Weekly Address: Working Together on the Economy

Obama's rhetoric switched back toward an advocation of bipartisanship, something he'd seemed to abandon early in Aught-Nine. He's also rocking a violet tie and deep-purple suit, while the video itself has slightly purple cast to it ─ I don't want to call it subliminal messaging ─ but, the tie and suit definitely offer a subtle and deliberate statement, combining the Republican Red and Democratic Blue, whereas the skewed colour in the video may be incidental or just my eyes. I'm genuinely impressed and optimistic after this weeks address, something Obama hasn't inspired in me for a while.

The President's rhetorical shift itself, is coloured by his Wednesday interview with Jon Stewart, and perhaps Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Sanity. But, the looming contextual punctuation is the 2010 Midterm Election results ─ common wisdom is that Republicans will regain the House and the Democrats will lose their super-majority but maintain control of the Senate ─ the overall message is, therefore, conciliatory.

What I like, is that this address seems to pick up on the tone which national politics have been taking on at the local level. There seems to be discordant harmony among conservatives and heavy dejection among the liberals, both of which play into an apathetic malaise afflicting the non-affiliated and centrists. It feels like it doesn't matter who you vote for ─ not because there's no substantive difference between the parties ─ not because there are fascist cabals controlling the government ─ but because the House and more especially the Senate, follow arcane & defunct rules of procedure.

If the President finally gets it, and if the Democratic party follows his lead, and if the Republicans understand that their victories represent a referendum on the state of politics and government (not on their Democratic opposition), maybe we will see some cooperation, leading to long-overdue institutional reforms in the Congress.

Vote.

Happy Halloween

This is no time for politics...

A little bit of hypocrisy never hurt a political movement

Some months ago, Dr. Laura Schlessinger decided not to renew the contract for her syndicated radio show, after backlash to her use of a particular racial epithet in response to a Black caller's query. At the time, I defended her, and specifically the notion that we, as citizens, shouldn't take actions (e.g. boycotts or lawsuits) in order to impinge the First Amendment Rights of others. I do believe that deliberately and continually undermining the right of others, diminishes our own, personal liberty.

I didn't realize at the time, that from then on, some on the right would call foul whenever some pundit lost their soapbox ─ as happened with Juan Williams, formerly of NPR, now of Fox ─ more recently to Dan Fagan, an Alaskan radio commentator, currently suspended for allegedly advocating some potentially illegal electioneering scheme. Sarah Palin commented via a note on facebook, redacted below, full text here:

Answering Charges of Elitism

Image via Wikipedia

I'd intended to let the parody video in this post stand on it's own, but then I read this article on Politico: essentially arguing, democrats are condescending elitists and therefore will lose control of congress, this election cycle, and deservedly so. The article points to all the likely culprits ─ Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow, President Obama, etc. ─ as the voices of condescension.

Elitism is the belief in the superiority of some class of people, and their consequent entitlement to privilege: I don't see this from the democrats, so I have no choice but to call shenanigans.

The essential message of modern liberalism is that cooperation leads to shared prosperity and government is a legitimate tool for building consensus. American Conservatism, conversely, argues that government essentially inhibits liberty and destroys individual prosperity, while gripping firmly to protectionism, a political theory itself necessitating government of considerable size and complexity.

President's Weekly Address: Letting Wall Street Run Wild Again

An integral part of candidate Barack Obama's presidential platform, was a promise to maintain a transparent administration; with the predictable caveats (for national security & etc) in place. Undoubtedly, this President and his Cabinet, have been more readily accessible to the news media, than his predecessor was. Meanwhile Organizing for America ─ the grassroots organization behind Obama's election campaign ─ has been leveraged to trumpet his message across the landscape of new media.
[Facebook Likes: 15,172,983 | Twitter Followers: 711,666 | YouTube Views: 154,149,236]

Rape is a societal issue

I was reading Politico's Daily 10 Winners, this item impacted me viscerally

3. COLORADO — Democrats moved swiftly to extend the legs of the Ken Buck “global warming hoax” story, with the League of Conservation Voters holding a press conference call to “correct his denials.” The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee piled on with a new ad tailored to women that capitalizes on his decision to pass on prosecuting the case of an alleged rape victim. Sen. Michael Bennet’s campaign feels like they’ve won the week by keeping all the attention on Buck.

Who Won Friday: Bennet 

Latest Poll: Buck 48%, Bennet 45% (Reuters/Ipsos 10/15-10/17, 405 likely voters) 

Recent Rasmussen polling shows similar results to what Politico reported. It's revolting that Buck is the favorite in polling and it's sickening that he's even in serious contention for a US Senate seat. It's possible that the rape case indeed wasn't prosecutable ─ but, the essence of the issue isn't simply his refusal to prosecute ─ his statement that the alleged victim had "buyer's remorse" and expressed opinions on other "women's" issues, indicate a lack of empathy and, at worst, exemplifies the crypto-misogynistic fascism which seems endemic to the American Right ─ typically disguised as "Christian Morality" or "Family Values". We, Moderates and Liberals, need to understand rape, domestic violence, birth control, et cetera, and the whole of feminism as societal issues with broad implications, not uniquely affecting women: just as Conservatives do.

Here, Ken Buck addresses the subject on Meet The Press:

Here is the DSCC ad, mentioned by Politico:

President Obama: It Gets Better

I've nothing to add to this, myself, but here is Rachel Maddow's  response.

Yeah, this is happening...

This is Tina Fey does Sarah Palin good.

White House White Board #2

At present, the flow of the "mainstream media" has shifted to the right. Conservative voices tend to dictate the daily news narrative, with unabashed bias. The liberal punditry ─ possibly in an effort retain some air of neutrality ─ is critical of both the President and democrat-led congress, with the unfortunate consequence that the liberal/progressive agenda is weakened.

What's lost in the din of republican rage and democratic dismay, is that President Obama has been successful on several levels and multiple fronts, despite numerous Republican roadblocks and Democratic defections. The fact is we, liberals and progressives, should be jubilant and ready to double-down in support of our party and president: there ought not be an "enthusiasm gap" in this election.

Please share this post, if you agree at all.

White House White Board #1

Yeah, I'm spreading liberal propaganda and I seem to be arguing for the status quo: except, I'm not. Within the US, the minimum wage is not a living wage. There is no maximum wage. Investors and leaders of industry bleed their own corporations dry, then place the blame on federal taxes & regulations or on unions hard-fought for health & retirement benefits. The entire corporate infrastructure is irrational, irresponsible and unsustainable.

And that's the crux of it, we need rational, progressive reforms, akin to what we saw from the beginning of the 20th century thru the WWII era. To eliminate federal debt, we need to raise taxes, at least in the short-term. It's not rational to raise taxes on those who barely scrape by. It's not rational to raise taxes on the middle class in general, thereby reducing spending power of the consumer base. It's entirely rational and logically consistent, to raise taxes on the small minority of Americans ─ whose unscrupulous actions can and have utterly devastated our economy and regularly threaten our environment and health, thereby forcing the creation of costly regulatory agencies ─ and while the [often hidden] cost of corporate welfare exceeds that which is spent on social welfare.

I feel, in this election cycle, the best candidates and ideas are generally found within the Democratic Party. A vote for conservatism ─ in any guise ─ for any reason ─ is not in the interest of the nation. Still, I firmly believe, in any election, the best vote that the disaffected can make, is for a 3rd party.

Please share this post, if you agree.

Concise Manifesto

Image via Wikipedia

I've been living through an existential funk ─ we could call it depression ─ regardless, finding some purpose for myself has been a life-long struggle. I'm not so conceited, as to think I'm unique or special: i.e. I realize everyone deals with this.

I've reached the point in my life, where I need to do something. Anything? But, I can't bring myself to settle in some corporate hierarchy, with which I fundamentally disagree. Again, I'm neither unique nor special. So, why do I hold out? Why have I let myself sink into this rut?

I know that I can't live with myself if I feel I'm a cog in a machine. I realize my role, I understand life goes on without me, as it would without anyone else and even without our species. I fear, this is the fundamental issue.

To survive we need adequate food, drinkable water and security from destructive aspects of nature. As a whole, we have been marvelously successful in achieving all 3 essentials. Food exists in such abundance, that obesity has become a problem and anorexia a bizarre & twisted reaction to that unnatural abundance. Potable water exists in such quantity, that we create golf courses in deserts. Finally, throughout the developed world, we're essentially divorced from the natural world, living in cities of steel and concrete.

Basically, we've reached a plateau, where the human race has moved beyond barely eking out survival and is in fact thriving. This may not be the land, but this is assuredly the time of milk and honey. Each of us living today and that will be born in the foreseeable future, lucked into this abundance and relative security.

Yet, we are not born with equal access to the benefits of this era ─ wealth is largely inherited ─ many of us are (seemingly) systemically denied the bounty of the time ─ however we consistently yield to the standing corporation-centric economy, despite our personal interests being at odds with the current structure.

We do this (in part) out of fear: socialist and communist revolutions have ultimately yielded fascist states, so that any notion of socialism seems to be inexorably linked with totalitarian fascism. The capitalist system, as it stands, also offers a certain naïve hope, that we (or our heirs) might be able to bootstrap our way out of poverty into the middle-class, or from the middle-class to the rich-elite. Never-mind that the odds of this are approximately the same as our odds of winning the lottery ─ besides which, in a capitalist nation, one persons good fortune is nearly always dependent  upon another's bad fortune ─ the essence of capitalism being the uninhibited flow of wealth between individuals.

Trouble is, wealth doesn't flow without inhibition. In fact, wealth tends to pool amongst a small minority ─ controllers of industry and their families ─ while the common man works for a pittance.

Modern Western law and culture, is predicated upon beliefs in the innate equality of individuals, their right to self-determination, balanced by personal accountability. The current capitalist financial structure, seems to run contrary to these ideals. Inheritable wealth undermines individual equality, disparate pay negates individual liberty, while the poor and working classes are often held to higher standards of accountability.

I was born middle-class ─ I could embrace that lot ─ go to college ─ work my life away ─ generating wealth for others, while barely scraping by myself. Experience tells me, that way yields naught but frustration, personal anguish and a languishing of the spirit: while such complicity with the capitalist status quo, is in utter violation of my conscience, even if seeming inevitable.

Ultimately it seems unconscionable, that we allow such disparate divisions between economic classes, let alone hunger and homelessness, to persist. Imperatively: I retain some degree of self-determination, the freedom of expression, and the right to vote. So, I can choose for whom I work and from whom I buy. I can publish my blog. I can work and vote for change and shared prosperity. As we all do, can and ought.