his jacket. He was cowering in another doorway to the church and it suddenly occurred to me that our conversation had stolen this man's bed. So, we decided to leave. As we did, he stumbled into some bushes and I fugured he was going to relieve himself. Instead, he picked up a pile of sleeping stuff: sleeping bag, blankets, etc. and I figured it out. He sleeps on the steep, cold steps of this church on busy Bush St. every night and then stashes his stuff in the bushes during the day so he doesn't get yelled at. He's obviously mentally ill.
How can we live in this city when tens of thousands of people are drug addicts, dying of AIDS, mentally ill, malnourished and dying on our streets. Tens of thousands more live in a world of violence where they shoot at, get shot at, or live in fear of getting murdered. Shootings occur here everyday. But no matter. All is well over in Pacific Heights. San Francisco is repositioning itself as a major city of power. We are going to go from a world-class city that tries to avoid living like a big city, to an all-out Manhattan carbon-copy, while we blatantly ignore the statistic that we have 14th largest city in the US, but the 2nd most homeless people. We have almost as many as LA with about 20% of the population. Around 80% of our homeless are known as "hardcore", meaning they've lived on the street for longer than 3 months. Some haven't had a permanent bed in 30 years.
What's the difference again between San Francisco and the third world?
Wir sind Helden - Endlich ein Grund zur Panik
Why are their at least a few, if not many, Slavic-looking, old women with their heads wrapped like Eastern-European village peasants trying to sell me random bits of food as I walk along the road? Yesterday, a woman of this description, almost crying, tried to sell me a jar of Jiffy peanut butter and/or a bag of some kind of grain that was not in a sealed package. I don't understand who these women are, or where they're from....
Why is their a public food spot along the wall on Larkin between Eddy and Ellis? There is a little shelf spot on the side of a building where there are infinite half-eaten bags of chips, or loaves of bread, or cup-of-soups. I've seen people go up and grab some, taste them, and then walk on, eating their meal.
What is in the heads of prositutes? At least once a day, if not more, I'm made painfully aware of all the prostitution in this city. I already know that we are the mecca of human-trafficking for sex in the Western Hemisphere. The path seems to be from Bangkok or Seoul to Tijuana and up through LA to SF where the money is. But the women I see are not locked in basements, they are not Asian. They are generally white women. Yesterday at about 5:30, a woman got out of a car yelling, and she looked distraught and then immediately threw herself at a man sitting in his car. "Your girlfriend around?...... Can I be your girlfriend?" She was probably 25 and highly addicted to something. Today, on my way to work at 9:30 it was almost unbearable. An older woman, around 45, looking horrified of life, almost crying, with defeat in her eyes, saw me looking at her. She almost cried to me: "Hi...." I walked on.
Why do so many people nonchalantly pick food out of trash cans and cigarette ends off the street? In this city, there really is no middle-middle class. There are the ultra rich and fairly rich. There are masses of people of comparatively humble means like me who spend all their time buying swanky clothes and expensive meals to emulate the rich. On the other side, there are the working poor who barely make it and then there are the street people. There are so many people who live out of the trash can, it's not even alienating for them to dive right in.
Why does nobody care? I finally met my neighbors accross the hall. They seem nice, and are about 33. I sat with them for about 45 minutes while they (primarily) discussed three topics: their dog, their plans for tomorrow and the legal industry. The dog comments were about taking him for walks. In one story, the woman ridiculed the homeless around on their walks and mocked them using a really insulting voice. The legal industry comments were about the arrogance of lawyers, because she is one (like 10% of San Franciscans). The point discussed about tomorrows plans for them and the guy's mom were primarily about one question: Man:"Should I tell them to eat light for lunch?" Woman: "No, because then they might be expecting more and not enjoy the chips and salsa." Man: "You're right, they will have walked a lot and would really enjoy something to eat." Woman: "But don't have them eat too much for lunch, or they won't be hungry". This went on for 15 minutes and was punctuated by giving directions to the bar they were going to meet at. "You know "Score"? Well, go own that street and turn right before the "Siesta Lounge". Then "Red Room" will be on your left. (I made up these names). Crazy me, I thought streets had names. Good thing I've been to every elitist restaurant in town and have based my entire understanding of the city on the geography of hipster places.
One last story: Agnieszka and I were on Bush, a half a block from Chinatown Gate at the French church. We wanted to sit on the steps and rest, but on one side a man was sleeping, so we went to the other. After about an hour a man showed up, jerking his head crazily about trying to take off his jacket. He was cowering in another doorway to the church and it suddenly occurred to me that our conversation had stolen this man's bed. So, we decided to leave. As we did, he stumbled into some bushes and I fugured he was going to relieve himself. Instead, he picked up a pile of sleeping stuff: sleeping bag, blankets, etc. and I figured it out. He sleeps on the steep, cold steps of this church on busy Bush St. every night and then stashes his stuff in the bushes during the day so he doesn't get yelled at. He's obviously mentally ill.
How can we live in this city when tens of thousands of people are drug addicts, dying of AIDS, mentally ill, malnourished and dying on our streets. Tens of thousands more live in a world of violence where they shoot at, get shot at, or live in fear of getting murdered. Shootings occur here everyday. But no matter. All is well over in Pacific Heights. San Francisco is repositioning itself as a major city of power. We are going to go from a world-class city that tries to avoid living like a big city, to an all-out Manhattan carbon-copy, while we blatantly ignore the statistic that we have 14th largest city in the US, but the 2nd most homeless people. We have almost as many as LA with about 20% of the population. Around 80% of our homeless are known as "hardcore", meaning they've lived on the street for longer than 3 months. Some haven't had a permanent bed in 30 years.
What's the difference again between San Francisco and the third world?
Wir sind Helden - Endlich ein Grund zur Panik
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Free World
So, I have for years decried the popular division of the world during the Cold War into the Communist World and the Free World. I always thought that it was silly and arrogant. I may have changed by mind. The division is far different than I thought.
I'm reading George Lakoff's book called "Whose Freedom?" about the different concepts of freedom.
I always thought of "freedom" as a fairly nebulous concept that people used to sound good. I have begun to find it a detestable word and I've now learned why. Freedom has come to mean, amongst conservatives, freedom from economic restrictions, freedom to live without the moral degradation that they see in homosexuality, the freedom to practice and spread one's religion, the freedom from evil, the freedom from government imposition on one's wallet.
Freedom in my mind has always been much more up FDR's alley. Freedom from want (restrictions on the ultimate freedom of the market, according to conservatives), freedom to not be controlled by someone else's religion (restrictions on your ability to express your religion, according to conservatives), freedom to be, even if it deviates from someone's conception of normal (harming morality, according to conservatives), the freedom that derives from government support of health (taxation, imposition on one's wallet, to conservatives).
In the Soviet Union, it becomes even more interesting. You had government-alleged freedom from want through the restriction of anyone's excelling in the economy, but the masses ended up poor. This is an attack on economic freedom for both conservatives (restrictions on the free market) and progressives (restrictions on ACTUAL freedom from want). You had restrictions on religion. This is an attack on religious freedom for both concservatives (restrictions on the propagation of your religion) and progressives (restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression). You also had restrictions on security and civil liberties in the progressive sense (an attack on freedom from fear and freedom of expression) but also for conservatives (the conservative ideal of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" didn't really work in the Soviet Union. You might still have something to fear, as it was often random).
So, in reality, in both conceptions of freedom that have ever been used in America, we were more free than the Soviets, thus making us the Free World. I would argue, though, that I fear the conservative form of freedom as much as I fear the Soviet lack of freedom. Everything I hold dear and moral in this world is diametrically opposed to exactly what conservatives believe in. They attack my freedom, differently than the Soviets, but to similar effect. I have grown up in a time when radical conservatives have been on the rise and I have always thought it a major portion of society. If George Lakoff is correct however, it hasn't always been that way. The Republicans and Democrats both used to support taxes as part of the Common Wealth (the Commonwealth of Virginia, for example). Now, we have these violently individualistic plutocrats who are threatening our way of life. I was SO born at the wrong time.
Under the Soviets I would have had no safety net for food, but I wouldn't under the conservatives either. I would have had no freedom to decide my own religion under the Soviets, but the conservatives oppose my atheism. I would be under surveillance under both systems, restricting my freedom. The Soviets would have promised me health care, but I'm sure not whether they would have funded it. The conservatives would simply not give it to me at all. The conservatives are pretty scary people. The conservatives are not Soviets, but neither of them agreed with my conception of freedom. Can anyone explain to me why the conservatives aren't just as bad?
I think Angela Merkel is a progressive in many of these senses. I'm beginning to think that even if I didn't always agree with politicians like the Kennedys, I may have misjudged them all along. I'm becoming ever more interested in earlier American politicians.
Current music: Avril Lavigne - Imagine (much better thank you'd think - it's on the Save Darfur album)
I'm reading George Lakoff's book called "Whose Freedom?" about the different concepts of freedom.
I always thought of "freedom" as a fairly nebulous concept that people used to sound good. I have begun to find it a detestable word and I've now learned why. Freedom has come to mean, amongst conservatives, freedom from economic restrictions, freedom to live without the moral degradation that they see in homosexuality, the freedom to practice and spread one's religion, the freedom from evil, the freedom from government imposition on one's wallet.
Freedom in my mind has always been much more up FDR's alley. Freedom from want (restrictions on the ultimate freedom of the market, according to conservatives), freedom to not be controlled by someone else's religion (restrictions on your ability to express your religion, according to conservatives), freedom to be, even if it deviates from someone's conception of normal (harming morality, according to conservatives), the freedom that derives from government support of health (taxation, imposition on one's wallet, to conservatives).
In the Soviet Union, it becomes even more interesting. You had government-alleged freedom from want through the restriction of anyone's excelling in the economy, but the masses ended up poor. This is an attack on economic freedom for both conservatives (restrictions on the free market) and progressives (restrictions on ACTUAL freedom from want). You had restrictions on religion. This is an attack on religious freedom for both concservatives (restrictions on the propagation of your religion) and progressives (restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression). You also had restrictions on security and civil liberties in the progressive sense (an attack on freedom from fear and freedom of expression) but also for conservatives (the conservative ideal of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" didn't really work in the Soviet Union. You might still have something to fear, as it was often random).
So, in reality, in both conceptions of freedom that have ever been used in America, we were more free than the Soviets, thus making us the Free World. I would argue, though, that I fear the conservative form of freedom as much as I fear the Soviet lack of freedom. Everything I hold dear and moral in this world is diametrically opposed to exactly what conservatives believe in. They attack my freedom, differently than the Soviets, but to similar effect. I have grown up in a time when radical conservatives have been on the rise and I have always thought it a major portion of society. If George Lakoff is correct however, it hasn't always been that way. The Republicans and Democrats both used to support taxes as part of the Common Wealth (the Commonwealth of Virginia, for example). Now, we have these violently individualistic plutocrats who are threatening our way of life. I was SO born at the wrong time.
Under the Soviets I would have had no safety net for food, but I wouldn't under the conservatives either. I would have had no freedom to decide my own religion under the Soviets, but the conservatives oppose my atheism. I would be under surveillance under both systems, restricting my freedom. The Soviets would have promised me health care, but I'm sure not whether they would have funded it. The conservatives would simply not give it to me at all. The conservatives are pretty scary people. The conservatives are not Soviets, but neither of them agreed with my conception of freedom. Can anyone explain to me why the conservatives aren't just as bad?
I think Angela Merkel is a progressive in many of these senses. I'm beginning to think that even if I didn't always agree with politicians like the Kennedys, I may have misjudged them all along. I'm becoming ever more interested in earlier American politicians.
Current music: Avril Lavigne - Imagine (much better thank you'd think - it's on the Save Darfur album)
Good thing I moved.
This happened less than two blocks from Alamo Square, for those of you who know where that is. Also 5 blocks from where I used to live.
7 injured as feud rages in the Western Addition
Housing complex's residents terrified -- 2 attacks in 12 hours
A feud between groups from two Western Addition housing developments, which flared Tuesday when a 19-year-old man was shot in the foot, exploded Wednesday and Thursday as packs of gunmen wounded seven people in a pair of brazen shootings, San Francisco police said.
Police said they were increasing patrols near both housing developments -- the privately owned Friendship Village Apartments and the city's Yerba Buena Plaza East, just five blocks away -- in response to shootings at 9:30 p.m. Wednesday and 8:50 a.m. Thursday that deeply frightened residents.
The latest two shootings happened at Friendship Village, a three-story complex of wood shingles on Friendship Court, where police said young men and teens are battling rivals from Plaza East, a collection of newer townhouses centered at Eddy and Buchanan streets. That's where the 19-year-old man was shot Tuesday.
"We're making headway" on identifying the shooters, Police Chief Heather Fong said Thursday afternoon at City Hall, after emerging from closed-door meetings with Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, whose district includes the crime scenes.
Fong said officers would be stationed outside the housing developments 24 hours a day until investigators from the city's gang task force decide the situation has cooled down. Leaflets will be passed out, she said, asking residents to give information that could help solve the cases.
Police also will be keeping an eye on the Juneteenth festival on Fillmore Street this Saturday and Sunday, which celebrates African American history and culture.
Mirkarimi, who went to Friendship Court after each shooting, said he was angry that the second attack was not averted. He said he spoke with Fong by telephone at 12:30 a.m. Thursday, after the first shooting, and that she had promised him that officers would be stationed there.
"The fact is, it didn't happen," Mirkarimi said.
Capt. Kevin Dillon, who heads the Northern Police Station, said he took responsibility for officers not being posted at the location at the time of the second shooting. "There was a communication breakdown," he said. "It's being addressed."
In the first shooting, police said, seven assailants attacked a group of people on the 1100 block of McAllister Street, at the end of Friendship Court. One victim was driven to Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center and three others, including a bystander, were taken to San Francisco General Hospital. None had life-threatening wounds, said Sgt. Neville Gittens, a police spokesman.
Jason Steinberg, a 32-year-old photographer, said he was the bystander. He said he was walking toward his apartment on Fulton Street, a block away from the shooting, when he was knocked to the ground. He initially thought he had been hit by a bottle rocket, but soon realized a bullet had blasted through a metal gate and struck him in the left thigh, leaving him with a deep bruise.
"I'm looking to move out immediately," he said.
The second shooting happened near a playground, a central management office and a laundry room along Friendship Court, which bisects the apartment complex. Police said three or four suspects on foot attacked a group, wounding a 16-year-old boy and two 17-year-old boys. One of the victims had life-threatening injuries, Gittens said.
The shootings left nearby cars and homes scarred by bullet holes. Yellow chalk circles on the pavement, which typically indicate where a bullet casing has been found, were scattered over a wide area, as if the victims of the second shooting had been chased.
"I dove to the floor both times," said Virginia Womach, a 58-year-old woman who lives in Friendship Village. "I couldn't count how many shots there were."
Womach said violence had been a factor when she recently made plans to move away, after nearly 30 years in the complex. She said she and her boyfriend were moving next month to Redding, where she has a grown son.
"That's good countryside," she said.
7 injured as feud rages in the Western Addition
Housing complex's residents terrified -- 2 attacks in 12 hours
A feud between groups from two Western Addition housing developments, which flared Tuesday when a 19-year-old man was shot in the foot, exploded Wednesday and Thursday as packs of gunmen wounded seven people in a pair of brazen shootings, San Francisco police said.
Police said they were increasing patrols near both housing developments -- the privately owned Friendship Village Apartments and the city's Yerba Buena Plaza East, just five blocks away -- in response to shootings at 9:30 p.m. Wednesday and 8:50 a.m. Thursday that deeply frightened residents.
The latest two shootings happened at Friendship Village, a three-story complex of wood shingles on Friendship Court, where police said young men and teens are battling rivals from Plaza East, a collection of newer townhouses centered at Eddy and Buchanan streets. That's where the 19-year-old man was shot Tuesday.
"We're making headway" on identifying the shooters, Police Chief Heather Fong said Thursday afternoon at City Hall, after emerging from closed-door meetings with Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, whose district includes the crime scenes.
Fong said officers would be stationed outside the housing developments 24 hours a day until investigators from the city's gang task force decide the situation has cooled down. Leaflets will be passed out, she said, asking residents to give information that could help solve the cases.
Police also will be keeping an eye on the Juneteenth festival on Fillmore Street this Saturday and Sunday, which celebrates African American history and culture.
Mirkarimi, who went to Friendship Court after each shooting, said he was angry that the second attack was not averted. He said he spoke with Fong by telephone at 12:30 a.m. Thursday, after the first shooting, and that she had promised him that officers would be stationed there.
"The fact is, it didn't happen," Mirkarimi said.
Capt. Kevin Dillon, who heads the Northern Police Station, said he took responsibility for officers not being posted at the location at the time of the second shooting. "There was a communication breakdown," he said. "It's being addressed."
In the first shooting, police said, seven assailants attacked a group of people on the 1100 block of McAllister Street, at the end of Friendship Court. One victim was driven to Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center and three others, including a bystander, were taken to San Francisco General Hospital. None had life-threatening wounds, said Sgt. Neville Gittens, a police spokesman.
Jason Steinberg, a 32-year-old photographer, said he was the bystander. He said he was walking toward his apartment on Fulton Street, a block away from the shooting, when he was knocked to the ground. He initially thought he had been hit by a bottle rocket, but soon realized a bullet had blasted through a metal gate and struck him in the left thigh, leaving him with a deep bruise.
"I'm looking to move out immediately," he said.
The second shooting happened near a playground, a central management office and a laundry room along Friendship Court, which bisects the apartment complex. Police said three or four suspects on foot attacked a group, wounding a 16-year-old boy and two 17-year-old boys. One of the victims had life-threatening injuries, Gittens said.
The shootings left nearby cars and homes scarred by bullet holes. Yellow chalk circles on the pavement, which typically indicate where a bullet casing has been found, were scattered over a wide area, as if the victims of the second shooting had been chased.
"I dove to the floor both times," said Virginia Womach, a 58-year-old woman who lives in Friendship Village. "I couldn't count how many shots there were."
Womach said violence had been a factor when she recently made plans to move away, after nearly 30 years in the complex. She said she and her boyfriend were moving next month to Redding, where she has a grown son.
"That's good countryside," she said.
Friday, June 08, 2007
Justice!
The immigration bill has fallen! Not for the reasons it should have, but thank god that idiocy is past us!
AND THE BIGOT HOMOPHOBE HAS FALLEN! Peter Pace has announcement his retirement!
AND THE BIGOT HOMOPHOBE HAS FALLEN! Peter Pace has announcement his retirement!
Thursday, June 07, 2007
If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Our plutocracy is now complete.
I really, really, really wanna spend the next 40 days in a mansion with alcohol, servants, massages, cooks, etc. So, I've decided I'm going to go get drunk, endanger the lives of others with an automobile, get arrested for it, and then arrogantly violate my probation by driving with a suspended license three times.
Mom and Dad, you really failed me by not providing me the skills with which to pull this off.
If you don't know what I'm referring to, I envy you.
Current Music: MIA. - Mind Games
I really, really, really wanna spend the next 40 days in a mansion with alcohol, servants, massages, cooks, etc. So, I've decided I'm going to go get drunk, endanger the lives of others with an automobile, get arrested for it, and then arrogantly violate my probation by driving with a suspended license three times.
Mom and Dad, you really failed me by not providing me the skills with which to pull this off.
If you don't know what I'm referring to, I envy you.
Current Music: MIA. - Mind Games
McCain
I posted the previous after only 80 percent or so of the debate.
Tancredo pleaded for English as our only language. He was adamant and a little crazy. McCain stood up and said, "Muchas Gracias, Governor."
McCain's defended of Spanish as the original language of Arizona and the enrichment of Arizona by Hispanic culture. He defended immigrants as patriots. He openly made it clear that the debate was mostly concerning Hispanics: "Friend, next time you're down in Washington, I want you to go down to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names. You're gonna see a whole lotta Hispanic names." He went on to refer in the say way to the Iraq War, and then he said, "They have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them." Wild screams of approval.
Maybe McCain won that night.
(Still 15 minutes left)
Tancredo pleaded for English as our only language. He was adamant and a little crazy. McCain stood up and said, "Muchas Gracias, Governor."
McCain's defended of Spanish as the original language of Arizona and the enrichment of Arizona by Hispanic culture. He defended immigrants as patriots. He openly made it clear that the debate was mostly concerning Hispanics: "Friend, next time you're down in Washington, I want you to go down to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names. You're gonna see a whole lotta Hispanic names." He went on to refer in the say way to the Iraq War, and then he said, "They have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them." Wild screams of approval.
Maybe McCain won that night.
(Still 15 minutes left)
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Russia and the Republicans
I don't want to sound apologetic for Putin and I do believe that he's acting belligerent, but does anyone else get the the feeling that we're trying to create conflict? Is the right preparing for life after Iraq? When we try to stop talking about Muslim terrorism so that we can ignore our failure, who will we hate then? Russia seems good. I feel like Chavez might fight the bill. But I think Chavez is a LOT more ridiculous! Russia could be dangerous. If they wanted to be! I really don't think Putin wants animosity again.... Unless he feels his grip slipping....
Republicans:
Brownback: Doesn't believe in evolution and I think he was in Leap of Faith with Steve Martin about sleazy fake pastors.
Huckabee: Also doesn't believe, but at least he wants to appear friendly. HE CALLED HOMOSEXUALITY AN "ATTITUDE"! What a bigot. His answer on abortion was pretty good. He attached abortion to a culture of life that includes respect for the poor. Well done, Governor Bigot.
Hunter: Actually talked about reaching out to the Democrats
Gilmore: Somewhat reasonable. For a Republican.
Tommy Thompson: Hilarious! Wonderful attitude supporting preventative health care!
Tancredo: Insane on immigration. Great against Bush.
Romney: He's more boring than John Kerry! (and resembles him in many ways) Dumb talking points. He makes the same talking-point silly errors as Richardson. Totally ignores the question. I don't think he has any chance WHATSOEVER.
Giuliani: Strange. He says some things and I wanna scream and other times, I think: Thank god, because he'll probably win his nomination, so at least he's not as bad as the others. He was Associate Attorney General?! Is that below a Deputy Attorney General? He's also a pragmatist. He's not quite as psychotic as he seems. He's a good speaker too. I think he's a formidable candidate. His conflation of environmental health and business health sounded downright Obama-esque. His health-care rant sounded good as a sound byte, but too bad he's way on the right. At least he didn't avoid the issue.
McCain: I feel he's a practical guy who started out saying what people wanna hear. He lost, and now he's trying to be a strange mixture of frankness and lies. HOWEVER. He is one of two to not be TO THE RIGHT of the immigration law! and also singularly, seemed (at least half) against English as an official language. Kudos on that.
Paul: Of course I find him interesting. I think I like him more than any of the other Republicans, mostly because he has a unified idea of what he stands for. However, he did not attack Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He didn't speak against Creationism [sic], but rather only attacked it at as unconstitutional AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. However, he had an amazing, better even than any answer in the Democratic debate on the most important moral issue. He answered that the biggest problem was "the acceptance just recently that we now promote pre-emptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition." He elaborated and it sent chills up my spine.
I think they all sound silly. The ones who don't believe in evolution should leave. I think Tancredo's in the KKK. That leaves Hunter, Gilmore, Paul and Thomspon in the second tier and Giuliani, Romney and McCain in the top tier.
It seems blatantly clear to me, much more so than in the Democratic Party that with the current 10, meaning without Fred Thompson, that Rudy Giuliani is the only guy that at the moment, seems even half presidential. McCain and Paul are the most intelligent, but Giuliani and Paul are the speakers. Paul sounds too much like a dude (albeit a very intelligent one) in a coffee shop.
I'd say Giuliani, McCain and Paul were the only people I even cared about (except I think Tommy Thompson is funny) watching. Giuliani won and is the biggest snake. McCain might actually turn out to be somewhat reasonable (I know everyone will hate me on that one) and Paul seems to be a burgeoning cult-leader (what's the deal with that).
The Republicans are really awful though. All of them. I feel like it's a clear vote: Democrat and hopefully leave the fake war (War on Terror, not Iraq) or Republican and 8 more years of 1984.
Republicans:
Brownback: Doesn't believe in evolution and I think he was in Leap of Faith with Steve Martin about sleazy fake pastors.
Huckabee: Also doesn't believe, but at least he wants to appear friendly. HE CALLED HOMOSEXUALITY AN "ATTITUDE"! What a bigot. His answer on abortion was pretty good. He attached abortion to a culture of life that includes respect for the poor. Well done, Governor Bigot.
Hunter: Actually talked about reaching out to the Democrats
Gilmore: Somewhat reasonable. For a Republican.
Tommy Thompson: Hilarious! Wonderful attitude supporting preventative health care!
Tancredo: Insane on immigration. Great against Bush.
Romney: He's more boring than John Kerry! (and resembles him in many ways) Dumb talking points. He makes the same talking-point silly errors as Richardson. Totally ignores the question. I don't think he has any chance WHATSOEVER.
Giuliani: Strange. He says some things and I wanna scream and other times, I think: Thank god, because he'll probably win his nomination, so at least he's not as bad as the others. He was Associate Attorney General?! Is that below a Deputy Attorney General? He's also a pragmatist. He's not quite as psychotic as he seems. He's a good speaker too. I think he's a formidable candidate. His conflation of environmental health and business health sounded downright Obama-esque. His health-care rant sounded good as a sound byte, but too bad he's way on the right. At least he didn't avoid the issue.
McCain: I feel he's a practical guy who started out saying what people wanna hear. He lost, and now he's trying to be a strange mixture of frankness and lies. HOWEVER. He is one of two to not be TO THE RIGHT of the immigration law! and also singularly, seemed (at least half) against English as an official language. Kudos on that.
Paul: Of course I find him interesting. I think I like him more than any of the other Republicans, mostly because he has a unified idea of what he stands for. However, he did not attack Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He didn't speak against Creationism [sic], but rather only attacked it at as unconstitutional AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. However, he had an amazing, better even than any answer in the Democratic debate on the most important moral issue. He answered that the biggest problem was "the acceptance just recently that we now promote pre-emptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition." He elaborated and it sent chills up my spine.
I think they all sound silly. The ones who don't believe in evolution should leave. I think Tancredo's in the KKK. That leaves Hunter, Gilmore, Paul and Thomspon in the second tier and Giuliani, Romney and McCain in the top tier.
It seems blatantly clear to me, much more so than in the Democratic Party that with the current 10, meaning without Fred Thompson, that Rudy Giuliani is the only guy that at the moment, seems even half presidential. McCain and Paul are the most intelligent, but Giuliani and Paul are the speakers. Paul sounds too much like a dude (albeit a very intelligent one) in a coffee shop.
I'd say Giuliani, McCain and Paul were the only people I even cared about (except I think Tommy Thompson is funny) watching. Giuliani won and is the biggest snake. McCain might actually turn out to be somewhat reasonable (I know everyone will hate me on that one) and Paul seems to be a burgeoning cult-leader (what's the deal with that).
The Republicans are really awful though. All of them. I feel like it's a clear vote: Democrat and hopefully leave the fake war (War on Terror, not Iraq) or Republican and 8 more years of 1984.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Barack Obama
I have to be honest. I did not change my mind about Obama ONLY after seeing the debates instead of just reading the transcript. I also was so annoyed at Obama, that I wrote to a friend of mine from Chicago who is an enormous Obama-backer. I will present that discussion here, so you can see more of what has changed my mind. My simplistic thinking is actually a little embarassing to me, but also don't agree with everything my friend said. Obama is not the greatest candidate ever, but after hearing him speak again and discussing some issues he does appear to be the best of those who have a chance. My friend's response to Obama's war stance is especially helpful.
My orignial questions followed by his responses:
John: 1) He claims that he has opposed the war from the start. He was,however, not in the United States government in order to register hisobjection. As a state senator, though, he did oppose the war.However, he did represent Chicago within Illinois. Was he reallygoing to support the war? It seems to me he's just playing on theignorance of the masses, attempting to win points, when he wasn't eventhere.
Peter: 1) When Obama opposed the war, he was already a candidate for the United States Senate. But he made a number of appearances at anti-war rallies, gave speeches against the war, and he was the only candidate for Senate to do so in the Democratic primary (he was the underdog against a wealthy self-funded businessman on the one hand and the son of an old school Chicago machine-politician on the other)... Remember this was when the war was at 80% popularity and Democratic politicians like Edwards and Clinton were loathe to speak against it. Illinois was also just in the process of turning into a blue state. The governor was Republican and the seat for which Obama was running was an open Republican seat. He had reasonably good reason to believe he could be burying his political career by speaking out against the war at a time when it was so popular. Here's a solid video mash-up of various statements on the Iraq war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8. Now when Obama arrived in the US Senate in 2004, he at first voted for appropriations bills, on the grounds that he thought that no matter how bad an idea the war was, the cost of failure was too great. He said that he would give the situation six months to see if there was any improvement, and when there wasn't any, he came out in favor of withdrawing the troops. (This can be controversial on the left but it happens to match up with my own position and I think it's the most responsible one. I was against the war, participated in protests, but in 2003/2004 I also had no idea what should happen next --- withdrawing immediately after we had already committed the mistake and plunged the country into chaos seemed silly. I've come around to withdrawal basically because it seems to me that our presence there only exacerbates the situation.) And I beg you to read his speech from 2002 here: http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php. It's a flaming speech.
John: 2) This immigration plan is absolutely ludicrous, yet he supports it. He also voted on a bill last year to build a wall on the US/Mexicanborder. I find that disgusting. However, I realize that leaves me with just Kucinich who didn't.
Peter: 2) He supported the wall with Mexico bill as part of the compromise to get a full immigration bill, as did many Democratic senators, including Biden, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. The idea is that in order to get any Republican votes, there needed to be an "effort" to seal the border. And keep in mind, the wall is to be 700-odd miles in total but certainly not contiguous. The idea was for snippets of fenceline in various urban areas. (None of this fence has yet to be constructed, and the funds may be cut off now that there's a Democratic majority.) As far as the new version of the immigration bill this year, Obama has criticized certain aspects of it sharply and he hasn't come out in favor of its current form. (Democrats are unhappy particularly with the portion that rewrites future immigration policy to focus on education/skill level rather than family relations.) Obama is a pragmatist on this. There are certain Democrats and certain Republicans in the Senate that won't support any immigration bill at all. It's such a controversial issue that you need 60 votes to pass anything since it will almost certainly be filibustered. With Tim Johnson in the hospital, the Dems have 50 votes, and then they lose all the senators with strong union backing who oppose any temporary worker program on the grounds that it lowers wages. The only way they can pass anything at all is by picking up a substantial number of Republican votes from conservative border-state people like Jon Cornyn of Texas and your own dear John Kyl of Arizona. Otherwise nothing will ever be passed. And those votes can be bought if you provide them at least with the pretense that in the future illegal immigration will be cracked down upon. Obviously some sort of way of legalizing the twelve million illegal immigrants already in the country needs to take place. And this is the democratic system that we have, it's how the Senate works: there are a tremendous number of compromises that are necessary to get us there.
John: 3) He advocated the assassination of Osama Bin Laden even if thatmeant collateral damage.
Peter: 3) As far as the assassination of Osama bin Laden, I'm not so sure it counts as an assassination. American troops are in constant conflict with Taliban and al Qaeda forces. How is bombing a camp in which bin Laden is present any different? And obviously in the course of the CNN debate yesterday, all the candidates argued that it depended on the number of causalities. I would point out that Obama was the only candidate answering the question about a hypothetical terrorist attack who emphasized, first, the emergency response, then ensuring there would be no further attacks, third, figuring out who had committed the attack, and only then launch a response --- the other candidates tripped over themselves to talk about how swiftly they would retaliate. Obama, on the other hand, emphasized due process --- and was criticized soundly for it.
John: 4) His health-care plan, while not even being universal, keeps in lace much of the apparatus of the insurance companies and their money-grubbing practices and will be more expensive.
Peter: 4) On health care, Obama chose, like Edwards, not to go with single payer. He instead decided to focus on saving health care costs through expanding preventative care. He also proposed mandatory health care for minors. To quote the New Yorker article, in which he was asked why he didn't go for single payer:
"If you're starting from scratch," he says, "then a single-payer system"—a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment—"would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside." I think this is a fair position. It's certainly the most realistic position, and one around which there is a growing consensus. States like Massachusetts and California (both under Republican governors) are already experimenting with it. The idea is to make health insurance like car insurance, to phase in making it mandatory for all, with the idea that a broader health system in which illness is treated preventatively is actually cheaper than one in which the uninsured develop catastrophic illnesses and require surgery. Keep in mind, switching to single payer would be essentially eliminating the entire health care industry (companies in the hundreds of billions of dollars and with hundreds of thousands of employees) today and building it from scratch. It isn't realistic on a national level. You run into the same problem of partly of simply not having the votes in the Senate --- if you can't find more than 51 votes to end the Iraq war now, when it's almost political suicide (proven by '06) for Republicans to continue to vote to support it, how will you ever get 60 to move to single payer? There was a great editorial in the New York Times about this move towards something like Obama's plan:
"And if what you care about is which candidate can one-up the others, it is rather disappointing. But if what you care about is whether, after the 2008 election, we'll be in a position to finally stop the health systems' downward spiral, the similarity of the emerging proposals is exactly what's interesting. I don't think you can call it a consensus, but there is nonetheless a road forward being paved and a growing number of people from across the political spectrum are on it — not just presidential candidates, but governors from California to Pennsylvania, unions and businesses like Safeway, ATT and Pepsi.
This is what that road looks like. It is not single-payer. It instead follows the lead of European countries ranging from the Netherlands to Switzerland to Germany that provide universal coverage (and more doctors, hospitals and access to primary care) through multiple private insurers while spending less money than we do. The proposals all define basic benefits that insurers must offer without penalty for pre-existing conditions. They cover not just expensive sickness care, but also preventive care and cost-saving programs to give patients better control of chronic illnesses like diabetes and asthma.
We'd have a choice of competing private plans, and, with Edwards and Obama, a Medicare-like public option, too. An income-related federal subsidy or voucher would help individuals pay for that coverage. And the proposals also embrace what's been called shared responsibility — requiring that individuals buy health insurance (at minimum for their children) and that employers bigger than 10 or 15 employees either provide health benefits or pay into a subsidy fund."
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31gawande.html
To my mind, to propose any other plan is to simply propose doing nothing. It's not like Obama doesn't like the idea of a single payer plan, or that he hasn't considered it. It's that he just doesn't think it's feasible to implement it. Now, the major difference between Edwards and Obama on the plan is that Edwards mandates that all individuals buy the plan. Obama feels that the government should stick to putting together the plan, making it affordable, and helping people purchase it --- and only then when after a trial period, there are still significant gaps, would he talk about making it mandatory.
Obviously there is no such thing as a universal health care plan... Even Massachusetts only reaches in theory 97-98 percent. Edwards plan is no different. The idea is to make the gap as small as possible, and to do it by making health care as cheap as possible --- through requiring plans to cover preventative care, through allowing the importation of cheaper prescription drugs (via canada for example), and through subsidizing technology/better record-keeping to reduce medical error and make it more efficient.
John: 5) He seems to have no ability to be exciting in any way. He standsthere saying almost exactly what Hillary Clinton says, biding his timefor when it's clear it's down to the two of them.
Peter: 5) It's not his style to pound the podium. He's a thoughtful guy and has a subdued style. It's not that he can't give a rousing speech: obviously he did in 2004 at the convention.
Obama's background is in community organizing. He's spent his entire career as a civil rights attorney and an urban community organizer. Obviously he cares about the poor and is motivated by ameliorating it. It's what he does. I think, frankly, that Obama is the only candidate in the Democratic field who would have the ability to be a transformational figure in American politics and to produce movement on health care and global warming. Clinton or Edwards would get into office and be immediately stymied by Congress. He is the best public speaker the party has produced in years. He isn't great at televised debates yet --- but in what sense is that skill important exactly? --- especially as it has so little impact on the outcome of a race? He can captivate crowds. He generates enthusiasm. In Illinois, there are countless examples where he led efforts on the hot button issues of the day and broke logjams to produce legislation: he eliminated racial profiling, set up required video-taping of police interrogations of murder suspects, set up death penalty reform, and pushed forward the first campaign finance reform in two decades. With the example of the mandantory video-taping, he produced a bill that the police officer's union opposed and the then-Democratic governor threatened with a veto, and he not only passed it, but he passed it unanimously. When I worked for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, co-workers would drive down to the state capital in Springfield and would come back beaming about a certain young state senator.It is a radical and audacious prospect: To elect a president who has spent his life as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and constitutional law professor, who has a record on behalf of the poor and in producing consensus, instead of electing one who has spent a couple decades in Congress (and probably has too many enemies in Congress, and is too caught up in old battles, to produce any movement on the things I care about). Anyway, those are some thoughts. See what you think, Peter p.s. If you still need some convincing, I absolutely love Obama's stump speech during the 2006 campaign on behalf of other candidates. My favorite speech of his is here on video: http://home.ourfuture.org/videos/take-back-america-2006/senator-barack-obama.html
THANKS PETER!
My orignial questions followed by his responses:
John: 1) He claims that he has opposed the war from the start. He was,however, not in the United States government in order to register hisobjection. As a state senator, though, he did oppose the war.However, he did represent Chicago within Illinois. Was he reallygoing to support the war? It seems to me he's just playing on theignorance of the masses, attempting to win points, when he wasn't eventhere.
Peter: 1) When Obama opposed the war, he was already a candidate for the United States Senate. But he made a number of appearances at anti-war rallies, gave speeches against the war, and he was the only candidate for Senate to do so in the Democratic primary (he was the underdog against a wealthy self-funded businessman on the one hand and the son of an old school Chicago machine-politician on the other)... Remember this was when the war was at 80% popularity and Democratic politicians like Edwards and Clinton were loathe to speak against it. Illinois was also just in the process of turning into a blue state. The governor was Republican and the seat for which Obama was running was an open Republican seat. He had reasonably good reason to believe he could be burying his political career by speaking out against the war at a time when it was so popular. Here's a solid video mash-up of various statements on the Iraq war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8. Now when Obama arrived in the US Senate in 2004, he at first voted for appropriations bills, on the grounds that he thought that no matter how bad an idea the war was, the cost of failure was too great. He said that he would give the situation six months to see if there was any improvement, and when there wasn't any, he came out in favor of withdrawing the troops. (This can be controversial on the left but it happens to match up with my own position and I think it's the most responsible one. I was against the war, participated in protests, but in 2003/2004 I also had no idea what should happen next --- withdrawing immediately after we had already committed the mistake and plunged the country into chaos seemed silly. I've come around to withdrawal basically because it seems to me that our presence there only exacerbates the situation.) And I beg you to read his speech from 2002 here: http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php. It's a flaming speech.
John: 2) This immigration plan is absolutely ludicrous, yet he supports it. He also voted on a bill last year to build a wall on the US/Mexicanborder. I find that disgusting. However, I realize that leaves me with just Kucinich who didn't.
Peter: 2) He supported the wall with Mexico bill as part of the compromise to get a full immigration bill, as did many Democratic senators, including Biden, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. The idea is that in order to get any Republican votes, there needed to be an "effort" to seal the border. And keep in mind, the wall is to be 700-odd miles in total but certainly not contiguous. The idea was for snippets of fenceline in various urban areas. (None of this fence has yet to be constructed, and the funds may be cut off now that there's a Democratic majority.) As far as the new version of the immigration bill this year, Obama has criticized certain aspects of it sharply and he hasn't come out in favor of its current form. (Democrats are unhappy particularly with the portion that rewrites future immigration policy to focus on education/skill level rather than family relations.) Obama is a pragmatist on this. There are certain Democrats and certain Republicans in the Senate that won't support any immigration bill at all. It's such a controversial issue that you need 60 votes to pass anything since it will almost certainly be filibustered. With Tim Johnson in the hospital, the Dems have 50 votes, and then they lose all the senators with strong union backing who oppose any temporary worker program on the grounds that it lowers wages. The only way they can pass anything at all is by picking up a substantial number of Republican votes from conservative border-state people like Jon Cornyn of Texas and your own dear John Kyl of Arizona. Otherwise nothing will ever be passed. And those votes can be bought if you provide them at least with the pretense that in the future illegal immigration will be cracked down upon. Obviously some sort of way of legalizing the twelve million illegal immigrants already in the country needs to take place. And this is the democratic system that we have, it's how the Senate works: there are a tremendous number of compromises that are necessary to get us there.
John: 3) He advocated the assassination of Osama Bin Laden even if thatmeant collateral damage.
Peter: 3) As far as the assassination of Osama bin Laden, I'm not so sure it counts as an assassination. American troops are in constant conflict with Taliban and al Qaeda forces. How is bombing a camp in which bin Laden is present any different? And obviously in the course of the CNN debate yesterday, all the candidates argued that it depended on the number of causalities. I would point out that Obama was the only candidate answering the question about a hypothetical terrorist attack who emphasized, first, the emergency response, then ensuring there would be no further attacks, third, figuring out who had committed the attack, and only then launch a response --- the other candidates tripped over themselves to talk about how swiftly they would retaliate. Obama, on the other hand, emphasized due process --- and was criticized soundly for it.
John: 4) His health-care plan, while not even being universal, keeps in lace much of the apparatus of the insurance companies and their money-grubbing practices and will be more expensive.
Peter: 4) On health care, Obama chose, like Edwards, not to go with single payer. He instead decided to focus on saving health care costs through expanding preventative care. He also proposed mandatory health care for minors. To quote the New Yorker article, in which he was asked why he didn't go for single payer:
"If you're starting from scratch," he says, "then a single-payer system"—a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment—"would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside." I think this is a fair position. It's certainly the most realistic position, and one around which there is a growing consensus. States like Massachusetts and California (both under Republican governors) are already experimenting with it. The idea is to make health insurance like car insurance, to phase in making it mandatory for all, with the idea that a broader health system in which illness is treated preventatively is actually cheaper than one in which the uninsured develop catastrophic illnesses and require surgery. Keep in mind, switching to single payer would be essentially eliminating the entire health care industry (companies in the hundreds of billions of dollars and with hundreds of thousands of employees) today and building it from scratch. It isn't realistic on a national level. You run into the same problem of partly of simply not having the votes in the Senate --- if you can't find more than 51 votes to end the Iraq war now, when it's almost political suicide (proven by '06) for Republicans to continue to vote to support it, how will you ever get 60 to move to single payer? There was a great editorial in the New York Times about this move towards something like Obama's plan:
"And if what you care about is which candidate can one-up the others, it is rather disappointing. But if what you care about is whether, after the 2008 election, we'll be in a position to finally stop the health systems' downward spiral, the similarity of the emerging proposals is exactly what's interesting. I don't think you can call it a consensus, but there is nonetheless a road forward being paved and a growing number of people from across the political spectrum are on it — not just presidential candidates, but governors from California to Pennsylvania, unions and businesses like Safeway, ATT and Pepsi.
This is what that road looks like. It is not single-payer. It instead follows the lead of European countries ranging from the Netherlands to Switzerland to Germany that provide universal coverage (and more doctors, hospitals and access to primary care) through multiple private insurers while spending less money than we do. The proposals all define basic benefits that insurers must offer without penalty for pre-existing conditions. They cover not just expensive sickness care, but also preventive care and cost-saving programs to give patients better control of chronic illnesses like diabetes and asthma.
We'd have a choice of competing private plans, and, with Edwards and Obama, a Medicare-like public option, too. An income-related federal subsidy or voucher would help individuals pay for that coverage. And the proposals also embrace what's been called shared responsibility — requiring that individuals buy health insurance (at minimum for their children) and that employers bigger than 10 or 15 employees either provide health benefits or pay into a subsidy fund."
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31gawande.html
To my mind, to propose any other plan is to simply propose doing nothing. It's not like Obama doesn't like the idea of a single payer plan, or that he hasn't considered it. It's that he just doesn't think it's feasible to implement it. Now, the major difference between Edwards and Obama on the plan is that Edwards mandates that all individuals buy the plan. Obama feels that the government should stick to putting together the plan, making it affordable, and helping people purchase it --- and only then when after a trial period, there are still significant gaps, would he talk about making it mandatory.
Obviously there is no such thing as a universal health care plan... Even Massachusetts only reaches in theory 97-98 percent. Edwards plan is no different. The idea is to make the gap as small as possible, and to do it by making health care as cheap as possible --- through requiring plans to cover preventative care, through allowing the importation of cheaper prescription drugs (via canada for example), and through subsidizing technology/better record-keeping to reduce medical error and make it more efficient.
John: 5) He seems to have no ability to be exciting in any way. He standsthere saying almost exactly what Hillary Clinton says, biding his timefor when it's clear it's down to the two of them.
Peter: 5) It's not his style to pound the podium. He's a thoughtful guy and has a subdued style. It's not that he can't give a rousing speech: obviously he did in 2004 at the convention.
Obama's background is in community organizing. He's spent his entire career as a civil rights attorney and an urban community organizer. Obviously he cares about the poor and is motivated by ameliorating it. It's what he does. I think, frankly, that Obama is the only candidate in the Democratic field who would have the ability to be a transformational figure in American politics and to produce movement on health care and global warming. Clinton or Edwards would get into office and be immediately stymied by Congress. He is the best public speaker the party has produced in years. He isn't great at televised debates yet --- but in what sense is that skill important exactly? --- especially as it has so little impact on the outcome of a race? He can captivate crowds. He generates enthusiasm. In Illinois, there are countless examples where he led efforts on the hot button issues of the day and broke logjams to produce legislation: he eliminated racial profiling, set up required video-taping of police interrogations of murder suspects, set up death penalty reform, and pushed forward the first campaign finance reform in two decades. With the example of the mandantory video-taping, he produced a bill that the police officer's union opposed and the then-Democratic governor threatened with a veto, and he not only passed it, but he passed it unanimously. When I worked for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, co-workers would drive down to the state capital in Springfield and would come back beaming about a certain young state senator.It is a radical and audacious prospect: To elect a president who has spent his life as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and constitutional law professor, who has a record on behalf of the poor and in producing consensus, instead of electing one who has spent a couple decades in Congress (and probably has too many enemies in Congress, and is too caught up in old battles, to produce any movement on the things I care about). Anyway, those are some thoughts. See what you think, Peter p.s. If you still need some convincing, I absolutely love Obama's stump speech during the 2006 campaign on behalf of other candidates. My favorite speech of his is here on video: http://home.ourfuture.org/videos/take-back-america-2006/senator-barack-obama.html
THANKS PETER!
The Debates, part II
Through the magic of Youtube, I watched the debates (search for democratic debates (or debate, not sure) and then on the left side of the screen sort by date added). What a different picture I saw! Speaking abilities and/or good/bad acting skills seem to convey something completely different than mere words. Following are briefer impressions based on the video:
Gravel: Sad, not pathetic. He is so right on most things, and seems so frustrated. No chance, but I feel for him.
Richardson: Frighteningly awful. Talking points only, and could not for one second answer any of the questions.
Dodd: Much better than I had thought. But I will never forget his refusal to accept the reality of blowback while on Bill Maher's show.
Biden: Wow. He was screaming, "While we talk, 50,000 more people are going to die!" about Darfur. Passion. Candor. Not so much with me on every issue like Kucinich, but I like him.
Kucinich: Wonderful. Better than 4 years ago. He will hopefully pull the Democrats with a chance a little to the left.
Clinton: Presidential, but horribly arrogant. Her laughing was grating on my brain. Not quite as evasive as I had thought. She might actually have a chance with the Republicans.
Edwards: Not quite as powerful as I had thought, but he was good. He helped himself. But his attack was dulled by Kucinich's attack. His, "let's get real about this" was almost funny when Kucinich attacked all of them.
Obama: I completely changed my mind on him after seeing him speak. He was not grandiose. He does not have the greatest lines. But dear lord, is he aware of the complexity of the issues. He is actually speaking about reality, rather than spewing feel-good crap like Hillary. He's the smartest one up there (except for maybe Biden) and most importantly, something that came accross again and again: he's practical. He's not going to pander to the right like Clinton. He pushes all the right buttons, to prove to the morons (those that listen only for keywords) that he "supports the troops", that he's religious and that's he's strong on defense, but he is not pandering. I was too blinded by his keyword-dropping while reading the transcripts, that I did not recognize it as only a necessity of the situation.
Gravel, Richardson and Dodd are useless for various reasons. Kucinich is a perfect foil for the front-runners, but he's impractical and he has no chance. I would like to see the other FOUR considered as the front-runners: Biden, Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think there are two groups, the leaders who know they can't be on the offensive (Clinton and Obama) and the second tier, who have to be on the offensive (Biden and Edwards). I like Biden and Obama far more than their (according to my tier-system) counterparts Clinton and Edwards. I like all of them more than Clinton. I think that in reality only Hillary and Barack have a chance to get the nomination and that Barack has a far better chance of winning against the Republicans than Hillary.
So, as of right now, practically, I want Obama (I know it's a drastic change). Less practically, but with a small chance, I want Biden. And theoretically I want Kucinich.
I still want Gore, but I'm not as depressed about the field of candidates as after reading their statements.
God help us all tonight with the fascist nutjobs spouting their rhetoric on the other side tonight at 4pm pacific time.
Gravel: Sad, not pathetic. He is so right on most things, and seems so frustrated. No chance, but I feel for him.
Richardson: Frighteningly awful. Talking points only, and could not for one second answer any of the questions.
Dodd: Much better than I had thought. But I will never forget his refusal to accept the reality of blowback while on Bill Maher's show.
Biden: Wow. He was screaming, "While we talk, 50,000 more people are going to die!" about Darfur. Passion. Candor. Not so much with me on every issue like Kucinich, but I like him.
Kucinich: Wonderful. Better than 4 years ago. He will hopefully pull the Democrats with a chance a little to the left.
Clinton: Presidential, but horribly arrogant. Her laughing was grating on my brain. Not quite as evasive as I had thought. She might actually have a chance with the Republicans.
Edwards: Not quite as powerful as I had thought, but he was good. He helped himself. But his attack was dulled by Kucinich's attack. His, "let's get real about this" was almost funny when Kucinich attacked all of them.
Obama: I completely changed my mind on him after seeing him speak. He was not grandiose. He does not have the greatest lines. But dear lord, is he aware of the complexity of the issues. He is actually speaking about reality, rather than spewing feel-good crap like Hillary. He's the smartest one up there (except for maybe Biden) and most importantly, something that came accross again and again: he's practical. He's not going to pander to the right like Clinton. He pushes all the right buttons, to prove to the morons (those that listen only for keywords) that he "supports the troops", that he's religious and that's he's strong on defense, but he is not pandering. I was too blinded by his keyword-dropping while reading the transcripts, that I did not recognize it as only a necessity of the situation.
Gravel, Richardson and Dodd are useless for various reasons. Kucinich is a perfect foil for the front-runners, but he's impractical and he has no chance. I would like to see the other FOUR considered as the front-runners: Biden, Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think there are two groups, the leaders who know they can't be on the offensive (Clinton and Obama) and the second tier, who have to be on the offensive (Biden and Edwards). I like Biden and Obama far more than their (according to my tier-system) counterparts Clinton and Edwards. I like all of them more than Clinton. I think that in reality only Hillary and Barack have a chance to get the nomination and that Barack has a far better chance of winning against the Republicans than Hillary.
So, as of right now, practically, I want Obama (I know it's a drastic change). Less practically, but with a small chance, I want Biden. And theoretically I want Kucinich.
I still want Gore, but I'm not as depressed about the field of candidates as after reading their statements.
God help us all tonight with the fascist nutjobs spouting their rhetoric on the other side tonight at 4pm pacific time.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The Debates
First of all, I'd like to state that I did not watch the debates, but I did read every word of the transcript, so I can only comment on what they said and not the important things like Edwards's and Clinton's haircuts, or whether Obama's skin is the correct pigment.
Also, I'd like to state that my statements are all based on impressions left. I may attack someone for something that others said as well, but I am merely going by memory.
Biden - Biden continues to be exception to the mainstream. He's almost like a moderate version of Kucinich. They both somewhat seem to tell the truth. His nearing-on authentic candor about why he voted to continue funding is a little disingenuous, but he certainly has a grasp on issues. His understanding of Darfur and Iran were also impressive. The best part about him, is that he's known to be verbose. That means more nuance. That means more respect for me, the average American.
Clinton - Sickening, in a well done way. She answered no questions. Iran was her only strength. She refused to condemn Bill for "don't ask, don't tell". Peter Pace is an asshole, and should have been fired long before Don Imus. He's obviously not fit to lead our forces' attempts to effect liberal democracy. He's a bigot. Your husband was not perfect Mrs. Clinton! Her attempts to gain the moral high ground with her stand against hypothetical situations was silly. She still said she would assassinate Osama Bin Laden even it killed civilians. What the hell kinda world are we living in? The simplistic fantasy world of Israel? I think she would be perfect against someone like Giuliani though, who also doesn't seem to be able to think in complete, intelligent sentences.
Dodd - Boring. I no longer care. He has no chance and when Bill Maher gave him an opportunity to confirm what Republican Ron Paul said about "the terrorists'" reasons for attacking "us", he still lied through his teeth. He doesn't understand that the lower tier candidates must be exciting, and not just spout the same drivel as the front-runners, which is what he said all night. Oh no, we better not threaten to boycott the Olympics to save hundreds of thousands of women from being raped and men and women from being murdered in Sudan. That would go "too far". Get off the stage.
Edwards - Somehow, he is in many ways inching his way forward as my favorite of the three leaders. First of all, though, he does not get points for admitting he was wrong about the war. He knew it was poltically sound at the time so he did it. He didn't vote due to the intelligence. Everyone knew Bush was a liar then, but they were just scared. Give him no credit over Clinton. I say she wins on the war. He needs to give real health care, a la Kucinich. Kucinich is also more right on the war. HOWEVER. Edwards actually does seem to care about the poor. He brought it up briefly at the end, but of course, there was no time for that. AND Edwards is now my hero for the bumper sticker comment. There is no war on terror. It's an attempt by our president to take away our rights and wage endless war with no goals. He wants complete control, no micromanagement, and when the generals no longer agree with him, he fires them (excuse me, they "quit"). He is attempting to become a despot. Thank you John Edwards. (Hillary really missed an attempt to make this a widely-discussed topic and to debunk the whole fascist myth, but of course, she didn't.) And also, kudos to you for exposing Obama and Clinton for waiting to sneak their vote against funding in at the very end. However, Edwards will likely lose many people for appearing to be "negative". I wish people would realize that negative is wonderful when you speak of the actual issues, in order to clarify differences between candidates. Negative is bad when you lie, distort or moralize.
Gravel - Pathetic. He occasionally says some interesting things, but Kucinich already has the role of the straight-talker. Gravel just sounds like a nut. He's harming Kucinich.
Kucinich - Amazing, as usual. No assassinations. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Get out of NAFTA. DON'T FUND THE WAR! Too bad people are dumb.
Obama - He has been the real real real real loser of both of these debates. HE SAYS NOTHING! He will not win by copying Clinton, because she is more popular. He will not win with his fake health plan. If they want it they will buy it, he seems to think. Is that what you think on immigration? If they want to be legal, they'll pay 5,000 dollars? You know, just a small fraction of the millions that they've amassed working as a busboy or a dishwasher. You're speech was good. You can play basketball. You really are black. You didn't go to a madrassa. You were apparently a very impressive political figure in the state government of Illinois, but now you don't know what you're doing. YOU VOTED FOR THE WALL BETWEEN HERE AND MEXICO, YOU JERK! You were not in the federal government, so your opposition to war "from the beginning" is irrelevant! You don't get to use that. And to preempt Edwards, you weren't in the Senate to vote against the wall, so don't try to use that one later. I'm sorry to say it, but Obama sucks.
Richardson - I was somewhat rooting for him in an underdog sort of way. He's from my neck-of-the-woods. However, he just seemed to ramble all night and I'm really sick of people constantly saying that their federal plans come from their local plans. New Mexico has one of the lowest populations of any state. The federal government is a completely different animal. Again, as a second-tierer, he needs to speak more clearly. He doesn't have the luxury of evading the issues that Hillary has.
Someone needs to defend poor people (maybe Edwards) and gay people (not impressive Richardson), for god's sake!
All in all, I wish that Richardson, Gravel and Dodd would leave. They are not unique (maybe Richardson can stay, he is good on energy). In the order of overall chance, it would leave, from best chance to worst: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich. Of course, my preference order would be Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Clinton. However, as far as ability to beat the Republicans, I would put it in this order Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Kucinich. So who am I voting for right now?
For chances: Clinton
For reasonable chance but with some integrity: Edwards
For real desire: Kucinich
So, who am I voting for? Al Gore.
Also, I'd like to state that my statements are all based on impressions left. I may attack someone for something that others said as well, but I am merely going by memory.
Biden - Biden continues to be exception to the mainstream. He's almost like a moderate version of Kucinich. They both somewhat seem to tell the truth. His nearing-on authentic candor about why he voted to continue funding is a little disingenuous, but he certainly has a grasp on issues. His understanding of Darfur and Iran were also impressive. The best part about him, is that he's known to be verbose. That means more nuance. That means more respect for me, the average American.
Clinton - Sickening, in a well done way. She answered no questions. Iran was her only strength. She refused to condemn Bill for "don't ask, don't tell". Peter Pace is an asshole, and should have been fired long before Don Imus. He's obviously not fit to lead our forces' attempts to effect liberal democracy. He's a bigot. Your husband was not perfect Mrs. Clinton! Her attempts to gain the moral high ground with her stand against hypothetical situations was silly. She still said she would assassinate Osama Bin Laden even it killed civilians. What the hell kinda world are we living in? The simplistic fantasy world of Israel? I think she would be perfect against someone like Giuliani though, who also doesn't seem to be able to think in complete, intelligent sentences.
Dodd - Boring. I no longer care. He has no chance and when Bill Maher gave him an opportunity to confirm what Republican Ron Paul said about "the terrorists'" reasons for attacking "us", he still lied through his teeth. He doesn't understand that the lower tier candidates must be exciting, and not just spout the same drivel as the front-runners, which is what he said all night. Oh no, we better not threaten to boycott the Olympics to save hundreds of thousands of women from being raped and men and women from being murdered in Sudan. That would go "too far". Get off the stage.
Edwards - Somehow, he is in many ways inching his way forward as my favorite of the three leaders. First of all, though, he does not get points for admitting he was wrong about the war. He knew it was poltically sound at the time so he did it. He didn't vote due to the intelligence. Everyone knew Bush was a liar then, but they were just scared. Give him no credit over Clinton. I say she wins on the war. He needs to give real health care, a la Kucinich. Kucinich is also more right on the war. HOWEVER. Edwards actually does seem to care about the poor. He brought it up briefly at the end, but of course, there was no time for that. AND Edwards is now my hero for the bumper sticker comment. There is no war on terror. It's an attempt by our president to take away our rights and wage endless war with no goals. He wants complete control, no micromanagement, and when the generals no longer agree with him, he fires them (excuse me, they "quit"). He is attempting to become a despot. Thank you John Edwards. (Hillary really missed an attempt to make this a widely-discussed topic and to debunk the whole fascist myth, but of course, she didn't.) And also, kudos to you for exposing Obama and Clinton for waiting to sneak their vote against funding in at the very end. However, Edwards will likely lose many people for appearing to be "negative". I wish people would realize that negative is wonderful when you speak of the actual issues, in order to clarify differences between candidates. Negative is bad when you lie, distort or moralize.
Gravel - Pathetic. He occasionally says some interesting things, but Kucinich already has the role of the straight-talker. Gravel just sounds like a nut. He's harming Kucinich.
Kucinich - Amazing, as usual. No assassinations. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Get out of NAFTA. DON'T FUND THE WAR! Too bad people are dumb.
Obama - He has been the real real real real loser of both of these debates. HE SAYS NOTHING! He will not win by copying Clinton, because she is more popular. He will not win with his fake health plan. If they want it they will buy it, he seems to think. Is that what you think on immigration? If they want to be legal, they'll pay 5,000 dollars? You know, just a small fraction of the millions that they've amassed working as a busboy or a dishwasher. You're speech was good. You can play basketball. You really are black. You didn't go to a madrassa. You were apparently a very impressive political figure in the state government of Illinois, but now you don't know what you're doing. YOU VOTED FOR THE WALL BETWEEN HERE AND MEXICO, YOU JERK! You were not in the federal government, so your opposition to war "from the beginning" is irrelevant! You don't get to use that. And to preempt Edwards, you weren't in the Senate to vote against the wall, so don't try to use that one later. I'm sorry to say it, but Obama sucks.
Richardson - I was somewhat rooting for him in an underdog sort of way. He's from my neck-of-the-woods. However, he just seemed to ramble all night and I'm really sick of people constantly saying that their federal plans come from their local plans. New Mexico has one of the lowest populations of any state. The federal government is a completely different animal. Again, as a second-tierer, he needs to speak more clearly. He doesn't have the luxury of evading the issues that Hillary has.
Someone needs to defend poor people (maybe Edwards) and gay people (not impressive Richardson), for god's sake!
All in all, I wish that Richardson, Gravel and Dodd would leave. They are not unique (maybe Richardson can stay, he is good on energy). In the order of overall chance, it would leave, from best chance to worst: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich. Of course, my preference order would be Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Clinton. However, as far as ability to beat the Republicans, I would put it in this order Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Kucinich. So who am I voting for right now?
For chances: Clinton
For reasonable chance but with some integrity: Edwards
For real desire: Kucinich
So, who am I voting for? Al Gore.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Castro and Rostock
So, Agnieszka, her friend Justyna and I were in the Castro last night, and I went into a Starbucks to use the bathroom. This guy standing in line behind me for the bathroom started a little discussion with me and I have to tell you, that is the most references to the Clueless with Alicia Silverstone I've ever heard in a 5 minute period. Much more entertaining than the man in front who mumblingly told me to avoid having a pinched nerve in your back, because if you do, you might end up crawling around the streets and someone might call the police. But he did have to admit, the policemen were "dears". I didn't actually start either of these discussions.... hehe.
As you might expect, I am quite aware of the violence in Rostock that left 400 policemen and hundreds of protesters injured and led to 150 arrests. Frighteningly, although I don't condone throwing bricks at police officers in any way, I can't condemn the anger that they feel. George Bush is trying to co-opt the conference's once possibly legitimate topic, how to fight climate change, and suggest a weaker platform to be discussed at the end of 2008 (right before he leaves office).
The world is getting angry. Globalization is not just bringing together the leaders and businessmen of the world to profit off the backs of the poor. It's also bringing together the anger or the "tired, poor, huddled masses". I honestly think the situation is getting so dire that there is barely another outlet rather than brutal violence for that level of society. I have the ability to study and at least avoid some of the direct effects. But can any of us honestly tell an uneducated, unemployed worker from Serbia that he should calm down, work hard and wait for the situation to improve? To me, I think Lenin and Mao were just a little premature. Marx's concept of the poor being pushed more and more towards a breaking point seems to be becoming ever more evident.
Pete Seeger - Turn, Turn, Turn
As you might expect, I am quite aware of the violence in Rostock that left 400 policemen and hundreds of protesters injured and led to 150 arrests. Frighteningly, although I don't condone throwing bricks at police officers in any way, I can't condemn the anger that they feel. George Bush is trying to co-opt the conference's once possibly legitimate topic, how to fight climate change, and suggest a weaker platform to be discussed at the end of 2008 (right before he leaves office).
The world is getting angry. Globalization is not just bringing together the leaders and businessmen of the world to profit off the backs of the poor. It's also bringing together the anger or the "tired, poor, huddled masses". I honestly think the situation is getting so dire that there is barely another outlet rather than brutal violence for that level of society. I have the ability to study and at least avoid some of the direct effects. But can any of us honestly tell an uneducated, unemployed worker from Serbia that he should calm down, work hard and wait for the situation to improve? To me, I think Lenin and Mao were just a little premature. Marx's concept of the poor being pushed more and more towards a breaking point seems to be becoming ever more evident.
Pete Seeger - Turn, Turn, Turn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)