Header image Header image 2  
wayward verve
  || Home ||     || Bio ||     || Music ||     || Writing ||     || Blog ||    
   
 
Blog

Cabinet by Kleptocrats

In a few days, Donald Trump will become the President of the United States. Behind Vice-President Mike Pence, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, President Pro Tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch, Trump's Cabinet will be the most important political actors in the country. Yet, so many of them actually believe in policies that go against the very principles of the agencies they've been nominated to lead. Also, they are the exact opposite of Trump's "Drain the Swamp" promises: rich elites, having a combined net worth of $4-6B (depending on which source you use). What follows is a quick primer on each, and the dangers they pose, in the order of the line of succession (after Mr. Hatch).

CABINET

  • Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson (Texas). This ex-CEO of ExxonMobil has fought environmental protection, denies climate change, and has a cozy business relationship with Russia—including a deal put on hold by current sanctions, reportedly valued at $500B, though he denied under oath even discussing Russia with Trump. He is worth $325-385M, but has no experience in the public sector or statecraft.

  • Secretary of Treasury: Steven Mnuchin (New York). A former partner at Goldman Sachs and hedge fund owner, worth over $300-600M, he greatly profited off the housing bubble that hurt so many Americans, and held the reins of one of the companies caught foreclosing on owners without proper due process. He has never held public office and is expected to propose tax cuts for the rich.

  • Secretary of Defense: Gen. James Mattis, USMC (ret.) (Washington). While he's a career military man (USMC), he's still worth at least $5M. Of note, he retired in 2013 and immediately started profiting through a series of consulting jobs in the military-industrial complex. Yet, this cabinet post is supposed to be a civilian position; current law requires military personnel to wait seven years after retirement to accept this post—a law granted a special exemption by the current GOP-controlled Congress.

  • Attorney General: Jeff Sessions (Alabama). A current Senator, and former Attorney General of Alabama, he has somehow garnered a net worth of at least $6M. Significantly, he was denied (by a Reagan-era, GOP-controlled, Congress) appointment of a federal judgeship for being too racist. He has also fought against equal disbursement of education funds, is against investigating local police forces acting unconstitutionally, and has falsely accused civil rights activists of election fraud. He will be both the top cop and top lawyer for the USA if confirmed, and would be the person to bring civil rights litigation on behalf of the American government—despite having a history of much the opposite.

  • Secretary of the Interior: Rep. Ryan Zinke (Montana). A current member of the House of Representatives. He's one of the few non-absurdly rich people on this list (net worth $800k). Although generally supportive of federal lands, he frequently votes against environmentalists, and has favored coal and big oil. While an officer in the military, he misused travel funds, was repeatedly passed up for promotion, and has constantly exaggerated his experiences from that time. But, hey, at least he's a big outdoorsman.

  • Secretary of Agriculture. Mere days from inauguration, Trump has still not chosen a nominee to head this agency.

  • Secretary of Commerce: Wilbur Ross (New Jersey). Although he's the person nominated to head the federal agency responsible for economic growth, he's a billionaire (net worth $2.5-2.9B) who made his money purchasing bankrupt businesses and flipping them for a profit, speculating on other countries' economic crises, and was also an advisor for a financial advisory group. Not exactly the kind of outsider Trump promised. It is still unclear how his various business interests will clear ethical conflicts concerns.

  • Secretary of Labor: Andrew Puzder (Tennessee). CEO of CKE Restaurants, which owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr., which have had greater reports of sexual harassment than similar companies; coincidentally, he has been accused by an ex-wife of personally committing domestic violence. Those companies have also repeatedly been found liable for unpaid wages. Despite being worth $45-110M, he's a critic of the minimum wage, has criticized paid leave provisions, and opposes overtime expansion. Nonetheless, he would be in charge of prosecuting minimum wage violations, overtime rule breaches, and ensuring workplace safety.

  • Secretary of Health and Human Services: Rep. Tom Price (Georgia). HHS oversees health insurance (Medicaid/Medicare), promotes patient health and safety, ensures equal access to health care among disparate communities, and studies ways to better health care. He, however, has been a fierce critic of the ACA and other programs to help the most vulnerable citizens. His attacks on Planned Parenthood and “entitlement programs” have been accused of being politically motivated. Among his first expected moves would be massive budget cuts, including taxes against the rich, because who needs strong health care or rich people to pay their share? Meanwhile, he has a net worth of $10-18M. Did I mention he has absolutely no experience in administration?

  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Dr. Ben Carson (Michigan). Has no government or administration experience, and while he grew up poor, and his mother reportedly used public housing, he has been a doctor, and rich, for many years (with a current net worth of $15-29M). He said of himself that he was “unqualified” for the position before later accepting the nomination; relatedly, he has no housing policy experience.

  • Secretary of Transportation: Elaine Chao (Kentucky). Let's start here: she's married to Mitch McConnell. Yes, the Senator who has held up all forms of Obama-era legislation, including infrastructure spending, and most Democratic judicial nominees (Obama will leave office with twice as many judicial vacancies as Bush). She has a net worth of $25M, is well-adjusted in political circles, and has worked in various federal departments. She also sits on the boards of News Corporation (which owns Fox News) and Wells Fargo. She is one of the few qualified persons on this list, but she is also expected to push for large use of the private sector, rather than relying upon her own massive federal agency. So a transparent and fair bidding process will be required to prevent #Kleptocracy.

  • Secretary of Energy: Rick Perry (Texas). A former governor, the man has absolutely no energy policy experience; he just ran a big state with lots of energy companies. His net worth is around $2M. You may remember he once said at a primary debate that he would eliminate three federal agencies, including the Department of Energy—only he forget the name “Energy” during the debate. He's pro-oil and gas and pro-fracking. He's also been accused of engaging in back room deals with special interests and big polluters.

  • Secretary of Eduction: Betsy DeVos (Michigan). Another billionaire, worth around $1.25B. She's never gone to public school. Her children have never gone to public school. She has a history of supporting diversion of public funds to private schools, and of favoring Christian teachings in schools. She has also opposed school unions repeatedly, and even failed to disclose a contribution to an anti-Union group in her financial disclosures. Yet, she will be in charge of all federal public education policy and funding.

  • Secretary of Veterans Affairs: David Shulkin (Washington D.C.). Currently an undersecretary of Health in the VA, he at least understands how the agency works; however, he'd be the first VA Secretary to not have military experience. In his favor, he left a high-paying private sector job to take this VA position (though still has a net worth of $16M). He was appointed by Obama, and Republicans have repeatedly attacked the administration of the VA, so it is unclear how they will ignore those facts now. But, he has said privatizing the VA (which many in the GOP favor) would be a “terrible mistake,” so maybe there's hope for one person on this list.

  • Secretary of Homeland Security: Gen. John Kelly, USMC (Ret.) (Massachusetts). He has an excellent military career (including overseeing Guantanamo Bay for awhile), has taken a tough stance on border security, and believes increased immigration will allow more terrorists into the country. His net worth is $4M. No word yet on how he views taking off shoes at the airport.

What I hope is that people call their U.S. Congresspeople about this. Call or email. Complain. Express concerns. Go to town meetings, they really listen there. For a handy link to find who represents you, click here. Or Google it. But #Resist.

|| posted by mW @ 3:46 PM


Drive

Star basketball player, Kobe Bryant, said in October 2012, "I have nothing in common with lazy people who blame others for their lack of success. Great things come from hard work and perseverance. No excuses." Some saw this as harsh.

I say we should all post this quote on our bathroom mirrors and look at it every day we wake.

|| posted by mW @ 1:51 PM


Why Religion Shouldn't Affect The American Public Discourse

Several matters in the current public discourse of the United States are mired in the trenches of the cultural wars because the liberals and progressives are terrified of upsetting religious leaders and the religious faithful. Approximately 83% of people in America consider themselves affiliated with religion of some sort, and between to 60% and 76% (depending on your sources) consider themselves Christian. These are formidable numbers, when a mere plurality wins most elections. But even among those numbers of Christians, you have Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Protestants; with the latter group being divided up further between Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Adventists, Holinesses, Evangelists, and more: each of whom have their own their own beliefs and practices amongst themselves. And this is not to mention the millions of people composed of other faiths: Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Vodun, or others.

But what should not be discounted is the growing segment of Americans who are agnostic and atheist. Despite what some faithful people believe, these Americans have the same right to believe that humanity is alone in its collective enterprise and not guided by a mystical force. There is value in these differences of personal conscience, and American liberty has always favored leaving such decisions to each person; and, when contrasted with the capacity of any one group to tyrannically impose its faith onto the others, it is clear why the Founding Fathers of this country established that no law, no regulation, should touch the issues of faith that lie solely between each person and his or her god, and believed that a wall of separation should exist between church and state: to protect faith as much as liberty. Yet, today, when each and every one of us has become no more than a piece of the greater economic machine that drives this country, so few of us have the time or liberty to ponder these issues, let alone fully understand them and debate them with the mental capacity of our Founding Fathers; so people listen to talk radio and opinionated television personalities, and are content with being TOLD what to believe.

But numbers, opinions, and even loud radio diatribes cannot change the law. So why liberals and progressives are working so hard to placate religious powers, instead of relying upon the law, is baffling to me. For example, religious conservatives believe abortion is murder: that is what their faith tells them. But the law says otherwise. Generally, until the fetus becomes independently viable, abortion is legal. Therefore, it is NOT murder. "Murder" is not something that can be established by moral grounds alone; "killing" can be; but murder is defined in every state's criminal code. So repeat this with me: no state's criminal code's definition of murder includes abortion. Thus, regardless of some people's religious beliefs (via the 1st Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion), there is no, nor can there be any endorsement of those beliefs by the state (via the 1st Amendment's prohibition on the establishment of religion). Thus, abortion is not "murder"; it does not involve the intentional act of taking a "person's" life. Medically, and legally, abortion simply ends the potential to create a new person. So why tip-toe around it? Are we back to morality?

Hillary Clinton once made the mistake of calling abortion a necessary evil. She was wrong. It is just the removal of fast-multiplying cells. According to the law, to science, that's it. Are we really to believe that a poor, but intelligent 17-year-old, who finds herself pregnant, with the father-to-be abandoning her in fear of the ethical and moral responsibility is better off keeping that baby, rather than aborting the pregnancy, finishing high school, educating herself, getting a good job, becoming independent, and finding a good, responsible man (or woman) to have a child with in a loving, caring, financially capable relationship? No. Both her and her child are better off in the latter situation. No values are absolute. You have to consider the circumstances.

Religious conservatives, though, do believe it is all black and white, yes and no, faith or the end of the world. But they're wrong. They've always been wrong. I mean, let's go back to murder. It's ALWAYS wrong to kill someone, right? Incorrect. Only if it's "murder." How many religious conservatives have you seen lining up to condemn each individual who has served in the Iraq and Afghanistan military conflicts? But they've killed people, right? Oh, that's different. What about the woman faced with a cracked out junkie, looking to murder her, rape her corpse, and then steal her pocket change for his next fix? She killed someone, right? But, when that fool pulls a knife and tells the woman he's going to murder her, do the religious conservatives damn her for pulling a gun out of her purse and shooting that crackhead dead? Or do they thank their god for the Second Amendment? Exactly. Yet, if that crackhead didn't pull a knife, and just beat her to the ground, did rape her, stole her purse (sans gun in this hypothetical), and left her with enough genetic material to create life; then, should she desire to ask her doctor to excise a few cells from the inside of her uterus, left by that crackhead rapist, then SHE'S the murderer? Oh, and she should also "thank god for the little life growing inside her." The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways. Don't worry, Jesus will someday turn that crack-infested sperm into a little bundle of joy! Gross. And no thank you. But if you're not just believing blindly what someone else told you, it's easy to see the inconsistencies in these positions on "murder."

This is why blindly following faith over your own reason is foolish. Even to Jesus, the inconsistent application of exceptions to "Thou Shall Not Kill" wouldn't make sense. And that's even assuming an abortion was killing something: which both the law and science say it is not. The only way one can believe that it is killing, or murder, is if he or she believes the zygote, come blastocyst, come embryo, come fetus is a human being—which is everyone's Constitutional right—but it is an exercise of belief, of religion; not law, not science, and not something which any American has the right to impose on any other person. There is a reason that the Founding Fathers did not want to parse matters of the conscience. As Thomas Jefferson said, "the rights of conscience [were] never submitted [to the government]...The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god." Abortion is no different. Some may believe it wrong, some not, but the law says it is not "murder." End of story.

Religion rears its ugly head with Contraception too. Some religious people believe it is against God's will. That's nice. But the state, who has a Constitutional obligation to treat all people the same, and considering that all Americans must now have health insurance, must be treated equally. Thus, provided men of all faiths have their insurers pay for their vasectomies on one hand, and their viagra on the other; women can have their tubes tied and be given contraception under the same coverage. Ninety percent of women have used or do use contraception, so clearly social conservatives who are fighting this battle aren't going on demographics, but the undeterrable tenets of their religious conviction. That's nice. But, again, inappropriate in a country that has, since its foundation, declared itself to be ruled by secular principles. As Thomas Paine wrote in 1776: "As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith. How some social conservatives can declare undying affection for the Founding Fathers, yet have no fucking clue what they believed, is astounding.

So let's talk about what these social conservatives are really getting at. Power. Sex. Misogyny. Rush Limbaugh accused a Georgetown law student who advocated the new contraception insurance rule before Congress of being a prostitute and a slut, and wondered how much sex she was having. His misunderstanding of how contraception works aside, this is the man arrested for coming back into this country with a bunch of Viagra that had not been prescribed to him. So, if you want contraception, you're a slut, you're sleeping with everyone (which is, apparently, evil). If you get pregnant during having such sex (all the more likely when religious authorities fought to keep contraception from you), they tell you that you are a sinner, that you should have abstained, and that you must live with the "consequences" of your actions. But that's when they are talking about the "sin" of sex. Because when they turn the other cheek and talk about the wonder of the child-to-be, then it is a glorious "gift" from God. Some would say the gift came from the person depositing the semen, but I digress. What we are talking about is the religious degradation of sex.

In the mid-1990s, a huge push was made to combat "teen pre-marital sex," led by many religious conservatives. Yet, when the same people were asked about "adult pre-marital sex," those same people had no comment. But isn't the commandment against sex religious? (And, really, it's against adultery.) So what's going on here? Consider that most religious conservatives will admit that post-marital sex is "God's gift," rather than "sin," irrespective of whether the intent is to procreate. So, in that situation, why would contraception be evil? Two married, consenting adults, having (of course) missionary sex? What's the evil? Okay, now step out of marriage. Two, consenting adults, having (for the sake of a controlled variable) missionary sex: in their home, in their bed, (of course) with the lights out. No one else watching. Not even creepy pets. Is that evil? Take a poll. I dare you. Poll each member of Congress. Ask them three questions: (1) would the two adults in that scenario be committing any moral wrong; (2) are they committing any legal wrong; and (3) do you believe the state has any right to tell them that they are doing something morally wrong (according to some people) if it is not proscribed by the law? I would guarantee you will get some yeses to #1 (but less than the nos); no yeses to #2; and, sadly, some yeses to #3, but only by the most religious conservatives who believe that proselytizing is part of their faith (which they have conflated with their duty as statespersons). But, in, say Louisiana, what if the consenting adult is 20 years old, and the other consenting person is 16 years old? Is that wrong? According to the law, it depends on whether the difference in age is 4 years or more. That is, if the difference was 4 years and 1 day in age, it is a felony; if the difference was 3 years and 364.5 days in age, it's legal. Of course, in Louisiana, if the same two consenting people wait until they are 21 and 17, it's all good, regardless. This is the nuance on which the law works. But it is exact. It applies to everyone equally. Religions may have different nuances in interpretation of sex too, but that can't be legislated; it is between the conscience of each person and their god.

To some, sex a sacred, holy thing. That's great. For others it's sniffing coke off someone's back before fucking doggystyle on the bed, rolling onto the floor and fucking every which way, and pushing up against the wall in the third room over. Because that's how they like it. Government owes people an inherent sphere of privacy, and the Supreme Court has recently declined to penetrate that sphere of privacy: finding that what people do in the privacy of their bedroom has no effect on anyone else. For those jokers that say people that have sex take their own risks and have no right to demand health insurance coverage for contraception, or even abortion, I say you don't understand insurance. Some people work out four to five times a week, eat healthy, and don't smoke. Why should they pay for the billions of dollars that lazy, fat, bad eating chain-smoking people cost them in insurance costs? Should the healthy people be allowed to "opt out" of paying any premium that goes to those people? Or should a corporate gym be able to decline "fat-related" medical treatment paid for by its insurer, because all of its employees are healthy? No. That is not how insurance works. Insurers spread their risks across all premiums, regardless. So just as these private companies pay for the panopoly of health-issues caused by obesity from the premiums of health food companies and gyms, where such people are less likely to be found, they will cover contraception and other sexual-related costs from Catholic employers, and other institutions that decry sex a moral crime. If religious conservatives have a problem with this, they should take it up with the insurance industry, and ask them to allocate specific premiums only to specific costs, and then hold their breath for that. Or, they could use their massive resources to self-insure health costs. Alternatively, instead of making a huge stink until the Congressional battle is over and lost, and then making a huge fit over the next issue, they should continue fighting this battle forever: encourage civil disobedience, don't pay insurance premiums until their insurers drop their coverage, and play the martyrs when the government goes after them for not maintaining mandatory coverage for their employees, and then be willing to go to jail over it. If Christians' only allegiance is to their god; to do any less would be an obvious betrayal of that faith. Or show that the big show put on by social conservatives was all a sham.

Funny how the same people preaching the "sanctity of life" because "God" created it, and who declare sudden, seemingly unfair deaths to be "God's will," and not to worry because "God has a plan," don't see that if their god has absolute control over the cycle of life and death, that souls return to him for judgment, and that our lives here are essentially pointless, then abortion is just a short-cut to God. If religions believe that only sin gets you to Hell, that you are born with Original Sin, it would seem, logically, that an aborted fetus (assuming it has a soul, which they do), who is never born, is without sin and goes straight up. Shit, assuming how fucked up our world is, and packed with misery and suffering, if you really loved your children, you'd sacrifice your own personal connection to them and abort them, sending them straight to Heaven. You'll all meet up eventually, right, and have eternity to get to know and love each other. Ridiculous? Not if you follow the logic. Just keep getting pregnant and aborting it. It'll all work out in the end. Just go to confession a lot, just in case abortion is a sin. That way, you're covered.

Lastly, let's deal with this god itself. Christians believe "Him" to be omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. So why is abortion even an issue? Under this criteria, God would have the ability to sense every unwanted pregnancy, be everywhere at once to act, and would have the power to act directly, or indirectly (though his priests), to move the zygotic/blastocystic/fetal tissue to a uterus of a (married) woman desperate to conceive. Wouldn't that preserve life? And isn't power what deity is all about? Without power, "God" would just be another asshole telling us all what to do. But, He supposedly has this power. Oh, yes, and he has a "Plan." Right. All humans, though, have free will. So, eh, kind of? God gave us free will, but, technically, because He's all-knowing, knows precisely what we'll do with it. Ergo, the Plan. So why would anyone see any need to proselytize? Doesn't that risk interfering with the Plan? How can anyone know what His Plan is? And whether we act or don't act, doesn't he already know it? And regardless of whether we do or do not act, isn't the outcome already predetermined as part of the Plan? And don't you think that if we somehow had the capacity through free will to "screw up" the Plan, that he would take actions to stop us or fix the Plan to ensure the end he wanted? If that's the case, why worry about contraception, abortion, or sex itself? If the people that do these things are predestined to burn, nothing you can do will save them. (Which creates a paradox in God's all-loving attribute: he loves us all, but created some of us with defects that He knew would cause us to rebel and be damned for eternity. That doesn't seem all loving.) Regardless, God has a Plan, and it'll all work out. If you're unsure, go pray to him and wait for the answers.

The rest of us will use what brains we have (regardless of where they came from), and allow millennia of accumulated reason and science to guide us (whether such knowledge was imparted by the almighty or not), and comply with the laws that govern us all. Because that is all we can know and touch. And whatever dictates individuals have of the conscience are between them and their maker (or no maker at all), and are not to be forced on others. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America understood humanity and they understood history; they knew the tyranny that one faith could impose upon others. So they created the laws of this country to govern secularly, and left matters of faith to the faithful. When we are discussing the important issues of our time, we should remember their wisdom. 

|| posted by mW @ 7:41 PM


When Does Life Begin...And Does Your Answer Make You Sexist?

Does life begin at conception, or at birth?  Until recently, the question only plagued philosophers and those of existential bents, though, it has long been considered, albeit more fleetingly, by many.  Does it matter?  Yes.  But why?  Well, for starters, it affects a lot of real-life issues. 

One such issue is criminal justice.  If a person kills a pregnant woman, is it a double-homicide?  It does seem worse than killing a non-pregnant person, but if that's murder, what is abortion?  Ah.  There's there's another issue.  Criminalizing the former subtly outlaws the latter.  In Roe v. Wade,  a fetus was referred to as a "potential life."  It's an apt term.  A fetus can't live on its own; its sole existence is through the mother-to-be.  Ending a potential life forcefully (i.e., killing a pregnant woman or conducting a D&X without consent) is reprehensible, and should be a crime in its own, but not murder.  And if it's not "life" yet, there's no basis to outlaw abortion. But didn't you mention sexism?  Ah yes. That.

Has it been that long since I've spoken about male hegemony, the self-inscribing apparatus that even women help enforce?  I suppose so.  The main issue here is representation.  How do we present the ability to create life, and the role of men and women in that process?  It is also about agency.  Who can create life.  If life starts at conception, men and women are equal partners in the creation of life, and women just happen to carry the new life into the world: like traditional housewives who buy the groceries with community property funds and carry them into the house by themselves while the men make that money.

But, if life begins at birth, only women can create life.  This elevates women.  This makes women capable of something no man can possibly do.  This also means that women make all the choices about life and potential life, and should be the ones that establish the right of life and potential life.  It means men take a back seat and listen to what women decide.  The male hegemony, however, says "no" to this concept.  So certain sub-stratas of society says life starts at conception, and cloak it in the authority of religion.  Because, gasp, their god could not have intended for women to be above men in any capacity.

Don't believe it.  Women are unique.  Their ability to create life makes them superior to men.  Too many make the process out to be a burden.  Women in no position to complete their education or secure their financial well-being are encouraged to have children before they are ready; men argue the fetus is half theirs and demand rights.  But it's all insecurity.  Men cannot bring life into this world.  Women should rule the world based on that principle alone.  Yet too many men skirt their responsibility as fathers, burdening women as solo mothers, and use the educational and financial restraints on (particularly young) solo mothers to oppress them.  Laws should stronger favor women's and mothers' rights.  Women should make them stronger.  For example, build in attorneys' fees and multiple damages on unpaid child support.  Force the government to pay for that woman's child care and education until the father can be found; but allow the government reimbursement against the father.  This is the same principle that Medicare works on: protect the injured person and allow the government to go after the liable person later.  But that, of course, might be construed as socialist.  For shame.  On the other hand, if you realize that 100% of global democracies employ socialism in some form, maybe you'll wake up and realize that "socialism" is only as strong of an invective as you are susceptible to reverse-anachronist McCarthyism. 

Regardless, women should fight harder to say when life begins, and men should be more honest about it.  Because, face it fellas, it's about ego, it's about control.  But the truth is, you can't bring life into this world.

|| posted by mW @ 6:51 PM


Republicans Are Just Sad

What's sadder is that Democrats and Independents just don't get it. Small government, slash taxes? Please. Where was the call for small government in the Bush years when the executive branch was exercising unprecedented powers? For all those that say he exercised enhanced "war powers" I ask what war he was fighting. No, seriously, point me to the declaration of war, authorized by Congress, that would give him those powers. (Part of the checks and balances built into the government by the Founders, who Republicans profess allegiance to when it is convenient, and ignore when it is not.) There wasn't one. Like in Korea (before the Vietnam War), America is fighting a "conflict" in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

So anyway, small government? Not when the Republicans are in power and control the agenda. They will legislate their religion, defy science, and diminish civil liberties through extensions of the police state. Their calls for small government only came about when Democrats took over. I.e., as a foil to the Democratic agenda, rather than adherence to any political philosophy. As for slashing taxes? Bush is the first president to slash taxes while engaged in such extensive military engagements, which is clearly fiscally irresponsible. And then, the strategy is to blame Obama for running a bloated federal government budget, and railing against him if he fails to renew the tax cuts. Again, it is a political ploy, not an exercise in political honesty.

Meanwhile, the first two years of Obama's administration, the Republicans do nothing but block his policies at every turn. Obama gets a few things passed, but not enough, considering he controls both houses of Congress, and even those bills are watered down thanks to Republican resistance. Now, with Republicans gaining seats at the midterm elections, the Republicans have avowed to block everything the Democrats attempt to pass until the next election. One can only hope that voters see this as detrimental to the functioning of the U.S. government, and a failure to cooperate a betrayal of their duties as legislators.

Sadly, the ancillary strategy of Republicans is to make intelligent voters so disgusted by the dysfunctional federal government that they disassociate from politics altogether; which, allows the so-called "grassroots", FoxNews-mob-inspired crowd to takeover. It's up to the rest of us not to let that happen.

Labels: , ,

|| posted by mW @ 9:56 AM


Hornets Love

For anyone who's noticed the darth of posts here, it's largely because Sarah and I have been investing all our spare time in our newfound appreciation for the NBA's New Orleans Hornets. This includes, among other things, keeping up with our new blog at HornetsHype.com.. Check us out there!

Labels: , ,

|| posted by mW @ 12:08 PM


The Republicans Are Smarter Than Everyone

Anyone ever play that card game "bullshit," which is based on bluffing and posturing more than the cards in your hands? Well, I call "bullshit" on the Republicans. Although, I think I'm the only one doing so. When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1996 with their hugely successful "Contract With America" pledge, they did so for the first time in decades. At a point where trust with politicians was at low ebb, they made the unusual move of promising a comprehensive plan of legislation, accompanied by the threat that if they didn't do what they said, they would expect to be elected out of office. This kind of accountability was something America ate up and won them Congress during the term of an enduringly popular President Clinton and a thriving economy. The strategy was wide-spread among the party and novel in its sweeping effect, not to mention its overwhelming success.

Well I say the Republicans are at it again, pioneering election strategy in new ways. Whatever back-room party deals were made, it was clear that the GOP machinery was behind George Bush in the 2000 election. To try and gain an edge, to differentiate himself, John McCain declared himself a maverick, an anti-establishment guy. It didn't work. Or did it? Sure, he lost the GOP nomination then. Or did he? Maybe he was never meant to win. Maybe what he did was part of a long term strategy. What I am suggesting is that the GOP is attempting multi-campaign strategems, not content to plan each election on its own.

Look at McCain's voting record. Almost every vote during Bush's two terms McCain has voted lock-step with his party. Is that the record of a maverick? The only waves he made was in fighting the torture capacities of the U.S. a year or so back. Oh sure he stood up to Bush, he made a big push in the media. But the end "compromise" with the White House was that the U.S. could do what it wanted if national security was endangered. I paraphrase, but not much. Look it up. It made me sick to read the final wording. Incidentally, Bush just vetoed a recent attempt to make waterboarding illegal. I haven't seen McCain call him out for that. Any way, so McCain "loses" the GOP election, but with just enough efficacy that he is thought to be a future contender for the spot.

Now, in 2007-08, he runs again, but everyone counts him out. But then Rudy runs his campaign into the ground. Mitt the Mormon and converted conservative never stood a chance. To either, McCain still looks the favorite, so the GOP pretends its desperate and adds Fred Thompson as they so-called "true conservative," but then throws him in too late to make a difference and had him stumble left and right. Well done, Mr. Thompson. Well acted. Against any of these, McCain still looks conservative. So what do you do? Throw in Huckabee. Note: only against a former preacher does McCain no longer look conservative. And then conservative pundits rip McCain for not being conservative when he jumps out to a lead. Because that is how he is made to look. It is a chosen representation more than any indication of truth. Why does Huckabee stay in the race when it is clear he will lose? Because he needs to point out how not conservative McCain allegedly is. (And incidentally, he lays the groundwork for a future run if he or the party so think it is advisable).

All in all, the point is this. The GOP sees that their strategy over the last eight years has alienated many people, because in reality it has benefited so few. They realized the Demos will be poised to strike at the presidency. So they need to have a maverick ready, a rebel ready, who is just liberal enough to swing some moderate viewers, while the GOP faithful vote for whomever because that is what they do, just as loyal liberals will do the same with their candidate. And so the conservative pundits continue to complain, and some moderates and liberals may even think they don't want McCain but of course they do because either Clinton or Obama are insanely liberal in their eyes. Will it work? Who knows. I hope not.

But I for one, am calling "bullshit." McCain you are no fake conservative. You are exactly what conservatives want. You will cut back taxes and regulations on big corporations. You will mire us in years more of war. Both serving to give away our country's future to foreign banks as we build the national debt. At the same time, a President McCain would almost certainly ignore millions of Americans who suffer without health insurance or good jobs, and imperil all our civil rights by appointing conservative idealogues to the Supreme Court. I for one, have had enough of that type of leadership. Bush, McCain, it's all the same.

America, vote how you will. But don't be fooled.

Labels: , , , ,

|| posted by mW @ 11:37 AM


Democrats & Representation

It has become clear to me in the last few months that biases we think we hold we don't and those we say we don't have we do. In watching Senators Clinton and Obama fight for the Democratic nomination, from both the response of popular media and general population alike, it is clear how much racism is really classism. No one's afraid of a black man in a suit, but people are threatened by a woman in charge. Having a random woman in the boardroom or Congress is an aberation, a token acquiescence. However, it is clear in how the two are treated that in today's America we still feel female agency as a threat to the status quo more than a black man in power, because after all, a black man's still a man.

How many times have you heard someone (in conversation or online, not the media) call Clinton a "bitch?" It's there. Funny. I haven't heard that Obama's a "nigger." Nor have I heard he's a "dick" or "asshole" or any of the other things you might call a black man or just a man. It's ironic. Clinton is more the stereotypical man of the two: tough, stubborn, and determined. While Obama plays it out like he is building bridges and listening, the empath: a typically feminine archetype. Yet if we look back at Clinton's history she has always been a multiculturalist, one willing to listen and hear and respect others, and make changes based on results. In fact, these traits were largely what made the Right hate her in the first place. I dare say her tougher side is to win over the moderates who might still flinch at another staunch Republican or those who try to portray Democrats at large as weak.

Yet Obama has become the darling favorite, despite no experience at the national level. He plays it as a bonus. An attribute to be lauded. He claims incorruptability. Yet even if he was--which I severely doubt--he would not make any laws as president. Congress does that. So he still has to "change" all of them too. I'd rather a president who understands how government works and understands its strengths and weaknesess and will look to better it from that standpoint. Personally, I don't care if that person is a woman. And neither should the rest of America.

|| posted by mW @ 7:46 PM


Prosecutions and Immunities

Who the powers that be go after in this country and how the media portrays it baffles me. Today's A-12 second headline is "Immunity is sought in CIA tapes probe." That's all we hear about, albeit quietly. Immunity for Blackwater "security guards" (a.k.a. mercenaries). Immunity for Bush for arranging illegal wiretaps. Yet the front pages are about Barry Bonds maybe or maybe not lying about steriod use. (And for those of you that think that is important, look at how many pitchers have been busted and look up when steroids actually became against the rules of professional baseball.) All I'm saying, is everytime some semi-important story like Bonds is put up, make sure you look and see what is underneath.

For example, as now the country goes apeshit on Roger Clemons and his possible steroid use, the White House is again building up its case for war on Iran. Although not quite the same, consider how many months of coverage did football superstar, Michael Vick's,dog fighting prosecution get? I'm not saying he was right (because he wasn't), but at the same time we continue to ignore calls to prosecute anyone involved in going to war with Iraq, despite the fact that our reasons for going in were erroneous and likely an outright lie. Or how come nobody has been prosecuted for leaking a CIA agent's name (Valerie Plume)? The closest thing was a conviction for lying about leaking it, and that person's sentence was commuted!

We already know that this White House administration is one of the most secretive ever. What makes things worse, is that the few things that do leak out, they cover with bullshit side stories and the media gets sucked right in.

|| posted by mW @ 10:14 AM


Writing Again

In the midst of a job search, I've realized the hard way that while such a thing can be time consuming, it does not involve 40 hours a week. So instead of burying myself in books, movies, and video games, I've decided to do some more writing. I recently completed one short story and submitted it; another requires one more draft (that is on hold because my computer broke...long story...). Both are urban fantasy.

I am also working on one of my abandoned novels. It is short. It is satirical. It is a madcap look at Americana and God. We'll see if it works. The first draft of one of my chapter can be found here

Labels: , , ,

|| posted by mW @ 1:17 PM


[top]

All Rights Reserved © 2005-2010

 



"We should abandon the belief that power makes people mad and that, but the same token, the renunciation of power is one of the conditions of knowledge. We should admit, rather, that power produces knowledge . . . that power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations."

          - Michel Foucault