"One way or another- this darkness got to give"
-----Grateful Dead
Going to try to start posting again. There's so much that's happened, I feel like I'm fuckin up.
Frankly every time I think about doing this I've just kind of been overwhelmed into silence. All I can do at this point is write some snarky know-it-all bullshit without any evidence or even reasoning- at this point I can't write reasonably- if you are a person so fucking stupid that you don't see how bad things are- you're a fuckwit and I don't like you anyway.
Here's some things I know.
Georgie Boy is responsible for what happened in New Orleans. Not the storm, but what happened, (or didn't) afterwards. N.O. was my favorite American city and now it'll never be the same again- oh and it laid bare the racist /classist/nauseating underbelly of the cancer in the American soul.
Rove won't go to jail for his role in outing Valerie Plame and our stupid ass media has completely forgotten the story- morons morons morons morons.
We've lost the Iraq War- in case you're not paying attention.
The last five years are going to be looked back on as one of the lowest points in American history- mainly becuase we keeping screwing up and WE AREN'T LEARNING ANYTHING.
There is the slimmest of slim chances that what happened with the hurricaine will wake the American people out of their fear centered terror party and realize there are real things to be afraid of- the suffering of the people around them- but I seriously doubt it.
On a personal note.
I got married back on June 25 to the newly dubbed Victoria Hrdina (she's taken my atrocious name without a hyphen.) She is, as far as I'm concerned, the most wonderful woman alive. (Well duh- I married her didn't I?)
I'm gonna have my sixth novel done by Christmas- I'm really excited about this one.
I think Lost is one of the best shows that's ever been on TV.
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Sunday, May 08, 2005
William Hrdina
Final Exam
This was my final exam for my Polysci class. I am so enamored of my answers to these questions I had to put them up.
Essay Questions
1. Outline and explain Max Weber’s Ideal bureaucracy.
1) One of my favorite oxymorons of all time is the phrase “Ideal Bureaucracy.” It’s not as good as “Intelligence Services”, but it’s close. Even the spelling of the word bureaucracy is an atrocity of language. A better term might be, Oh God I’ve been in the DMV for three hours.
Weber’s ideal bureaucracy comes from law as opposed to from God (in the form of some charismatic guy or gal who says they’ve got God’s ear) or a King. Being based on law gives Weber’s bureaucracy a consistency you don’t find in a charismatic leader or a line of Kings.
The hallmark of this is where one’s loyalties lie. In the ideal bureaucracy your loyalty is to the institution, not to the individuals that make up the institution. This way, if the charismatic leader dies or the King goes berserk, the structure of society and the way it is run remains intact. It also creates a “schema” where our courts have become so enamored of our institutions that they’ve convinced themselves corporations have individual rights and existences outside of the people making them up.
Another characteristic of this ideal bureaucracy is a stable salaried career. A paycheck. A new idea during Weber’s time, the salaried career was immediately identified as a good way of creating institutional stability.
Because bureaucracies are by their very nature immense things, Weber recognized that it would be necessary to specialize, creating niches of intelligence that work together through the policies and procedures of the institution creating a whole made up of many different individuals. This too has upsides and downsides. On the upside we can bore deeply into a thing and learn all about it’s parts. On the downside, by specializing to such a high degree people also become stupid about everything except the one thing they know all about. It also leads to a kind of metaphysical naval gazing that allows for things like what we saw in the Pentagon movie about the Bradley.
Finally, the bureaucracy’s rules have to be written down so that loopholes can be found. Oh wait, no. I meant that Weber says you write down the rules because it creates consistency. Which it does. Only it’s a rigid, stupid consistency massively lacking in common sense. “It’s not my fault, it clearly says here in paragraph 3; section 9, that I’m allowed to steal your sandwich at lunch.
2. According to Patterson, (in his book about politics and the media called "Out of Order") why is the news media not the appropriate organization to organize campaigns (e.g., be the coalition builders between candidates and voters)?
2) First and foremost because of the reasons given in answer 4; but also because the traditional role of the press is as a watchdog over the government. This is where the nickname the “4th branch of government” comes from. “The critical task of the watchdog is not to be confused with the constructive task of the coalition-builder.” Patterson argues the media had the role of coalition-builder forced up on it and because of the necessity of being a watchdog and a coalition builder, fails at both.
p. 52 puts it succinctly
A) Journalistic values and political values are at odds.
B) Journalistic values, introduce an element of random partisanship which works to the advantage of one side or another.
C) Election news serves to drive a wedge between voters and candidates.
3. Patterson argues that political parties use to be the coalition builders and now we (society) ask the news media to play this role. What, according to Patterson, brought about this change?
3) Patterson blames the foisting of elections away from parties and onto the media on the Reform Democrats of the early 70’s. They wanted a system where “the rank and file voters would be the kingmakers.” (p.33) This was opposed to the old system where the party bosses picked the candidates. Now, all the candidates would be running against one another in a free for all and it would be up to the voters to choose the candidates. Patterson argues that it became necessary for the press to step in to magnify the exposure of the candidates in order that the public learn about them.
This is inherently problematic. The press isn’t necessarily interested in politics. It certainly isn’t their reason for the press’s existence. The media is mostly about entertainment. Patterson puts it, “The party has the incentive- the possibility of acquiring political power- to give order and voice to society’s values. Its raison d’ etre is to articulate interests and to forge them into a winning coalition. The press has no such incentive and no such purpose” (P.37). I find this is questionable. I would argue the hard right attitudes of many of the hyper-rich media moguls are indeed about forging the masses of people into coalitions in political support of whatever millionaire is most looking out for their interests.
4. Define schema and then explain and discuss the two types of schemas Patterson presented in Chapter 2.
4) “A schema is a cognitive structure that a person uses when processing new information and retrieving old information. It is a mental framework the individual constructs from past experiences that helps make sense of a new situation.” In other words, a schema is the particular bias structure of an individual. It is the lens through which a reporter reports the news.
Patterson’s 2 conflict schemas:
1) Governing vs. Game
According to Patterson, governing is boring and not particularly interesting as news. Thus, the media has increasingly over time come to view election campaigns as games. The focus of media coverage is about the tactics and positions of different candidates in the “horse race” as opposed to their positions on issues. Everything they do is seen as being done as a maneuver within the game called, “Become the most powerful person on earth.”
Where I think Patterson is wrong is that those who govern no longer see the act of governing as different from the Game the reporters are covering. I understand his point, that the things you want to do to govern, change social security, etc. are not supposed to be directly linked to where a candidate stands on an issue. Patterson sees a disconnect between these things. Only I don’t think there is a disconnect anymore, even if there was one once. Lee Atwater changed governing into a game and it has been ever since. Checkmate on Dukakis was Willie Horton and that ridiculous picture of him in the tank wearing an oversized helmet. He looked like a total jackass. The last 4 Presidents have been all about whose political spin genius was better at transforming politics into a game. You win if you manipulate the media into portraying your image in the way you want to be portrayed. This image is politics now. The actual positions of politicians have no necessary relation to actual policy goals. All that matters is what we think the politician stands for. Atwater did this for Reagan and Bush I, Carville did it for Clinton, and Rove, the biggest evil genius of them all, tells Bush II when he’s allowed to sneeze.
Because of the standardized nature of stump speeches the media will focus on a gaff or the candidates overall position in the field instead of reporting that Bush once again told the crowd he was a uniter not a divider.
2) Reporters vs. voters
I agree with Patterson on this second point. The interests of the reporters (as defined by their view of the campaign as a game) have little to no relation to what the voters actually need. I think far too few voters have any real interest in the issues, they mostly want gossip and rumors, but what they need is information on the issues, whether they think it’s interesting or not.
Focusing on whether or not a candidate is winning or losing does nothing to forward our knowledge about what they will do in office. It also makes it difficult for candidates who lack the “sexy” quality the media is looking for to get any traction, which means the voters never get to find out their names, let alone their positions on issues. Dennis Kucinich vs. Al Sharpton is a perfect example. Al Sharpton got media attention because he’s charismatic and controversial, yet they ignored his progressive agenda on rebuilding US infrastructure because it wasn’t interesting. Dennis Kucinich, in my opinion the Democrat’s best candidate and the only guy who was openly and completely against the Gulf War disaster never got any attention at all from the media. Sharpton and Kucinich had very similar support numbers in the polls, but Sharpton got all the ink. (Don’t get me wrong, even Al’s ink paled in comparison to Bush’s because Bush had all of the money in 2000, and therefore was immediately the guy to beat no matter how many people voted for him in the early primaries, not even being VP trumped Bush’s War Chest.) The result being we elected the dumbest man ever to sit in the White House.
Twice.
Final Exam
This was my final exam for my Polysci class. I am so enamored of my answers to these questions I had to put them up.
Essay Questions
1. Outline and explain Max Weber’s Ideal bureaucracy.
1) One of my favorite oxymorons of all time is the phrase “Ideal Bureaucracy.” It’s not as good as “Intelligence Services”, but it’s close. Even the spelling of the word bureaucracy is an atrocity of language. A better term might be, Oh God I’ve been in the DMV for three hours.
Weber’s ideal bureaucracy comes from law as opposed to from God (in the form of some charismatic guy or gal who says they’ve got God’s ear) or a King. Being based on law gives Weber’s bureaucracy a consistency you don’t find in a charismatic leader or a line of Kings.
The hallmark of this is where one’s loyalties lie. In the ideal bureaucracy your loyalty is to the institution, not to the individuals that make up the institution. This way, if the charismatic leader dies or the King goes berserk, the structure of society and the way it is run remains intact. It also creates a “schema” where our courts have become so enamored of our institutions that they’ve convinced themselves corporations have individual rights and existences outside of the people making them up.
Another characteristic of this ideal bureaucracy is a stable salaried career. A paycheck. A new idea during Weber’s time, the salaried career was immediately identified as a good way of creating institutional stability.
Because bureaucracies are by their very nature immense things, Weber recognized that it would be necessary to specialize, creating niches of intelligence that work together through the policies and procedures of the institution creating a whole made up of many different individuals. This too has upsides and downsides. On the upside we can bore deeply into a thing and learn all about it’s parts. On the downside, by specializing to such a high degree people also become stupid about everything except the one thing they know all about. It also leads to a kind of metaphysical naval gazing that allows for things like what we saw in the Pentagon movie about the Bradley.
Finally, the bureaucracy’s rules have to be written down so that loopholes can be found. Oh wait, no. I meant that Weber says you write down the rules because it creates consistency. Which it does. Only it’s a rigid, stupid consistency massively lacking in common sense. “It’s not my fault, it clearly says here in paragraph 3; section 9, that I’m allowed to steal your sandwich at lunch.
2. According to Patterson, (in his book about politics and the media called "Out of Order") why is the news media not the appropriate organization to organize campaigns (e.g., be the coalition builders between candidates and voters)?
2) First and foremost because of the reasons given in answer 4; but also because the traditional role of the press is as a watchdog over the government. This is where the nickname the “4th branch of government” comes from. “The critical task of the watchdog is not to be confused with the constructive task of the coalition-builder.” Patterson argues the media had the role of coalition-builder forced up on it and because of the necessity of being a watchdog and a coalition builder, fails at both.
p. 52 puts it succinctly
A) Journalistic values and political values are at odds.
B) Journalistic values, introduce an element of random partisanship which works to the advantage of one side or another.
C) Election news serves to drive a wedge between voters and candidates.
3. Patterson argues that political parties use to be the coalition builders and now we (society) ask the news media to play this role. What, according to Patterson, brought about this change?
3) Patterson blames the foisting of elections away from parties and onto the media on the Reform Democrats of the early 70’s. They wanted a system where “the rank and file voters would be the kingmakers.” (p.33) This was opposed to the old system where the party bosses picked the candidates. Now, all the candidates would be running against one another in a free for all and it would be up to the voters to choose the candidates. Patterson argues that it became necessary for the press to step in to magnify the exposure of the candidates in order that the public learn about them.
This is inherently problematic. The press isn’t necessarily interested in politics. It certainly isn’t their reason for the press’s existence. The media is mostly about entertainment. Patterson puts it, “The party has the incentive- the possibility of acquiring political power- to give order and voice to society’s values. Its raison d’ etre is to articulate interests and to forge them into a winning coalition. The press has no such incentive and no such purpose” (P.37). I find this is questionable. I would argue the hard right attitudes of many of the hyper-rich media moguls are indeed about forging the masses of people into coalitions in political support of whatever millionaire is most looking out for their interests.
4. Define schema and then explain and discuss the two types of schemas Patterson presented in Chapter 2.
4) “A schema is a cognitive structure that a person uses when processing new information and retrieving old information. It is a mental framework the individual constructs from past experiences that helps make sense of a new situation.” In other words, a schema is the particular bias structure of an individual. It is the lens through which a reporter reports the news.
Patterson’s 2 conflict schemas:
1) Governing vs. Game
According to Patterson, governing is boring and not particularly interesting as news. Thus, the media has increasingly over time come to view election campaigns as games. The focus of media coverage is about the tactics and positions of different candidates in the “horse race” as opposed to their positions on issues. Everything they do is seen as being done as a maneuver within the game called, “Become the most powerful person on earth.”
Where I think Patterson is wrong is that those who govern no longer see the act of governing as different from the Game the reporters are covering. I understand his point, that the things you want to do to govern, change social security, etc. are not supposed to be directly linked to where a candidate stands on an issue. Patterson sees a disconnect between these things. Only I don’t think there is a disconnect anymore, even if there was one once. Lee Atwater changed governing into a game and it has been ever since. Checkmate on Dukakis was Willie Horton and that ridiculous picture of him in the tank wearing an oversized helmet. He looked like a total jackass. The last 4 Presidents have been all about whose political spin genius was better at transforming politics into a game. You win if you manipulate the media into portraying your image in the way you want to be portrayed. This image is politics now. The actual positions of politicians have no necessary relation to actual policy goals. All that matters is what we think the politician stands for. Atwater did this for Reagan and Bush I, Carville did it for Clinton, and Rove, the biggest evil genius of them all, tells Bush II when he’s allowed to sneeze.
Because of the standardized nature of stump speeches the media will focus on a gaff or the candidates overall position in the field instead of reporting that Bush once again told the crowd he was a uniter not a divider.
2) Reporters vs. voters
I agree with Patterson on this second point. The interests of the reporters (as defined by their view of the campaign as a game) have little to no relation to what the voters actually need. I think far too few voters have any real interest in the issues, they mostly want gossip and rumors, but what they need is information on the issues, whether they think it’s interesting or not.
Focusing on whether or not a candidate is winning or losing does nothing to forward our knowledge about what they will do in office. It also makes it difficult for candidates who lack the “sexy” quality the media is looking for to get any traction, which means the voters never get to find out their names, let alone their positions on issues. Dennis Kucinich vs. Al Sharpton is a perfect example. Al Sharpton got media attention because he’s charismatic and controversial, yet they ignored his progressive agenda on rebuilding US infrastructure because it wasn’t interesting. Dennis Kucinich, in my opinion the Democrat’s best candidate and the only guy who was openly and completely against the Gulf War disaster never got any attention at all from the media. Sharpton and Kucinich had very similar support numbers in the polls, but Sharpton got all the ink. (Don’t get me wrong, even Al’s ink paled in comparison to Bush’s because Bush had all of the money in 2000, and therefore was immediately the guy to beat no matter how many people voted for him in the early primaries, not even being VP trumped Bush’s War Chest.) The result being we elected the dumbest man ever to sit in the White House.
Twice.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
24 and torture
I want to say right out front that I watch 24, I've seen every episode of every season and I think it's a good show- exciting, interesting plot twists etc. But, this season the shows already fascist-tending politics have really gone into hyper-overdrive to a degree that very nearly has me ready to stop watching. Especially regarding one single issue- TORTURE.
I mean everybody's getting some this year. The Defense Secretary's son, women, men, Jack's girlfriends husband, CTU employees, it's like torture-fest 2005.
By this point in the season the message the show is trying to send to viewers is crystal clear. Sometimes (especially with terrorists) you need information in a timely manner so sometimes you have to torture the person to get the information quickly. On the show everyone who knows something tells- all that is necessary is an electrical cord to the chest. The one woman who was innocently tortured holds out until the mistake is discovered and she goes back to work once the torture is finished.
THe thing is- the entire idea is just innaccurate. When you're being tortured you'll say anything, it doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to be whatever will get you to stop sticking the taser against my neck and pressing the button.
Taken by itself you could say that 24's use of torture is just a plot device gone mad, but taken in combination with the Muslim Father who will kill his entire family for the cause it's clear there's an agenda being braodcast here. One that Paul Wolfawitz would like. I keep waiting for the patented 24 twist to recast what's come before- but still, I think whatever gestures the show makes will probably be too little too late. At this point I'm watching as much to boggle at the lengths fiction has to go to justify what our country is doing in real life as anything else.
I want to say right out front that I watch 24, I've seen every episode of every season and I think it's a good show- exciting, interesting plot twists etc. But, this season the shows already fascist-tending politics have really gone into hyper-overdrive to a degree that very nearly has me ready to stop watching. Especially regarding one single issue- TORTURE.
I mean everybody's getting some this year. The Defense Secretary's son, women, men, Jack's girlfriends husband, CTU employees, it's like torture-fest 2005.
By this point in the season the message the show is trying to send to viewers is crystal clear. Sometimes (especially with terrorists) you need information in a timely manner so sometimes you have to torture the person to get the information quickly. On the show everyone who knows something tells- all that is necessary is an electrical cord to the chest. The one woman who was innocently tortured holds out until the mistake is discovered and she goes back to work once the torture is finished.
THe thing is- the entire idea is just innaccurate. When you're being tortured you'll say anything, it doesn't have to be the truth, it just has to be whatever will get you to stop sticking the taser against my neck and pressing the button.
Taken by itself you could say that 24's use of torture is just a plot device gone mad, but taken in combination with the Muslim Father who will kill his entire family for the cause it's clear there's an agenda being braodcast here. One that Paul Wolfawitz would like. I keep waiting for the patented 24 twist to recast what's come before- but still, I think whatever gestures the show makes will probably be too little too late. At this point I'm watching as much to boggle at the lengths fiction has to go to justify what our country is doing in real life as anything else.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Keller Williams Rules
On a musical note, I went and saw Keller Williams last night in Indianapolis. I've seen him quite a number of times (I think around a dozen now) but GODDAMN last night's second set was one of the most high energy kick-ass shows I've seen in years. He's absolutely on fire. Run don't walk to Ticketmaster and see him!!
For those that don't know, Keller is ONE guy who sings and plays bass, piano, tubes, theramin, drums and the fucking best guitar you've ever heard. He uses live looping to layer all of the above into a groove while soloing over the top on geetar. What can you say about a guy who plays original as well as covers Phish, the Bee-Gees, the Dead, Talking Heads and closes with a sing along a cappella version of Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. And that was just during the second set.
On a musical note, I went and saw Keller Williams last night in Indianapolis. I've seen him quite a number of times (I think around a dozen now) but GODDAMN last night's second set was one of the most high energy kick-ass shows I've seen in years. He's absolutely on fire. Run don't walk to Ticketmaster and see him!!
For those that don't know, Keller is ONE guy who sings and plays bass, piano, tubes, theramin, drums and the fucking best guitar you've ever heard. He uses live looping to layer all of the above into a groove while soloing over the top on geetar. What can you say about a guy who plays original as well as covers Phish, the Bee-Gees, the Dead, Talking Heads and closes with a sing along a cappella version of Bohemian Rhapsody by Queen. And that was just during the second set.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
HAHAHAHAHAHA
I urge you to go to this website, but hold onto your hats!
This is the sentence at the top of the page:
"The most honest man who ever lived claimed to be the Son of God, is missing from his grave, and is worshipped 2000 years later on every corner of the most powerful nation on earth---how crazy is it not to believe what he says?"
Who can argue with logic like that?
Don't miss the candidates for the antichrist and the "hidden messages" in song lyrics.
I urge you to go to this website, but hold onto your hats!
This is the sentence at the top of the page:
"The most honest man who ever lived claimed to be the Son of God, is missing from his grave, and is worshipped 2000 years later on every corner of the most powerful nation on earth---how crazy is it not to believe what he says?"
Who can argue with logic like that?
Don't miss the candidates for the antichrist and the "hidden messages" in song lyrics.
Guckert/Gannon- The Video Collections
For anyone who's been asleep for the last month, here's 2 collections of Guckert Video.
The first, HERE, is a collection of news stories and parodies about Guckert- this also tells the basic story of what the story is about.
The second, HERE, is a collection of questions the Guckster asked Scott McClellan and the President. Really tough questions, let me tell ya!
For anyone who's been asleep for the last month, here's 2 collections of Guckert Video.
The first, HERE, is a collection of news stories and parodies about Guckert- this also tells the basic story of what the story is about.
The second, HERE, is a collection of questions the Guckster asked Scott McClellan and the President. Really tough questions, let me tell ya!
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Robotic Monkey Arms!!
In a story that should give pause to those who think we aren't living in the future already- scientists have rigged up a robotic arm to a monkey, attatched some electrodes into his brain, and now he can make the arm move.
Think about this for a minute.
We can take wires, stick them in the brain, and boom, we've got a cyborg monkey.
The Luke Skywalker hand is almost a reality.
Now tell me some more about how everyone under the age of 30 aren't potentially going to live forever. Tell me that if we were spending all the money we spend on killing eachother we couldn't have food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education for everyone on the entire planet. Tell me that the only thing holding us back isn't our imagination.
If we could just get the people who want to blow shit up (Both our guys and theirs) to fuck off we'd all be livin large.
In a story that should give pause to those who think we aren't living in the future already- scientists have rigged up a robotic arm to a monkey, attatched some electrodes into his brain, and now he can make the arm move.
Think about this for a minute.
We can take wires, stick them in the brain, and boom, we've got a cyborg monkey.
The Luke Skywalker hand is almost a reality.
Now tell me some more about how everyone under the age of 30 aren't potentially going to live forever. Tell me that if we were spending all the money we spend on killing eachother we couldn't have food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education for everyone on the entire planet. Tell me that the only thing holding us back isn't our imagination.
If we could just get the people who want to blow shit up (Both our guys and theirs) to fuck off we'd all be livin large.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Hunter S Thompson Dies
On the laptop I wrote my first 4 novels on there were 2 pictures taped to the front. One was a picture of Samuel L Jackson from Shaft- and the other was a large black and white photo of Hunter Thompson with his signature cigarette. In many ways, it was these 2 photos that got me through on tough writing days. Thompson himself is a prominent role-model for Lance, the character in Portal.
Now, Hunter is gone.
Hunter S Thompson killed himself yesterday in what the news is saying was a self inflicted gunshot wound. All of the coverage of his death is about his books, of course Fear and Loathing in Vegas topping the list. This kind of bums me out because the HST found in those books were NOT the real man.
They were an image.
A persona as carefully crafted as a professional wrestler's. That isn't to say the man wasn't out on the edge of things, I think he was, but he was much more aware of what he was doing than people give him credit for. To see this side of him though you need to read his letters as chronicled in the two enormous volumes released over the past several years.
They reveal a very smart, very sharp guy who probably understood American Politics better than anyone except Noam Chomsky- of course the lens he was looking through was much different. (He picked out Carter and McGovern months before the mainstream journalists did. But he didn't just pick them, he knew them. Hell, from his letters he knew EVERYBODY- from Carter to McGovern to Carville to Gary Hart. Thompson was one of the people they called and wrote to.
What's funny is I'm not the kind of guy who I would think would like Thompson. What with the guns and the explosives and whatnot- I hate that shit. But through the letters it was obvious that in many ways Thompson was a bit of a wuss. (For example, he writes of his Hell's Angels beatings for years afterward.) Overcompensation is hardly a rare tactic to overcome such things.
I'm very sorry for his son Juan. I don't know if Hunter was planning his suicide or if it was a surprise, but either way, my best wishes to him for his loss.
Now, the media is going to talk about the death of an image and the man will be quietly mourned in the hearts of those of us who saw the genius in what he was doing. To some degree, no one really knew him except his family- I hope when he left he was stright with them, there is no doubt being his wife and kid wasn't easy- of the man or the image.
See you around the bend Dr. Gonzo. We'll miss ya.
On the laptop I wrote my first 4 novels on there were 2 pictures taped to the front. One was a picture of Samuel L Jackson from Shaft- and the other was a large black and white photo of Hunter Thompson with his signature cigarette. In many ways, it was these 2 photos that got me through on tough writing days. Thompson himself is a prominent role-model for Lance, the character in Portal.
Now, Hunter is gone.
Hunter S Thompson killed himself yesterday in what the news is saying was a self inflicted gunshot wound. All of the coverage of his death is about his books, of course Fear and Loathing in Vegas topping the list. This kind of bums me out because the HST found in those books were NOT the real man.
They were an image.
A persona as carefully crafted as a professional wrestler's. That isn't to say the man wasn't out on the edge of things, I think he was, but he was much more aware of what he was doing than people give him credit for. To see this side of him though you need to read his letters as chronicled in the two enormous volumes released over the past several years.
They reveal a very smart, very sharp guy who probably understood American Politics better than anyone except Noam Chomsky- of course the lens he was looking through was much different. (He picked out Carter and McGovern months before the mainstream journalists did. But he didn't just pick them, he knew them. Hell, from his letters he knew EVERYBODY- from Carter to McGovern to Carville to Gary Hart. Thompson was one of the people they called and wrote to.
What's funny is I'm not the kind of guy who I would think would like Thompson. What with the guns and the explosives and whatnot- I hate that shit. But through the letters it was obvious that in many ways Thompson was a bit of a wuss. (For example, he writes of his Hell's Angels beatings for years afterward.) Overcompensation is hardly a rare tactic to overcome such things.
I'm very sorry for his son Juan. I don't know if Hunter was planning his suicide or if it was a surprise, but either way, my best wishes to him for his loss.
Now, the media is going to talk about the death of an image and the man will be quietly mourned in the hearts of those of us who saw the genius in what he was doing. To some degree, no one really knew him except his family- I hope when he left he was stright with them, there is no doubt being his wife and kid wasn't easy- of the man or the image.
See you around the bend Dr. Gonzo. We'll miss ya.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Iraq Elections
A quick reality check for those liberals who are giving Bush "Credit" for the elections in Iraq. Now while I of course agree the elections were a good thing- in as much as they were elections- but I still say Bush gets NO NONE NADA credit for what he did.
Why?
Well, let's use an example.
Say there's 100 people. I blow up say, 10 or maybe as many as 15 of them.
Then I take the remaining people to Disneyland.
Am I a hero?
I don't think so.
But if we didn't liberate them, they'd still be living under Saddam Hussein.
Sure, tell that to the people in Africa.
They don't have enough oil to go to Disneyland.
So until this "Freedom and Democracy" talk applies to everyone, including us in the US, that argument is a dry hump.
A quick reality check for those liberals who are giving Bush "Credit" for the elections in Iraq. Now while I of course agree the elections were a good thing- in as much as they were elections- but I still say Bush gets NO NONE NADA credit for what he did.
Why?
Well, let's use an example.
Say there's 100 people. I blow up say, 10 or maybe as many as 15 of them.
Then I take the remaining people to Disneyland.
Am I a hero?
I don't think so.
But if we didn't liberate them, they'd still be living under Saddam Hussein.
Sure, tell that to the people in Africa.
They don't have enough oil to go to Disneyland.
So until this "Freedom and Democracy" talk applies to everyone, including us in the US, that argument is a dry hump.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
State of the Union Lies and Misdirections.
Every year one of these articles comes out taking Shrub's claims one by one and puts them in context or explains where he's full of shit. You can find this years, HERE.
AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'LL FIND
“In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom…. And we have declared our on intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world….
“Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.”
President Bush is certainly correct regarding the correlation between autocratic governance and the rise of extremism. However, the United States has long been the primary backer of repressive governments in the Middle East and, under President Bush, military and security ties with these dictatorships has increased. It is important to note that sixteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, whose family dictatorship has received tens of billions of dollars worth of military hardware and security assistance from the United States since President Bush came to office. The man believed to be the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Attah, is Egyptian, whose autocratic Mubarak regime receives more than two billion dollars worth of taxpayer-provided military and economic aid annually. None of the hijackers or any prominent Al-Qaeda leader has come from Iran, Syria, Palestine, Taliban Afghanistan or Saddam’s Iraq, the countries that President Bush most commonly cites as needing greater freedom in order to support American security interests.
If President Bush was serious about promoting freedom, he would call for an immediate cessation of arms transfers and any forms of security assistance to Middle Eastern governments which do not “respect their own people and their neighbors.” He has not done so, however.
To cite just one example, there have been few greater allies of freedom than Egypt’s Saad El-Din Ibrahim and his Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, and its journal Civil Society. Among the Center’s activities was monitoring elections and workshops and civic education. Unfortunately, in 2001, Egyptian authorities arrested Saladin and twenty-seven associates, shut down the Ibn Khaldun Center, and banned their journal. Despite this, U.S. aid has continued to flow to Mubarak’s corrupt dictatorship.
Finally, democracies do not necessarily respect their neighbors. Israel is an exemplary democracy (at least for its Jewish citizens), but it has maintained an oftentimes repressive occupation of its Palestinian neighbors since 1967, including widespread and ongoing violations of international humanitarian law.
Every year one of these articles comes out taking Shrub's claims one by one and puts them in context or explains where he's full of shit. You can find this years, HERE.
AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU'LL FIND
“In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder. If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom…. And we have declared our on intention: America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world….
“Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.”
President Bush is certainly correct regarding the correlation between autocratic governance and the rise of extremism. However, the United States has long been the primary backer of repressive governments in the Middle East and, under President Bush, military and security ties with these dictatorships has increased. It is important to note that sixteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, whose family dictatorship has received tens of billions of dollars worth of military hardware and security assistance from the United States since President Bush came to office. The man believed to be the lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammed Attah, is Egyptian, whose autocratic Mubarak regime receives more than two billion dollars worth of taxpayer-provided military and economic aid annually. None of the hijackers or any prominent Al-Qaeda leader has come from Iran, Syria, Palestine, Taliban Afghanistan or Saddam’s Iraq, the countries that President Bush most commonly cites as needing greater freedom in order to support American security interests.
If President Bush was serious about promoting freedom, he would call for an immediate cessation of arms transfers and any forms of security assistance to Middle Eastern governments which do not “respect their own people and their neighbors.” He has not done so, however.
To cite just one example, there have been few greater allies of freedom than Egypt’s Saad El-Din Ibrahim and his Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies, and its journal Civil Society. Among the Center’s activities was monitoring elections and workshops and civic education. Unfortunately, in 2001, Egyptian authorities arrested Saladin and twenty-seven associates, shut down the Ibn Khaldun Center, and banned their journal. Despite this, U.S. aid has continued to flow to Mubarak’s corrupt dictatorship.
Finally, democracies do not necessarily respect their neighbors. Israel is an exemplary democracy (at least for its Jewish citizens), but it has maintained an oftentimes repressive occupation of its Palestinian neighbors since 1967, including widespread and ongoing violations of international humanitarian law.
Saturday, February 05, 2005
2 Quickies
1) The NYTimes spiked the story about Bush's hidden microphone during the debates.
(Spiked, for those who do not know, means they wrote a story, then decided not to run it.)
2) An article about the US General stupid enough to tell a room full of people that it's fun to shoot people.
He can think it's fun all he wants, this is America. He has the right to say it too. But jeez, don't you think it would be better if he had the decency to keep his insane mouth shut? I mean do you really want people to know you are a murdering pig?
These 2 stories are connected.
1) The NYTimes spiked the story about Bush's hidden microphone during the debates.
(Spiked, for those who do not know, means they wrote a story, then decided not to run it.)
2) An article about the US General stupid enough to tell a room full of people that it's fun to shoot people.
He can think it's fun all he wants, this is America. He has the right to say it too. But jeez, don't you think it would be better if he had the decency to keep his insane mouth shut? I mean do you really want people to know you are a murdering pig?
These 2 stories are connected.
Friday, February 04, 2005
No Tomorrow
Bill Moyers
---This is directly copied from a zmagazine email. I've been trying to tell this to people, but they won't listen. They think I'm overstating the case. Well read on.---
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that thedelusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sitin the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the firsttime in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power inWashington.Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologueshold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what isgenerally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, theiroffspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is thedanger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of theinterior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engagingGrist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congressthat protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of theimminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after thelast tree is felled, Christ will come back."Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he wastalking about.
But James Watt was serious.
So were his compatriots outacross the country. They are the people who believe the Bible isliterally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recentGallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good anddecent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that thebest-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "LeftBehind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist andreligious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribeto a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple ofimmigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wovethem into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions ofAmericans.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer GeorgeMonbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted tohim for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied therest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it,triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah willreturn for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of theirclothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right handof God, they will watch their political and religious opponents sufferplagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years oftribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up.
Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the WestBank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy.That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 - just one point below thecritical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned toeternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go toGrist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist GlennScherer - "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse. As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half theU.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total andmore since the election - are backed by the religious right.
Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair RickSantorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House SpeakerDennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller ofGeorgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will senda famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought. And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll foundthat 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think theBible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in themotel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why peopleunder the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why careabout global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in therapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God whoperformed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lordwill provide.
One of their texts is a high school history book,"America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "Thesecular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece."However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers."
He turned out millions of the footsoldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics. It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whomI once asked: "What do you think of the market?" "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."I'm not, either.
Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and theCenter for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure.It's not that I don't want to believe that - it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration: That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and theEndangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources. That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicletailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars,sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavyequipment. That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting,coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier withcoal companies. That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refugeto drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.
I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million - $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council - to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study. I read all this in the news. I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by ExxonMobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising" [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon;a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats inCalifornia. I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer - pictures of my grandchildren. I see the future looking backat me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we knownot what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."
And I ask myself: Why?
Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice? What has happened to our moral imagination?On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"I see it feelingly.
The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancientIsraelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity tosee, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.
Believe me, it does.
Bill Moyers was host until recently of the weekly public affairs series"NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS. This article is adapted from AlterNet,where it first appeared. The text is taken from Moyers' remarks uponreceiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center forHealth and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
Bill Moyers
---This is directly copied from a zmagazine email. I've been trying to tell this to people, but they won't listen. They think I'm overstating the case. Well read on.---
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that thedelusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sitin the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the firsttime in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power inWashington.Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologueshold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what isgenerally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, theiroffspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is thedanger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of theinterior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engagingGrist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congressthat protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of theimminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after thelast tree is felled, Christ will come back."Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he wastalking about.
But James Watt was serious.
So were his compatriots outacross the country. They are the people who believe the Bible isliterally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recentGallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good anddecent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that thebest-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "LeftBehind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist andreligious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribeto a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple ofimmigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wovethem into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions ofAmericans.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer GeorgeMonbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted tohim for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied therest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it,triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah willreturn for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of theirclothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right handof God, they will watch their political and religious opponents sufferplagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years oftribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up.
Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the WestBank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy.That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 - just one point below thecritical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned toeternal hellfire.
So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go toGrist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist GlennScherer - "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming apocalypse. As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half theU.S. Congress before the recent election - 231 legislators in total andmore since the election - are backed by the religious right.
Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair RickSantorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House SpeakerDennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller ofGeorgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will senda famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought. And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll foundthat 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think theBible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in themotel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why peopleunder the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why careabout global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in therapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God whoperformed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lordwill provide.
One of their texts is a high school history book,"America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "Thesecular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece."However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers."
He turned out millions of the footsoldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics. It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whomI once asked: "What do you think of the market?" "I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."I'm not, either.
Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and theCenter for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure.It's not that I don't want to believe that - it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration: That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and theEndangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources. That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicletailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars,sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavyequipment. That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting,coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier withcoal companies. That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refugeto drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.
I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million - $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council - to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study. I read all this in the news. I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by ExxonMobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising" [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon;a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats inCalifornia. I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer - pictures of my grandchildren. I see the future looking backat me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we knownot what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."
And I ask myself: Why?
Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice? What has happened to our moral imagination?On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"I see it feelingly.
The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancientIsraelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity tosee, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.
Believe me, it does.
Bill Moyers was host until recently of the weekly public affairs series"NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS. This article is adapted from AlterNet,where it first appeared. The text is taken from Moyers' remarks uponreceiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center forHealth and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Noam Chomsky
There's a very interesting excerpt from Noam HERE.
"In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.
And the propaganda is very evident right in these articles. You can even write the commentary now: We just have to do it because we have to accomplish our mission of bringing democracy to Iraq. If they have an elected government that doesn’t understand that, well, what can we do with these dumb Arabs, you know? Actually that’s very common because look, after all, the U.S. has overthrown democracy after democracy, because the people don’t understand. They follow the wrong course."
He's saying (as I read him) that a "democratic" Iraq will do things we cannot let them do, so what we have to do is give them the government we think they should have. i.e. one that will keep US interests at heart. We won't stand for anything less.
There's a very interesting excerpt from Noam HERE.
"In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.
And the propaganda is very evident right in these articles. You can even write the commentary now: We just have to do it because we have to accomplish our mission of bringing democracy to Iraq. If they have an elected government that doesn’t understand that, well, what can we do with these dumb Arabs, you know? Actually that’s very common because look, after all, the U.S. has overthrown democracy after democracy, because the people don’t understand. They follow the wrong course."
He's saying (as I read him) that a "democratic" Iraq will do things we cannot let them do, so what we have to do is give them the government we think they should have. i.e. one that will keep US interests at heart. We won't stand for anything less.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Propaganda is a 4 letter word.
Via Tom Tommorrow
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.
I'm glad the Iraqis voted. I just don't think it matters very much. They voted for Saddam too. 104% in the last "election." In the end, I'm not sure if this was any different. Sure, our guys were there to protect the Iraqis from the other Iraqis, but they still saw American soldiers standing around everywhere with guns. Just like when they voted for Saddam. I'm not saying it's the same- I don't think it is at all, but in terms of perception... I just don't know. I heard on NPR that the US media, reporting so authoratatively on the election, wasn't allowed to see the voting- a block outside the green zone. The sole source of the "positive" signs in Iraq are coming from the military. Grain of salt people, that's all I'm saying.
Via Tom Tommorrow
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.
The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.
I'm glad the Iraqis voted. I just don't think it matters very much. They voted for Saddam too. 104% in the last "election." In the end, I'm not sure if this was any different. Sure, our guys were there to protect the Iraqis from the other Iraqis, but they still saw American soldiers standing around everywhere with guns. Just like when they voted for Saddam. I'm not saying it's the same- I don't think it is at all, but in terms of perception... I just don't know. I heard on NPR that the US media, reporting so authoratatively on the election, wasn't allowed to see the voting- a block outside the green zone. The sole source of the "positive" signs in Iraq are coming from the military. Grain of salt people, that's all I'm saying.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
"Democracy in Iraq."
"For the only time in memory, electoral candidates are afraid to be seen in public and are forced to campaign from underground cells, with many afraid to even link their names to their faces in the media. There are no public rallies where voters might glean some information about candidates' positions. As one voter told CNN, he would prefer to vote for George Michael, since he knows more about the singer than about any of the candidates running for office."
Read the whole article here.
"For the only time in memory, electoral candidates are afraid to be seen in public and are forced to campaign from underground cells, with many afraid to even link their names to their faces in the media. There are no public rallies where voters might glean some information about candidates' positions. As one voter told CNN, he would prefer to vote for George Michael, since he knows more about the singer than about any of the candidates running for office."
Read the whole article here.
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Yikes.
Seymour Hersh ran a very frightening article for the New Yorker this week that lays out what he sees as Dubya's long term military plan.
It seems Iran is our next target- and if it's not, the Dubya Crew is trying hard to make it look like it's going to be. The plan, according Mr. Hersh, is for our lack of support cause to the EU's attempt at negotiations to fail. This will bring the issue into the UN. We try to pass sanctions, a move that will be vetoed by either China or Russia. Then, saying we have no choice, we bomb the shit out certain areas, destabilizing the country. This will cause the people in Iran to rise up and fight for a western style democracy.
What a bunch of idiots.
There's more.
The Pentagon wants autonomous control of "secret ops" teams outside the oversight of anyone but Dubya himself.
Anyone who remembers Iran/Contra should be gettting a stomach ache at the previous sentence. This is exactly how that debacle happened- removal of Congressional oversight of Pentagon secret ops. And now we're setting things up for a reprise. Ugh.
This year is giving me a headache.
Seymour Hersh ran a very frightening article for the New Yorker this week that lays out what he sees as Dubya's long term military plan.
It seems Iran is our next target- and if it's not, the Dubya Crew is trying hard to make it look like it's going to be. The plan, according Mr. Hersh, is for our lack of support cause to the EU's attempt at negotiations to fail. This will bring the issue into the UN. We try to pass sanctions, a move that will be vetoed by either China or Russia. Then, saying we have no choice, we bomb the shit out certain areas, destabilizing the country. This will cause the people in Iran to rise up and fight for a western style democracy.
What a bunch of idiots.
There's more.
The Pentagon wants autonomous control of "secret ops" teams outside the oversight of anyone but Dubya himself.
Anyone who remembers Iran/Contra should be gettting a stomach ache at the previous sentence. This is exactly how that debacle happened- removal of Congressional oversight of Pentagon secret ops. And now we're setting things up for a reprise. Ugh.
This year is giving me a headache.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Why People who like him are Nitwits
In Shrubs inaugral speech to "peacefully transfer power" to himself he said the word
FREEDOM: 27 times.
LIBERTY: 15 times.
THE SPEECH WAS 12 MINUTES LONG!
TWELVE MINUTES!!!
"And always twirling twirling towards freedom!!" ----Kodos the alien on the Simpsons.
(Thanks to the Daily Show for the tally and the wonderful montage.)
In Shrubs inaugral speech to "peacefully transfer power" to himself he said the word
FREEDOM: 27 times.
LIBERTY: 15 times.
THE SPEECH WAS 12 MINUTES LONG!
TWELVE MINUTES!!!
"And always twirling twirling towards freedom!!" ----Kodos the alien on the Simpsons.
(Thanks to the Daily Show for the tally and the wonderful montage.)
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
The Process of Writing.
One question people ask writers all the time is, "How do you come up with the ideas?" It's a question all writers are uncomfortable with not because we get asked it all the time, but because I don't think the bulk of us know how to answer the question. It's not that we're being cagey- It's just really hard to describe- even for people who describe things for a living.
I'm working on my 6th novel right now. It's still pretty early on in terms of a novel- 10,000 words (Most novels are 90-135,000 when they're finished.) but it's at this point the idea you hope will end up being a novel actually does, or doesn't, take on a life of it's own.
This novel started as a dream and a phrase. "Inside and outside." The dream was vague, a variation on the film The Game directed by Fight Club Director guy where I, in the dream, did something bad that wasn't what I thought it was. I sat with this for a while ( a week or two) , then just before Christmas I had the image of this kid waiting for a train. He's going somewhere fun, but this guy sitting next to him is bothering him. That was it. No details. I go down to Florida for a relaxing vacation. When I get back, I know the kid meets the other main character in this train station- but I don't know who the other main character is.
When I write, it's like I'm watching a movie inside my head. The entire scene is just there in the mind's eye and you try to describe as best as you can what you're seeing. It's like a 3-d moive though- you can go into the charaters and know their thoughts or feelings at any given moment, rewind and replay the same thing from multiple angles.
But here's where it gets tricky- at the best moments, I in no way feel like I'm writing WHAT is happening, I'm only writing HOW I'm seeing what is happening on it's own. It's like watching a thriller where you are absolutely guessing and rooting for what you want to have happen, and I believe that rooting influences the story, but in the end, your just watching the movie and you find out what happens when you get there.
For instance, when I started writing my last book (Clearing at the End of the Path- 1st 3 chapters available here. ) I had a female character I was just going to have this serial killer kill in the virtual world as a way to introduce the theme of the book. Only when I started to write, that's not what happened. He didn't kill her- she killed him. The scene stayed in the book, but ended up 3/4 of the way through instead of at the beginning, and it's meaning was totally different. This girl became Molly, the main charater of the entire novel, totally changing the tenor and eventual result of the book.
I didn't mean for that to happen. I don't care how weird or "cheesily mystical" that sounds. I'm as cynical as most people, if you don't believe that, read a few old entries. Still, there are great swaths of this thing we call existing that I don't begin to claim I can understand- and while I don't understand where this writing thing comes from, I'm indescribably grateful to be able to do this thing- and I say that at a time my writing has cost me a hell of a lot more money than it's made me. Every book I hope someone will come along to help on the financial end of things, and when they don't all I can do is write another novel- the writing is the reason, the publishing is the gravy. Granted, I really like gravy.
One question people ask writers all the time is, "How do you come up with the ideas?" It's a question all writers are uncomfortable with not because we get asked it all the time, but because I don't think the bulk of us know how to answer the question. It's not that we're being cagey- It's just really hard to describe- even for people who describe things for a living.
I'm working on my 6th novel right now. It's still pretty early on in terms of a novel- 10,000 words (Most novels are 90-135,000 when they're finished.) but it's at this point the idea you hope will end up being a novel actually does, or doesn't, take on a life of it's own.
This novel started as a dream and a phrase. "Inside and outside." The dream was vague, a variation on the film The Game directed by Fight Club Director guy where I, in the dream, did something bad that wasn't what I thought it was. I sat with this for a while ( a week or two) , then just before Christmas I had the image of this kid waiting for a train. He's going somewhere fun, but this guy sitting next to him is bothering him. That was it. No details. I go down to Florida for a relaxing vacation. When I get back, I know the kid meets the other main character in this train station- but I don't know who the other main character is.
When I write, it's like I'm watching a movie inside my head. The entire scene is just there in the mind's eye and you try to describe as best as you can what you're seeing. It's like a 3-d moive though- you can go into the charaters and know their thoughts or feelings at any given moment, rewind and replay the same thing from multiple angles.
But here's where it gets tricky- at the best moments, I in no way feel like I'm writing WHAT is happening, I'm only writing HOW I'm seeing what is happening on it's own. It's like watching a thriller where you are absolutely guessing and rooting for what you want to have happen, and I believe that rooting influences the story, but in the end, your just watching the movie and you find out what happens when you get there.
For instance, when I started writing my last book (Clearing at the End of the Path- 1st 3 chapters available here. ) I had a female character I was just going to have this serial killer kill in the virtual world as a way to introduce the theme of the book. Only when I started to write, that's not what happened. He didn't kill her- she killed him. The scene stayed in the book, but ended up 3/4 of the way through instead of at the beginning, and it's meaning was totally different. This girl became Molly, the main charater of the entire novel, totally changing the tenor and eventual result of the book.
I didn't mean for that to happen. I don't care how weird or "cheesily mystical" that sounds. I'm as cynical as most people, if you don't believe that, read a few old entries. Still, there are great swaths of this thing we call existing that I don't begin to claim I can understand- and while I don't understand where this writing thing comes from, I'm indescribably grateful to be able to do this thing- and I say that at a time my writing has cost me a hell of a lot more money than it's made me. Every book I hope someone will come along to help on the financial end of things, and when they don't all I can do is write another novel- the writing is the reason, the publishing is the gravy. Granted, I really like gravy.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Farneheit WINS
In yet another wacky twist- Farenhiet 9-11 beats out Shrek 2 and Spiderman 2 for the People's Choice Award of the Best Movie in 2004. Sp2 and Sh2 collectively made 10X the money Farenheit did, yet F911 wins!
See the entire segment here.
To quote the thankfully now sans-career Yakov Smirnov, "What a country."
I can't wait to see him win another Oscar.
Oh, and by the way, did anyone else catch the 6th Grade Michael Moore logic line in last night's episode of 24. The show's always been a little right of Stalin politics wise, but this season they're spreading it on a little thick. It's like Wolfowitz is a script supervisor or something this season.
In yet another wacky twist- Farenhiet 9-11 beats out Shrek 2 and Spiderman 2 for the People's Choice Award of the Best Movie in 2004. Sp2 and Sh2 collectively made 10X the money Farenheit did, yet F911 wins!
See the entire segment here.
To quote the thankfully now sans-career Yakov Smirnov, "What a country."
I can't wait to see him win another Oscar.
Oh, and by the way, did anyone else catch the 6th Grade Michael Moore logic line in last night's episode of 24. The show's always been a little right of Stalin politics wise, but this season they're spreading it on a little thick. It's like Wolfowitz is a script supervisor or something this season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
