Angry Enough?

Someone recently commented that folks need to get angry for there to be change. Did I do angry well enough in the last post? Angry is probably easier for me than Funny.

OK, Delay is indicted, Frist appears to be close to being indicted (maybe the fix will get in first), Abramoff is at risk of being sold down the river by the mafia types he appears to have hired to off Gus Boulis (a business partner of Jack's who Jack was apparently trying to cheat). Meanwhile, Jack is deeply entangled in every controversy in the Republican party and could be turned himself. Does this mean the mafiosos better make public confessions soon (including clear and convincing stories of Jack's involvement) or face the likelihood that the Men in Black will off them?

Could Tom Clancy and John Le Carre together (John, sorry to hook you up with literary trash) come up with a more far-fetched, convoluted, intertwined story line?

So, where the press? Mostly feigning balance as they provide cover for the criminals. How soon will the general population catch up with what's going on? Decades? Is it any wonder that the republicans are brazen.

There was an interesting piece on NPR today about an Indiana town that had lost some boys in Iraq. It did much to confirm my opinion that Hoosiers generally are nice, but not very smart. And that the smart ones, tend to be operators - pushing the bounds of law and morals.

In it the towns-people noted how they had a tradition of supporting our and their soldiers. Many of them have families with multiple generations of soldiers. But, what was most striking is that they cannot separate support for the troops from support of shrub government. They noted how soldiers were sent into battle ill-prepared and under armored. That didn't dissuade them. They ignored that we had no reason to attack Iraq. They ignored that the presidential amnesia for his rational for attaching Iraq. And, they made clear the need to stick the battle out until we accomplish our objectives (whatever they may be) even if that means increasing the level of our commitment and armed forces in the war. Are these folks smoking crack or what?

Are their lives so narrow, boring and pinched that they need the Iraqi conflict to convince themselves that they are a good and noble people? What is it that causes them to ignore all the facts? They have access to too much information, despite our ineffectual press. A bi-partisan committee of congress has noted that there wasn't a connection between Iraq and either WMD or global terrorism (surprise - why do you think that the first Bush didn't take Saddam down). The president has acknowledged as much. The parallels to the Vietnam quagmire are too clear - there is no plausible way to think that there is anything we can win over there - not even oil. So, what drives these folks?

It can only be that people need reasons to think of themselves as good and worthy. And, the reactionary right establishment has put together the two trump cards for this: religious and patriotic superiority. The battle, my friends, is about self-righteousness.

Too many people in our society are exposed to rampant consumerism - but not allowed to play that game. Exposed is not the right word - no the word is brainwashed. It is not fundamental human nature to want a Porsche, even if we often want what another has. Our media and advertising has painted a glamorous world that generally isn't real even for the wealthy of the world. If you doubt that, think about Paris Hilton. She may be laughing all the way to the bank, and doing whatever she wants. But, she has to be really fucked up, and can't possibly be a healthy happy human being in her core.

Meanwhile, most people (especially Hoosiers and other agricultural belt people) are as far from this fantasy world as anyone. Heck, even in the ghetto people see excitement. Out in the country, most people are afraid to do or say anything out of step with the norms because it will be talked about. Out in the country, most people have a low standard of living - if you're doing well, you have a boat or a motorcycle but you still have a cheap house, cheap clothing, cheap cars and so forth. There isn't much to do. Mind you, 4th of July parades are great. Going to church and Sunday school are fine. Stopping on Friday nite at the tavern for a beer or two is an opportunity for social exchange. But, none the excitement associated with consumerism thoughout our media is available in the country.

Is it any wonder that many country youth ape ghetto styles of dress? Is it any wonder that a lot of young women in the country dress in a fashion I would not allow my daughter to copy? Folks are bored, constrained, and evidently (according to the TV, movies, and magazines) missing out on the glamour of life.

How do you deal with that? How do you avoid depression? Read People and talk about the latest Hollywood scandal with authority. Position your conformity and duty and dedication as something that places you above those city/union/minority folks who don't support the troops by sending them to battle. Join a church that promises health and wealth, supports immoral activities as long as they tithe, interferes with national politics for the financial well being of its spiritual leader, and attempts to defeat science to provide an epic battle that will brainwash the flock into blind adherence to its leader. Its a sick sick spiral down to hell.

So, how do we break these folks out of this death roll? It won't be by logic - passion over-rules that. It won't be by facts - they've already learned how to refute them. It will only come by offering a better form of salvation. What could be this mass salvation? Its hard to tell. What chink hasn't been covered already with the clever machinations of the right? How do we free the wingnuts from this purgatory?

Let me know if you have an insight.

Nuanced Flip-Flopper

Took a peek at the headlines this morning in the Chicago Tribune. It said that the president has announced that we have to conserve gas. It seems like just a short time ago that he said that we needed an energy policy that: "....promoted consumption..."

I didn't much agree with promoting the consumption of fuel. It seems supremely stupid to burn up, quickly as possible, finite and irreplaceable resource.

But, that was his position and now he's gone and changed the darn thing. That's a flip flop. A big one.

You know, I've been listening to the so-called conservatives (who don't seem to want to conserve anything) and the fundamentalists, and I've learned some things. You know, they're right. You can't trust a leader who keeps changing his mind: be it on energy policy, the cause for war, or his belief or lack thereof in "....nation-building..."

There's just no getting around the fact that he's nothing but a squirmy lying little rat - and that's not the stature that we need in our elected officials. The conservatives are right, he's unqualified to hold office. The job is too big for him and he's too small for the job.

Now, there are some softies on the right. They're out there right now making their excuses for him. Let's see, what could they be? How about this, the president doesn't control the weather, and this is just a reaction to an act of nature. When things settle down again, he'll go back to being in favor of squandering precious resources. That's believable, don't you think?

The problem is, these folks (and the president) are squirming in nuance. Just because of a storm? You see, I've also learned from the right that any leader who practices nuance isn't to be trusted. Nuance may be the traditional means of resolving tough issues. It may be the means by which corporate affairs as well as the affairs of nations (apart from God's country) are handled and resolved. But, no God-fearing American should prostrate him or herself to nuance. We are the best. We are right (even when we don't agree among ourselves). There is no reason for us to settle for nuance, and we damn well ought not to settle for a leader who practices nuance (especially one too dumb to spell nuance).

So, here's my question: Why the hell (or would you prefer that I say "h", "e", "double hockey sticks"), can't these folks figure out how to handle the aftermath of a little storm? After all, we have the free-market, the bold and brilliant leadership of the energy industry (not to mention Wall Street), and the best God-fearing government in the world to handle this problem. No, a little abnormal weather shouldn't cause these folks to wilt.

What could be behind this flip flop by the chief flip flopper in charge? Maybe its polling data? Maybe the republicans smell a risk in staying the course? Maybe they don't think that they can maintain the metaphoric sandbags on all of their boondoggles and F***ups? Now, that seems likely to me. See, the best way to figure out what how a republican leader operates is to look at the accusations that they hurl at their opponents.

They accuse the Democrats of lying when the republicans liar. They accuse the Democrats of cheating to hide the republicans cheating. They accuse the Democrats of inappropriate and risky nation-building because the republicans want to gain office to engage in stupid imperialist ventures. And, they accuse Democrats of being too sensitive to the polls, because, when they can't lie there way out of trouble, the republicans closely analyze the poll data to effectively chose there battles - where should they flip-flop versus holding tight.

If you're silly enough to disagree with the above, I won't bother educating you with examples and facts - you won't listen. But, if you're open to the possibility, then look at the list of published examples and proofs ranging from the Presidential Election to nonsense that is the college republicans (which is the reform school of the republican party - the place where their juvenile delinquents go to perfect there illegal and immoral craft).

So the conservatives are right, shrub doesn't belong in office. Just don't hold your breath waiting for them to figure that out.

Our press today continues to service this country poorly. For the sake of a few more dollars, they have sold out our interests to the republican party. If we eventually break down into civil war between practical & rational thinkers, and everyone else - the guilt will lie at the feet of our press.

Lately, the press has been congratulating itself on having the balls to honestly raise issues coming out of hurricane Katrina. However, they never fully dropped their fawning attitude towards the president. They have forgotten to continue to watchdog the relief efforts as they turn into a giant republican porkbarrel, placed ahead of the interests of the American citizens. And they still aren't doing a good job of shining a light on the record of our president and his colleagues in the House and Senate as they continue to damage the economy, damage the environment, damage America's standing in the world, and as the republicans generally try to extinguish democracy as they turn us into a third-world country as quickly as possible.

Mind you, too many of the Democratic leadership are doing their job either. Why any Democrat would vote for Roberts is unclear. We can't stop him from gaining the necessary votes, but what are we doing approving this unqualified fascist?

It seems to be part of the the fear by many Democrats. The fear that the general population won't like them if they stray from the extremist republican platform. Well, this isn't a popularity contest (and if it were - the Dem's are losing it anyhow). This is about contesting ideas for the proper leadership of our country. republican-light just doesn't cut it in such a debate.

It is not radical to realize the limited natural resources of the world. It is not radical to realize the limited political and military resources of this country. Neither of these situations have improved since the first Gulf War. That war is where Bush the elder realized that he could put Pandora back into the box that is Iraq, but that he couldn't fix Iraq. So, he stopped short for replacing Saddam. shrub never learned this lesson, and has us bogged down in a quagmire which is financially, politically, and militarily unacceptable. Where is the outrage? Where is the countervailing voice? Where is the offer of an alternative? Just as it is not coming from the press, it is not coming from the Democratic Party. Sure, Dean, Kennedy, and others try to offer some of this, but they are constantly are being undercut by their own team. What is going on? When will this change? How long until the Democratic Party becomes obsolete? Or, has it already? And if it does or has, what replaces it? A totalitarian one-party system? A battle between two parties representing (respectively) the very conservative and the hyper conservative? These options don't seem appealing to me. Not because they represent view-points that I disagree with, but because they fundamentally undermine the sense of democracy upon which our country was founded, and because without that sense of democracy - that which is good and noble about this country cannot continue to endure.

This is a sad time for our country.