Hey everybody. Just got back from Mexico. sorry about not posting anything but wi-fi is ridiculously expensive in those resorts. Anyway, I'm back and I'll be churning out some great new blogs for you this week. For instance, I recently finished Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" so I shall be writing a blog or two on it and its comparisons to other Orwellian dystopia futures. I will include "1984", "V for Vendetta" (movie only), "Equilibrium" (underrated movie starring Christian Bale), and perhaps a few others. If you'd suggest a few to me I'd greatly appreciate it.
In the meantime, have some politician hate pictures.
Yes, they're all copied straight from pundit kitchen. But they seem like the sort of thing you guys would appreciate. Cheers!
I see in us the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see in us all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual War...our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower,
in a letter to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war ?
-President Richard Nixon,
Real Peace 1983
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed; those who are cold and are not clothed ?
The Chance For Peace, April 1963
Japan was already defeated ... dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.
-General and Future President Eisenhower
To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.
-George Bush Sr,
A World Transformed, 1998
This, I believe, serves to demonstrate how politically far right the United States has been getting pulled over the last couple of years.
Now I've never smoked marijuana, but even I can understand the importance of letting the individual make their own choices regarding what they choose to put in their body. I personally believe that the governments of the world should take a lesson from the Netherlands and allow those who wish it to purchase and consume the drug within designated public areas as well as their private properties.
The very least that could be done is legalize it for medical reasons. Remember the Hippocratic oath? First do no harm. Doctors would make sure that whenever marijuana is prescribed, it would be done so for legitimate reasons. Abuse, which is technically impossible, of the drug would be next to nonexistent.
But there's also the option of allowing public consumption altogether, in a similar manner to how cigarettes are handled today. The facts show that marijuana use does not significantly affect motor skills associated with the average workplace or those with driving. Ultimately it would be safer than both cigarettes and alcohol.
Marijuana use and possession are often referred to as "victimless crimes"
Scenario: Scientists have recently developed a brain implant that allows the user to be connected mentally and emotionally with everyone who possesses such an implant, creating a virtual "Hive Mind" reminiscent of the Borg collective from the Star Trek Series.
Would you participate?
Consider the implications: nobody would know exactly what the psychological implications would be. There is a very strong possibility that the individual would completely lose their identity. Emotions and intentions are communicated every day through conversation. But the fact remains that language is a relatively inefficient way to communicate information. By contrast, the theoretical microchip implant would be able to let others know exactly what you mean exactly how you mean it.
Privacy would also become a thing of the past. Every deep dark thought or intention would be exposed for everyone for all the participants to experience and judge. Would this be an acceptable tradeoff?
It was once said that Democracy at it purest form is nothing more than conversation. Whoever said this had obviously never seen the internet.
Democracy thrives when free speech and discourse are not only permitted but actually encouraged. The individual invents a political hypothesis which they then spread to the rest of the populace. The people then dissect the hypothesis, picking out every minor flaw and splitting every lat hair, but this only causes the hypothesis to grow stronger over time. Perhaps it picks up some influence from different political beliefs which may include everything from capitalism to communism. Eventually the hypothesis has grown into something realistic, something that the people would be willing to put into practice. The democratic system facilitates this rather nicely. If the idea winds up benefiting the community overall it will most likely be kept around. If not than the democratic system will ensure that it does not remain in practice for much longer.
The key to this is the free exchange of ideas. The open marketplace of hypotheses. Without a system in place in which the individual can be exposed to new ideas and new criticisms, the state system will become stagnant. Change would be incredibly difficult to facilitate. People would be locked in partisan bickering. There would be no "right" and "wrong" but only "loud" and "louder". This is a form of authoritarianism in which nobody is in charge. It is essentially an anarchic authoritarian dystopia.
Fortunately for modern times, the internet exists as a source of rational discourse between like minded individuals. This serves to belay the absurd amount of closed-mindedness that the mainstream political media is pushing onto the citizens. One can speculate all sorts of irrational theories that the internet serves as the collective subconscious of very human that uses it, or that it was created not of technology and business but out of necessity to the human race. The only theory that can be supported with evidence at this particular point in time is that the internet is completely essential to the evolution of humanity.
The worst thing that could happen is for authoritarianism to gain hold of this particular free marketplace of ideas. Be they corporations such as Google and your internet service providers, or governments such as China and the United States, no version of control must be placed over this as-of-yet still free domain. This is the place where bad ideas come to die, and where the good ideas may yet survive despite layers upon layers of propaganda.
Thepetitionsite.com is a non-partisan website where individuals can push the world in the direction they want it to go. Visit today and let your individual voice be heard among millions of others who care about the same issues you do.
And I can't stress enough the fact that these petitions are non partisan. Once there, you can sign every petition imaginable, from urging your country's leader to take a particular stance on a particular issue to pushing a corporation to halt some potentially damaging practices.
I personally visit at least once a day. My favorite sections are the Human Rights and the Environmental Awareness ones. So if you have a few extra minutes to spend, why not use them to change the world for the better? Visit thepetitionsite.com today.
This is just a general overview of how the Global Political spectrum looks today.
Ironic, isn't it?
China and Russia are black dots for no particular reason. If there's a country you'd like me to graph, let me know in the comments.
How do you think of yourself? Right/left and up/down? If you would like to take the test, visit politicalcompass.org
Also, how does one reconcile the reality of this graph? It may perhaps be possible that we are living in an Orwellian dystopia and be unaware of it. Obviously supporting third party candidates is not going to get us anywhere. What do?
Traditionally, November 5th is designated Guy Fawkes day in honor of the man spearheading a plot to use copious amounts of gunpowder to blow up England's parliament building. He is usually viewed as a social anarchist intent on giving control of England back to the English people rather than the corrupt and greedy parliament. Such was the inspiration behind the 2006 movie "V for Vendetta" in which a masked superhero singlehandedly launches an uprising of people against an authoritarian regime that is in place in futuristic England dystopia.
But who was the man behind the hype? Well as a child he was raised in York by a single catholic Spaniard mother. He grew to embrace these qualities as an adult, even going so far as to fight for catholic Spain against the Dutch in the Eighty Years War. Later, Fawkes became involved with a group of English catholics who were displeased with how protestant their homeland was.
This gathering of like minded individuals went on to be the thirteen conspirators in the historic Gunpowder Plot.
These thirteen men met several times and they all agreed to participate in one way or another in the destruction of Parliament. Their one mistake came when one of them attempted to contact friends overseas for assistance. This backfired, and instead of providing assistance the contact ended up notifying the authorities of the impending attack. Fawkes was the unfortunate one designated to light off the gunpowder placed under Parliament, so he was naturally the first one caught and the scapegoat for the outrage of the people. Mr. Fawkes was hanged and then Drawn and Quartered after a lengthy torture as compensation for his crimes against England.
He is remembered today as a hero, but many ironies surround the historical interpretation of his most famous attempt. Perhaps the "V for Vendetta" was farthest off because Mr. Fawkes was by no means an anarchist. Quite the opposite in fact. The entire purpose of the Gunpowder Plot was to destroy the Protestant Parliament in order to install a Catholic theocracy in its place. It is for this reason that people today in England celebrate November fifth by burning Fawkes in effigy while lighting off firecrackers and fireworks.
No matter his motivation, Guido "Guy" Fawkes will remain immortal through the following rhyme:
Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, t'was his intent
To blow up the King and Parli'ment.
Three-score barrels of powder below
To prove old England's overthrow;
By God's providence he was catch'd (or by God's mercy*)
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holla boys, Holla boys, let the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!
And what should we do with him? Burn him!
var _gaq = _gaq || ;
Now that all the ballots are finally in (except Alaska), I feel I can do a much more thorough interpretation of what this means for America's political future. Though rest assured, this will be my last post on the midterm election.
Two of my favorite senators lost last night: Russ Feingold from Wisconsin and Alan Grayson from Florida. These were two truly progressive senators who avoided the corruption that has so plagued our nation. They did not deserve to be voted out. This actually affected me more than losing the house of representatives.
Many pundits are comparing the loss in congress to the same thing that happened during Clinton's presidency and saying that this signifies that Obama will also be a two-term president who winds up popular towards the end. These are complete guesses. There is nothing to suggest that Obama's presidency will even remotely resemble Clinton's. As it is, Obama is likely to get voted out unless he passes some really comprehensive legislation soon.
I know a lot of my followers are from overseas, so I was considering switching from American politics to more global issues. Perhaps I'll do a couple of blogs on anti-religion. I'll put up a poll later to see what my followers would like.
So Republicans took back the house. Honestly I'm not all that upset. This has been predicted to happen for years now. Next I predict that the republicans will continue to gain popularity and support until the next election in 2 years.
Honestly I empathize with the Tea Party. Frustration over the stagnant economy has been hard on everybody. I merely disagree with them on how they choose to express that frustration politically.
On another note, Prop 19 failed to pass yesterday in California. For some reason. Now drug related violence will continue to happen across the border and a harmless substance will continue to remain illegal. I don't even smoke the stuff; I just think it should be up to the individual whether to do so or not.
Going by funding for individual campaigns, polling, and voter history, I have determined what I believe will be the outcome of today's midterm elections.
The Republicans will pick up exactly:
50 Seats in the House
8 Seats in the Senate
and 9 Governorships.
The democrats will indeed get "trounced", but this was predicted for about 2 years now. It is a swing year and support is shifting to republicans once again. I personally think the democrats will survive this election.
I've noticed that sometime between the Rallies to Restore Honor and Sanity, conservatives and liberals have traded places. One side is always attacking the other on how their rally was nothing more than a thinly veiled attack on those on the other side of the political spectrum. And meanwhile, the side that held the rally is defending theirs as being non-partisan but instead done only for the good of America as a whole.
Who do we believe? Obviously I believe Jon Stewart's rally was better for reasons I already mentioned, but how does the average independent know who to believe? They don't. Both sides remain in their corners flinging poo at one another, which is something that both rallies urged us not to do.
In other words: Efforts to curb the political mudslinging have resulted in even more mudslinging.
I attended the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, and I must say it was quite the time. I woke up at the ungodly 7:00am to meet up with some friends to carpool to the rally together. It took us five and a half hours to finally reach the city of Washington DC and find a suitable parking space (thank science for the GPS), but the wait was definitely worth it.
Once at the rally, though late, my friends and I had an awesome time listening to Stewart, Colbert, and the many performers over the loudspeakers and seeing them on satellite screens. The signs may have been just as entertaining. I'm the biggest Daily Show fan out of my group of friends, so for me it was an awesome experience seeing so many people gathered to hear Stewart speak. Plus his speech was so inspirational you'd think it was made by President Obama during his '08 campaign.
Just a few things we did while in the area: hang out in a huge crowd of reasonable, like minded individuals, read socialist propaganda ("The Militant" newspaper-pretty entertaining), eat in a fine DC restaurant, and even visit several of the Smithsonian Museums. My only regret is that the day ended before we had a chance to visit the Botanical Gardens.
I'm no expert so I won't guess at the size of the crowd, but here's a picture from one of the 400 news sources present. The National Mall and the Capitol Building were nothing short of breathtaking. Not to mention seeing it all while listening to one of my favorite comedian/pundits. Overall it was an incredibly epic time.
Draw Muhammed day, which I participated in, was a failure. The goal was to defend our freedom of expression from Muslim extremists, but all we succeeded in doing was polarizing the entire Muslim community against us. Most of the founders of the movement were likely unaware that even moderate Muslims who have distanced themselves from the extremists would be extremely offended at a drawing of the prophet.
Normally a government taking action by cutting off access to key internet sites would be met with outrage from it's people, who would cite Orwell in their defense of their freedoms. But our protest managed to make people do the exact opposite. Pakistan had disallowed its citizens from accessing facebook, youtube, and certain parts of wikipedia for a substantial amount of time yesterday, and its actions were not met with scorn but with support from every moderate and up Muslim in the country.
What should we have done instead? There could have been several other protests that would have ended much differently.
1)Organize a boycott of Southpark This would have effectively sent a strong message to those who wished to silence people that we simply would not have it. Even if Comedy Central wouldn't show the second part of episode 208, the message would be clear: that the western world would not accept its censorship.
2)Draw the same cartoons, but instead of displaying them publicly, send them directly to revolutionmuslim.com who was to source of the death threats against the creators of Southpark.
3)Do ANYTHING to drive a wedge between Muslim moderates and extremists. Convince them to make an inspirational promise to not try to convert anybody who does not want to be converted and censor free speech. Convince many of them to make a video saying "I do not support revolutionmuslim.com". ANYTHING.
I was told that Mohammed's intention by not wishing to be depicted in cartoon form stemmed from the fact that he did not wish to be idolized. However, the majority of Muslims around the world do just that every day by worshiping him. Their prayers are doing more harm to the man's wishes than our cartoons did. And in the end, they were just cartoons after all.
0 \|/ This is Mohammed | Don't worship his name. / \ You'll hurt his feelings.
How angry are conservatives becoming? While surfing the web, I have come across rhetoric that is inflamed almost more often than not while reading/listening to comments made by conservative activists. They often speak of how Obama is a secret Muslim who was born outside the United States, and how the democrats in the federal government are legislating in the direction of tyranny and that they are looking to rid you of your rights. Obviously these sentiments are groundless and are fueled by far right media outlets such as Fox News and conservative radio pundits, and when any single conservative is challenged on his/her beliefs, they are immediately revealed to be concerned over something for which there should be none.
For example, Jon Stewart the comedian has had specifically two far right political figures on his show in the past month, and both have been shot down over matters of policy. Most recent was Ken Blackwell, the vice chairman of the RNC and author of the book "The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency". I'll let Jon Stewart do the explaining: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-28-2010/exclusive---ken-blackwell-extended-interview-pt--3
The question is: Have Republicans shown that they cannot lead through the actions of George Bush, and now they are simply jealous that Obama is doing a much better job? Now Obama is not perfect by a long shot, but compare the two: one lied to the american people to involve us in 2 foreign wars which cost us $400m per day, and the other provided us with affordable healthcare which will ultimately save us money. One passed the patriot act, the other promotes transparency in government. One passed laws that allowed Wall Street to make millions off of a financial collapse, the other wants to reform the system to make that impossible. One lobbied to pass $700billion bailouts through congress, the other made the banks pay back the bailouts with interest in order to make it cost much less. One allowed 9/11 to happen under his watch, the other has implemented policies that has foiled several terrorist attempts in just his first year.
Republicans seem to be inventing grievances with Obama and the federal government simply because they cannot stand the idea that there is a successful progressive liberal president in power. It seems misinformation is becoming a world view with these people.
I don't know if you could tell by the title, but I am mad. I enjoy being exposed to opposing viewpoints and thereby opening debate, but recently I have seen opposition that is over the top.
Our Federal Government is no attempting to pass a financial reform bill that would make it impossible to bailout a company by decreeing it too large to fail, while simultaneously tightening regulation over derivatives, which had a huge part in causing the financial recession that occurred in our recent past.
And guess what? ALL 41 Republican senators are opposed to the bill!!!! What the hell is their excuse for siding with Wall Street banks rather than the American people?! I've heard the following milk toast responses:
-it is socialist -government intervention caused the financial crisis in the first place (untrue as hell) -the bill is partisan
While the last point is true, it is not enough of a reason for our legislators to sell out their constituents to the Wall street bankers. Whether you love or hate the current administration, you should agree that this particular legislation is essential to prevent another financial meltdown. It is simple fact. No amount of Faux News or MSDNC bias can change that.
The exact action which caused the financial crisis was revealed recently: Goldman Sachs took out large insurance policies from AIG on toxic assets-ones that were doomed to fail. Once those assets failed, Goldman Sachs made big bucks off of their insurance policies and AIG went near bankrupt, which necessitated their bailout. So at the core of the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs made millions while the rest of the economy was tanking. The federal Securities and Exchange Commission recently discovered this and is pursuing legal ramifications.
I believe everyone can agree that the government that governs best governs least. Some may tote the slogan and repeat it enough times for it to be legally called propaganda, and more often than not those people are the ones who legislate exactly opposite to that slogan, but in the end we should all also agree that sometimes adding laws is necessary to stabilize our country. Some may argue that once our government begins to legislate that there is a slippery slope that leads us straight to communist Russia, but that is simply idiotic. This bill, if passed, would improve quality of life for everybody and would prevent Wall Street bankers from making off with America's taxpayer money with no ramifications.
I was thinking I would go to a tea party protest and bring this graph of the federal debt as percentage of our gross domestic product (GDP), broken down over Presidential terms:
But, with all the violence that has been enacted toward congress people on both sides of the aisle since the passage of healthcare reform, I feared for my well being.
Also on the back of my sign, I was going to include something on how Sarah Palin's fiscal conservative policies brought up the debt in Wasilla, AK while she was mayor from $1 million to $22 million, and while she was Governor of Alaska, the state debt as percentage of the GDP to seventy percent, while still managing to severely underfund the Alaska State Troopers.
I find it amusing and a little frightening that some people still think Sarah Palin represents the common person. Even after she rose through the ranks of Alaskan politics to eventually run the state (for, I admit, too short a term), even after a Vice Presidential bid, even after Presidential aspirations, even after being paid $100,000 just to give a speech at a tea party rally, and even after now getting her own prime time Fox News show.
Sarah Palin is COMPLETELY out of touch with the common person, and her poll numbers betray it. Even the majority of the GOP seem to think that Palin would not make a satisfactory president, with people across the nation who feel she is qualified to be president coming in at a depressing 29 percent:
Other than that, it is surprising that anyone would wish to associate themselves with the politician who is bleeding popularity at the fastest rate currently, even faster than our famously "socialist, marxist, maoist, communtist" president:
Rush Limbaugh has moved to Costa Rica over night and promptly had a heart attack. His excellent treatment at the country's socialized hospital system has caused Rush to renounce his conservative beliefs and become a hippie. Bill O'reilley stated on his program, "I guess I was wrong. Socialism really is a good idea." Glen Beck, on the other hand merely called them both Nazi Socialist Marxists.
Also: Ever wonder why Tina Fey looks so much like Sarah Palin? So did a certain genealogical researcher at Rutgers University in New Jersey. It turns out the duo are actually long-lost cousins! Neither Palin nor Fey have yet commented on the matter (they have not had the opportunity), but the speculation is that one of the lady's family was estranged due to their political beliefs.
Also: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell hugged Barack Obama today after taking a short break from his spring break after learning about the president's plan to drill off the coast of the United States.
Also: The entire country of Germany participated in a special protest in favor of campaign finance reform. The protesters spent the entire day naked, yet still continuing their daily routine, in order to symbolize the need for politicians to go without many of the luxuries that lobbyists buy for them in order to influence their voting.
Also: Pope Benedict XVI came out of the closet today as a homosexual atheist. And, due to the belief in the Pope's infallibility, the millions of Catholics around the globe no longer will go to church, pray, or discriminate against homosexuals.
Also: Fox News has actually admitted bias! Shep Smith today at exactly 11:55 am EST announced that he has been given permission to admit that "Fox News is a conservative news network. We have continuously taken the side of conservatives in on air debates and have numerously supplied talking points to the republicans of this country. That whole 'Fair and Balanced' thing is a load of BS." OMG YES!!!!!!!!! FINALLY!!!!!!!!
Also: Vishnu the Hindu god finally got tired of incorrect religions and descended from the clouds to announce that he was in fact the one true god, and that even Hindus got it wrong with their belief in many. He said he used to chill with some guy named Odin, but that was a long time ago. The entirety of the world believed Vishnu once he made it start raining in ever desert on earth at the same time.
When I said that "I used to be an Obama supporter", I meant simply that this new policy of ignoring the EPA and drilling for oil off the coast of America has pushed me over the edge. Obama is trying to be as bipartisan as possible-which would be well and good if the republicans were deserting the center as if it were the titanic-but I voted for a democrat to be in office.
Obama is attempting to appease the fringe right-wing groups by implementing this policy, but he will not succeed. No matter how centrist Obama tries to be, the Tea Parties and other fringe right wingers will continue to oppose him simply because he is not fringe like them.
That is why I no longer support Obama: because he is not Democratic enough. He has adopted a policy that is dangerous to our ocean life and will pay out very little many years from now. But worst of all: he has done this just to appease fringe tea parties which may include as little as 20,000 people out of over 303 million.
The polls clearly show that Americans want a strong progressive government, not one that caters to the interests of violent tea party extremists:
In case the picture comes out weird and people can't read it, here's a link:
and here's what it says: 34.4% of Americans identify themselves as Democrat. Compare that to the Republicans, whose recent polarizing on the fringe has caused supporters to desert the party faster than a jackrabbit stepping on a hot griddle. The percentage of people in America who identify themselves as Republican is down to only 24.5% of the American population. That's down almost nine percent since May '09.
The polls are clear. Fringe tea baggers and right wing media outlets do not speak for the majority of the american people. We want a strong Progressive in office, and we want Sarah Palin and Glen Beck ignored. I nominate Dennis Kucinich or Rep. Barney Frank.
Post Script: The percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Independents is 35%, outweighing both parties. And although polls show that the Democratic party may soon pass Independents in popularity, I definitely support Independence. I like to believe that it means that the american people are realizing that both parties are in the pockets of special interests, and we need to come together at least temporarily to halt the influence of big business in our government. More on that here:
The main subject of Obama's health care bill was the formation of a National Insurance exchange, an idea first put forward by a Republican
Besides that, the bill contained numerous concessions to congressional republicans, including the giving up of a public option
Obama has signed an EXECUTIVE ORDER banning federal funding of abortion
Obama has continued Bush's unpopular policy of giving tax cuts to rich individuals
Obama has slashed federal spending nationwide, including funding for NASA's moon and mars research
Obama has kissed Israel's ass for as long as he has been in office
Obama's biggest spending spree was the bailouts, which went straight to big banks and were originally a Bush administration idea
Obama has repeatedly favored big businesses over the American people
Obama is in favor of building dangerous nuclear power plants rather than environmentally friendly ones
Obama is against same-sex marriage
And finally, the big political news today is that Obama is ignoring the EPA and is expanding oil drilling in the east coast
I used to be an Obama supporter. But now I realize that I voted for a center-right wing president at a time when that was exactly what I DIDN'T want. I wanted change from the Bush era, but instead all we got was a carbon copy, more of the same.
I've been watching so many WW 2 movies lately that I actually know who Betty Grable is, and I've encountered a frightening prospect. The Nazi party of yesteryear are disturbingly similar to the modern day tea party activists.
Both groups exhibit:
and both groups are/were the minority of the population but still have/had tremendous political sway in relation to their size.
Democrats, on the other hand, continue to be hippies.
Anyone else notice that political commentators go through cycles of popularity? Bill O'reilley, Stephen Colbert, and more recently Glen Beck have all had their 15 minutes. And now that Glen Beck is on the decline, who do you think is next?
The dems and the repubs both have clearly defined strategies for winning the November congressional elections.
The democrats are going to campaign on the successes of the health care bill. The tax credits are going to win them support from small business owners and recently sick individuals. The fact that the bill is so insurance company friendly will bring those companies onto the side of the democrats, which will secure campaign funds for key seats. The democrats will polarize behind this bill, which will benefit a lot of people, and bring their independent supporters and their base slightly to the left. This will also be an effective resistance to the constant magnetic pull right by the recent emergence of the tea parties.
The republicans will win a lot of seats by default, but default won't stop them from going all out in attacking this bill. They will continue to appeal to only their conservative base in an effort to polarize further and bring their constituents with them. Fox news will be an essential part of this polarization, as the conservative base normally thinks with their Glenn Beck. Look for conservatives in congress and on the air to insult and slander this new healthcare bill at every turn. Sarah Palin's strategy of targeting key elections is a great one, but don't expect it to capture her short attention span for anything over a month. The Limbaugh inspired fire Pelosi campaign would be an excellent moral victory if it is successful, but there is every chance that it will not get off the ground.
Overall: Expect many incumbents to be voted out of office, and expect next to nothing to happen to the current version of the healthcare bill other than-maybe- a few republican amendments.
Many Glen-Beck-for-brains tea baggers recently have been asserting that progressivism over time leads to fascism. Aside from the fact that the two philosophies are on perpendicular sides of the political spectrum (one can be a fascist while being a progressive or a conservative), and the fact that the extrapolation is entirely bass ackwards, what does conservative libertarianism lead to?
Considering the fact that libertarians stand in favor of limited government, one can extrapolate that libertarianism leads to anarchy. Having a libertarian President or majority in congress would radically change the country in ways that would make our founding fathers cry. All market regulations would be nonexistent, including child labor laws. We would all be forced to labor for too many hours per week at the minimum wage of $1 per day in the manufacturing plants that would dominate the landscape. Pollution would be viewed favorably, and we would all become sickly from contamination in our food and water supply very quickly. Anti-government sentiment fueled by ignorance would lead to a total dissolving of the federal governments, and state governments would be solely responsible for police and defense. Taxation would be too low to support either group, and anarchist post-apocalyptic gangs would run rampant stealing and raping until either China or Russia decided to bomb us and invade.
I realize nobody reads my blogs (lol), but on the off chance that someone starts now:
Could somebody clarify for me whether the Health Care bill that passed the House of Representatives last night is now going to be a law, or whether it still needs to pass the senate?
The way I understand it so far, and the way that CNN seems to be pushing it as, is that the core of the bill is going to be sent to President Obama soon to be made into law, and the changes to the senate version are going to the senate for a vote. So then do the changes take effect when Obama signs the bill into law or when the senate passes the bill?
If someone could clarify this for me, that'd be awesome.
This is not a rant about our failing education system, though that may come later. This is simply an observation of a single important detail that was left out of the curriculum of my grade school.
That detail is the fact that Alexander Grahm Bell, inventor of the telephone, was Canadian. While never mentioning his nationality, my classmates and I were always lead to believe he was an American citizen. Was this simply a clerical error in the curriculum in my grade school? Or was this something deeper, a plot by powerful educators to subtly induce ideas of American dominance into the clean-slate minds of young students.
This may seem like nothing more than conspiratorial speculation to the average reader, but keep in mind the recent decision of a texas school board to purposely include conservative bias in new textbooks across the nation. One representative of the schoolboard defended his decision by saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "This is a good day for American dominance."
This is despicable. Bias has no place in the textbooks of grade schoolers. It belongs firmly in debate rooms and courtrooms. Grade schoolers should receive historical facts, rather than cherry picked biased opinions based on whatever an insignificant school board decides.
Thomas Jefferson, third present of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence, has no special emphasis in the new edition of textbooks, and John Calvin, a French theologian who lived and died before the American revolution ever took place is noted as an influential individual pertaining to the writing of the American constitution.
The only thing I can derive from this is that the texas school board who has chosen to send the youth of America into a modern day dark age has simply no morals. They may believe that they are helping the next generation to become more conservative, but in reality they are defecating in the pristine fountain of collective knowledge.
I am unsure as to what the average american can do to oppose such bias and defecation, however you can, like me, write a lengthy blog that calls out the school board and calls them several stinging names.
By admitting bias, hasn't Conservapedia made itself out to be even less trustworthy (in regards to the facts) than Wikipedia? And Wikipedia is already untrustworthy to the point that high schoolers are not allowed to cite it in research papers.
I urge people not to visit politically biased sites, including liberally biased ones, for facts and information.
In terms of business, Democrats want to turn us into Europe, and Republicans want to turn us into Myanmar.
One party wants regulation only to the point where it is impossible for a company to abuse employees/consumers, and the other party wants to deregulate to the point where employees/consumers are constantly being taken advantage of.
As a middle class American, I know which outcome I prefer.
I probably should have saved this post for later, but I can always repost it when more data comes in.
Have you ever wondered why senators and congressmen and yes, even the president continuously support legislation that benefits large corporations rather than the american people? I have. And I explored.
My curiosity led me to followthemoney.org which is a website run by a non-profit organization dedicated to transparency pertaining to campaign donations made by various industries.
Below is a chart of a collective of pharmaceutical companies' donations to various state level political party committees. As is evident, donations heavily favored whichever party happened to be the current majority in american government.
Would it surprise anyone to learn that Senator Joe Lieberman, recently famous for promising to lead the filibuster of healthcare reform, has accepted millions of dollars of campaign contributions from his state's many healthcare companies?
The system is as follows:
the american consumer spends hard-earned money on products, be they necessities or luxuries; the corporation receives the money from that purchase and millions of others;
the corporation donates that money to politicians' campaigns;
the politicians have to vote in favor of legislation that benefits the corporation or else they won't receive campaign money anymore;
only politicians who vote in favor of corporations get elected.
This is outrageous. Corporation donations coupled with legislation that restricts campaign donation to third-party candidates make it seem like the american people don't even have a choice any more.
What can we do? Send a message to congress by completely voting out incumbents. Supports the Public Option healthcare bill that would benefit the american people rather than big Pharma, and actually cause healthcare companies to lower premiums by offering competitive care at much lower rates. But the best thing we can do is simply research and speak out against corporation donation to politicians, and get rid of those politicians who put personal gain ahead of the prosperity of the American public.