Among various ridiculosities noted in the media (oh my GOD! he's actually doing his job! what sort of shitty standards have we had for the past eight years...?), there's one thing that actually interests me, which is the repeated mention back to President Obama's campaign promises, platform, and even the inauguration address.
Basically, he is actually sticking to what he's been saying for the past year and a half or so: healthcare, tax cuts for the middle class, education, &c. So my question is: why? Yeah, he's acknowledged that the current economy is going to put his most ambitious plans on hold, yet the economic stimulus package is still centered around the benefits that were mentioned in the debates and the primaries. But he's already in office. He doesn't have to make sure that he goes through on everything--in fact, polls show that people are willing to wait as long as necessary for their results in light of the economic situation.
So the only answer I've been able to come up with is that President Obama believes that his plan is the only way for America to move forward and retake its position of world's ...something-est... power. Which is so crazy: a politician with actual confidence.
On the newest episode of House, MD: suddenly Foreman and Thirteen's aberrant behavior makes sense...and I really hope they're done with the baby drama.
1.23.2009
Buying Organic Isn't Enough
You know all those great "organic" clothes out there now? Like, oh yeah free trade all natural individual sewn cotton...sold for more money than the average video game*...and it's generally assumed that it's worth the price because hey, doing good for the earth and poor villagers, right?
So maybe the poor villagers are happier (which is actually kind of unlikely since half the time those products are also touted as made in the U.S.), but I disagree. This shit isn't helping the world.
People who think it's good enough to support organic cotton will fail to take other, more important measures in reducing their carbon footprint. I say this in part because the kind of person who spends $40 on a shitty, thin t-shirt probably isn't thinking too hard about their giant heating/cooling bill, or leaving the lights on, or any of those other things that those of us living on a budget have to think about. (Also, I really, really hate self-righteous hipsters. Which is all of them, so yeah. Fuck hipsters. And fuck your retarded berets, you do realize that artists tend to be more creative with their clothing in general, right? Idiots.)
As for organic vegetables: more goes into their transportation and care than for factory/greenhouse foods. Better to buy local, although the balance isn't exactly known (I mean, this shit is pretty hard to measure...).
But anyway, as we enter a new era of taking responsibility (teehee), it's important to keep in mind that everything we do has a cost. Think about it the next time you leave the lights on when you go out.
*which reminds me: THE SIMS 3 :O
So maybe the poor villagers are happier (which is actually kind of unlikely since half the time those products are also touted as made in the U.S.), but I disagree. This shit isn't helping the world.
People who think it's good enough to support organic cotton will fail to take other, more important measures in reducing their carbon footprint. I say this in part because the kind of person who spends $40 on a shitty, thin t-shirt probably isn't thinking too hard about their giant heating/cooling bill, or leaving the lights on, or any of those other things that those of us living on a budget have to think about. (Also, I really, really hate self-righteous hipsters. Which is all of them, so yeah. Fuck hipsters. And fuck your retarded berets, you do realize that artists tend to be more creative with their clothing in general, right? Idiots.)
As for organic vegetables: more goes into their transportation and care than for factory/greenhouse foods. Better to buy local, although the balance isn't exactly known (I mean, this shit is pretty hard to measure...).
But anyway, as we enter a new era of taking responsibility (teehee), it's important to keep in mind that everything we do has a cost. Think about it the next time you leave the lights on when you go out.
*which reminds me: THE SIMS 3 :O
1.22.2009
Male Gynecologists
If the sexes are truly equal, then what's wrong with having a male gynecologist?
Seriously. I consider myself to be an egalitarian, but there are limits: for instance, basic biology...men are designed to gain muscle quickly and women, fat...and there's the matter of periods, too.
I don't think any form of true, absolute equality is really possible in this world: are you going to hold someone who went to an inner-city school to the same standards as a rich prep-school kid? It's far more unreasonable to strive for complete equality than it is to stop and say, alright, there are differences. These differences will be accomodated at the cost of nobody--and here I'm thinking not only of affirmative action, but also of things like Title IX abuse (the boys' stadium wasn't allowed to have a donated scoreboard until the girls got one too)...it's a cliché, yeah, but it's also true: life is unfair.
The question is, how do you make the best of it?
...I guess that's all. Watch and see how things change (or don't) during President Obama's (eeee!) terms.
Seriously. I consider myself to be an egalitarian, but there are limits: for instance, basic biology...men are designed to gain muscle quickly and women, fat...and there's the matter of periods, too.
I don't think any form of true, absolute equality is really possible in this world: are you going to hold someone who went to an inner-city school to the same standards as a rich prep-school kid? It's far more unreasonable to strive for complete equality than it is to stop and say, alright, there are differences. These differences will be accomodated at the cost of nobody--and here I'm thinking not only of affirmative action, but also of things like Title IX abuse (the boys' stadium wasn't allowed to have a donated scoreboard until the girls got one too)...it's a cliché, yeah, but it's also true: life is unfair.
The question is, how do you make the best of it?
...I guess that's all. Watch and see how things change (or don't) during President Obama's (eeee!) terms.
1.20.2009
The Inauguration
Holy shit the crowd! Unprecedented opening of the National Mall just to see his inauguration--wonder if they can all even hear it? At any rate, the expected chant of "O-BA-MA!"
God, I really wish the newscasters would shut the fuck up. Seriously, it's "race race race," "Hussein Obama," "terrorism terrorism" "race race," worse than Bush's reiteration of 9-11, etc. On the other hand, they've ever-so-usefully pointed out that the cold snap has worn off in time...funny, it's sort of like when the night of the election was clear and totally warm compared to the past week. :O Do we sense the hand of a god?!
(Totally kidding. Seriously. But I can easily imagine some idiot seriously making this connection.)
Quick thing on the current situation: economy fears becoming almost commonplace (well, at least in the media), the Gaza situation solving itself...nice. Much better than a week ago.
Ok, so I'm a tiny bit amused by the mention of Israel in the invocation (and far more amused by the fact that the rest of it is pretty much about Mr. Obama being African-American, something he never really played up during his campaign...oh and hey, actually asking forgiveness for the country?! No president, Clinton in Rwanda included, has ever asked for that...maybe, maybe having a religion, or at least its moral code and belief in the afterlife, is a good thing). Oh hai...is Biden going to say the "Our Father" in Latin?
Also, the Star-Spangled Banner is so dumped. Aretha is doing "My Country, 'Tis of Thee"...hopefully with a minimum of unnecessary notes. (Of course; she's Aretha. And I'm still confused that she's alive...how old is she...??)
As for the assholes who don't like that Mr. Obama wants to name God: the whole point about being a liberal is giving other people the right to do what they want. Including calling upon a deity that some of us do not believe in. How are we better than the conservatives who expect everyone to display a faith if we force people to hide theirs?
Huh...did not know that the Vice Presidential Oath demands the absolute defense of the country against foreign and domestic threats. Cheney's term seems like even more of an insult now.
Haha, Yo-Yo Ma gets his own cheer, louder than the rest of the musicians. Also interesting: a classical instrumentalist can become a personality.
Well, guess Biden is president for five minutes.... (Bush's term expired at noon, the music ended at 12.05 p.m....)
Mr. Obama be eager and horribly nervous. No surprises there! Also: FINALLY. Hmm, no God added to the oath. Not too surprising though, they're not going to change tradition that easily, even if it is in a direction promoted since the '50s.
The speech.
Polite as always, respectful of the 43rd. Nature as a metaphor, used to ease the transition into a discussion of the chaos: expected. And talk of failure to "prepare the nation for a new age"...hey, he is actually talking about promises he made during his campaign! And mentioning hard facts as well as the "sapping of confidence." "The challenges we face are real...but know this, America, they will be met." If anyone doesn't know why he was elected, watch now and learn. Impressive force. "All deserve a full chance to pursue their measure of happiness"...prescribing moderation as well as hard work. No shortcuts, no leisure--can't help but think of The Onion's spoof (lazy nation worried about Obama's plan to create jobs).
"For us..." ode to the military. Good for him.
"We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on earth"...he has to say it, how much does he believe it? Is change necessary to maintain this position or retake it? (Either way, it's going to happen, though, so maybe this is a moot point.) "We will restore science to its rightful place"...yaaaaay! Damn straight.
For the people, the cynics, who question the viability of all this transformation: "stale political arguments...no longer apply." Even better, the fact that the size of the government is less important than whether or not it works (and yeah, that was the original difference between Republicans and Democrats). As for the market: "its power to generate wealth and freedom is unmatched," but a "watchful eye" is necessary so that not only the prosperous are favored. Mentioning the GDP...nice. This speech is more than fluff; he's done his research.
"We reject as false the difference between our safety and our ideals." So we will be going forward with war? [Later] "Our security emanates from the justness of our cause." Yeah, seems like that, but only for the sake of peace (which, by the way, was Wilson's rationale for entering WWI).
Finally, a small reference to the situation his father was born in. That aside, though..."we are ready to lead once more"...America is behind the times, then.
"We will not apologize for our way of life." To the terrorists: "...and we will defeat you." The strength of "our patchwork heritage"...hey! He also mentioned Hindus and nonbelievers. See, this is why we need multicultural presidents.
History has a "wrong" side...but still, an appeal for diplomacy made once they "unclench [their] fist[s]." But the thing is, there's no leader of that side to extend a diplomatic handshake....
Hey-hey, mention of Arlington. I reiterate: all declarations of war should be made from there.
Summation. "A new era of responsibility...duties to ourselves, the nation, and the world." And we'll take them on because we know that we are doing the right thing..."the price and the promise of citizenship." Remember America's past, in particular how far we've come since then. Which is good, because America seems to have forgotten how far we've fallen behind, relative to the Europeans, in terms of 'progress'--or at least liberalism.
Back to the nature. And an appeal to the future and how we will be described in history...particularly relevant because of the sudden eye on eight years of Bushisms.
P.S. This speech best listened to with a subwoofer. His voice booms most impressively.
God, I really wish the newscasters would shut the fuck up. Seriously, it's "race race race," "Hussein Obama," "terrorism terrorism" "race race," worse than Bush's reiteration of 9-11, etc. On the other hand, they've ever-so-usefully pointed out that the cold snap has worn off in time...funny, it's sort of like when the night of the election was clear and totally warm compared to the past week. :O Do we sense the hand of a god?!
(Totally kidding. Seriously. But I can easily imagine some idiot seriously making this connection.)
Quick thing on the current situation: economy fears becoming almost commonplace (well, at least in the media), the Gaza situation solving itself...nice. Much better than a week ago.
Ok, so I'm a tiny bit amused by the mention of Israel in the invocation (and far more amused by the fact that the rest of it is pretty much about Mr. Obama being African-American, something he never really played up during his campaign...oh and hey, actually asking forgiveness for the country?! No president, Clinton in Rwanda included, has ever asked for that...maybe, maybe having a religion, or at least its moral code and belief in the afterlife, is a good thing). Oh hai...is Biden going to say the "Our Father" in Latin?
Also, the Star-Spangled Banner is so dumped. Aretha is doing "My Country, 'Tis of Thee"...hopefully with a minimum of unnecessary notes. (Of course; she's Aretha. And I'm still confused that she's alive...how old is she...??)
As for the assholes who don't like that Mr. Obama wants to name God: the whole point about being a liberal is giving other people the right to do what they want. Including calling upon a deity that some of us do not believe in. How are we better than the conservatives who expect everyone to display a faith if we force people to hide theirs?
Huh...did not know that the Vice Presidential Oath demands the absolute defense of the country against foreign and domestic threats. Cheney's term seems like even more of an insult now.
Haha, Yo-Yo Ma gets his own cheer, louder than the rest of the musicians. Also interesting: a classical instrumentalist can become a personality.
Well, guess Biden is president for five minutes.... (Bush's term expired at noon, the music ended at 12.05 p.m....)
Mr. Obama be eager and horribly nervous. No surprises there! Also: FINALLY. Hmm, no God added to the oath. Not too surprising though, they're not going to change tradition that easily, even if it is in a direction promoted since the '50s.
The speech.
Polite as always, respectful of the 43rd. Nature as a metaphor, used to ease the transition into a discussion of the chaos: expected. And talk of failure to "prepare the nation for a new age"...hey, he is actually talking about promises he made during his campaign! And mentioning hard facts as well as the "sapping of confidence." "The challenges we face are real...but know this, America, they will be met." If anyone doesn't know why he was elected, watch now and learn. Impressive force. "All deserve a full chance to pursue their measure of happiness"...prescribing moderation as well as hard work. No shortcuts, no leisure--can't help but think of The Onion's spoof (lazy nation worried about Obama's plan to create jobs).
"For us..." ode to the military. Good for him.
"We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on earth"...he has to say it, how much does he believe it? Is change necessary to maintain this position or retake it? (Either way, it's going to happen, though, so maybe this is a moot point.) "We will restore science to its rightful place"...yaaaaay! Damn straight.
For the people, the cynics, who question the viability of all this transformation: "stale political arguments...no longer apply." Even better, the fact that the size of the government is less important than whether or not it works (and yeah, that was the original difference between Republicans and Democrats). As for the market: "its power to generate wealth and freedom is unmatched," but a "watchful eye" is necessary so that not only the prosperous are favored. Mentioning the GDP...nice. This speech is more than fluff; he's done his research.
"We reject as false the difference between our safety and our ideals." So we will be going forward with war? [Later] "Our security emanates from the justness of our cause." Yeah, seems like that, but only for the sake of peace (which, by the way, was Wilson's rationale for entering WWI).
Finally, a small reference to the situation his father was born in. That aside, though..."we are ready to lead once more"...America is behind the times, then.
"We will not apologize for our way of life." To the terrorists: "...and we will defeat you." The strength of "our patchwork heritage"...hey! He also mentioned Hindus and nonbelievers. See, this is why we need multicultural presidents.
History has a "wrong" side...but still, an appeal for diplomacy made once they "unclench [their] fist[s]." But the thing is, there's no leader of that side to extend a diplomatic handshake....
Hey-hey, mention of Arlington. I reiterate: all declarations of war should be made from there.
Summation. "A new era of responsibility...duties to ourselves, the nation, and the world." And we'll take them on because we know that we are doing the right thing..."the price and the promise of citizenship." Remember America's past, in particular how far we've come since then. Which is good, because America seems to have forgotten how far we've fallen behind, relative to the Europeans, in terms of 'progress'--or at least liberalism.
Back to the nature. And an appeal to the future and how we will be described in history...particularly relevant because of the sudden eye on eight years of Bushisms.
P.S. This speech best listened to with a subwoofer. His voice booms most impressively.
1.19.2009
MLK Day
I don't know, I never really got the hang of this holiday. Whenever we did any sort of real reading of what he said and of what Malcolm X said, it always seemed like MLK, Jr. was pretty much the "safe" alternative that appealed most to worried white people. Hell, Malcolm X refused to put up with any form of segregation and told his people to defend themselves--MLK, Jr. definitely said at one point that he was willing to live in a separated peace (it's been a while, so I don't know exactly where, sorry).
But, nevertheless, look who got the holiday. I guess that he had more useful long-term ideals; Malcolm X's militancy could only ever have been a short-term solution.
But, nevertheless, look who got the holiday. I guess that he had more useful long-term ideals; Malcolm X's militancy could only ever have been a short-term solution.
1.15.2009
Farewell Address
To be succinct: why hasn't he learned anything from the criticisms of his past speeches?
1.14.2009
Inauguration Day
With the big day just around the corner, I suspect at least some of us are wondering what Obama's first move in office will be. Is he going to start by establishing himeslf as the foreign policy hard-liner that we assume he is because of Clinton's appointment, or by the domestic demigod that people have been worshipping with the supplication of "Yes We Can"?
On the foreign policy side of Israel's invasion of Gaza, the easiest and most beneficial thing to do (for the U.S., obviously), I think, would be to publicly denounce the brutality and then participate in tacit non-interference, instead turning focus to the domestic worries that are really dominating news stories. And he'll have so much help from the "liberal" media, who seem to have completely dropped the ball on bringing back images that shock people into action. Also: why not have Israel do the dirty work of bringing Hamas out? If Americans are going to bitch about civilian casualties, then maybe we'd better take our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now. But add a little bit of realism and you can see that this situation, as long as America keeps its hands clean, is perfect for us. Let them resolve their own disputes as messily as they like.
On the domestic end: Obama's got a solid economic team assembled, as long as he stays on top of things and makes sure Dubya doesn't slip anything by--which of course Obama has done fantastically so far--so there, hopefully by 2010 the markets will have stabilized, as they are already seeming to do. But it's never safe to trust anything through only one season.
Seems to me like Obama will be able to go in and jump straight to matters, creating stimuli as an excuse to push out social agendas. As long as he is untouched by the scandal in Illinois, of course.
On a side note: 7 years of American indoctrination trying to convince me that they act for the better good failed miserably, didn't it.
On the foreign policy side of Israel's invasion of Gaza, the easiest and most beneficial thing to do (for the U.S., obviously), I think, would be to publicly denounce the brutality and then participate in tacit non-interference, instead turning focus to the domestic worries that are really dominating news stories. And he'll have so much help from the "liberal" media, who seem to have completely dropped the ball on bringing back images that shock people into action. Also: why not have Israel do the dirty work of bringing Hamas out? If Americans are going to bitch about civilian casualties, then maybe we'd better take our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now. But add a little bit of realism and you can see that this situation, as long as America keeps its hands clean, is perfect for us. Let them resolve their own disputes as messily as they like.
On the domestic end: Obama's got a solid economic team assembled, as long as he stays on top of things and makes sure Dubya doesn't slip anything by--which of course Obama has done fantastically so far--so there, hopefully by 2010 the markets will have stabilized, as they are already seeming to do. But it's never safe to trust anything through only one season.
Seems to me like Obama will be able to go in and jump straight to matters, creating stimuli as an excuse to push out social agendas. As long as he is untouched by the scandal in Illinois, of course.
On a side note: 7 years of American indoctrination trying to convince me that they act for the better good failed miserably, didn't it.
1.05.2009
"The War to End All Wars"
I don't remember it exactly, but I believe this is what Woodrow Wilson used as his rationale when the U.S. finally entered World War I. The war, he claimed, was so expansive that it would bring about peace; paradoxical, yes, but also poetic.
Right now, Israel claims that it wants to come to terms with the Palestinians. But I've already pointed out a major problem with this: they are "the Palestinians." Not Palestine, not any legitimately recognized government. Terrorist groups like Hamas, lacking political recognition, turn immediately to violence as a way to get attention. I think it's horrible, but they see this as the only way that anyone will listen to them. One could even use the comparison of a little kid: no one listens to them unless they throw a tantrum. Anyway, to the original point: how can Israel expect any anti-Israeli (wishing that more of them were pro-Palestinian...) group to not retaliate if Israel itself encroaches onto territory that it claims not to want?
And how can there be talks if there's no one to talk with? Israel has to recognize some Palestinian leader that is accepted by the Arab world and is conciliatory before initiating a meaningful discourse. As long as there is violence, it shouldn't surprise either side that there will be retaliations. And driving all the way into Gaza after saying that they aren't going to touch it isn't helping, nor is the lack of a Palestinian government with which the Israelis could cooperate to drive Hamas out. Even Pakistanian action is having more success, simply because there is a state of Pakistan that other states can collaborate with or coerce.
I once heard it said that moving to Israel is regarded (by the Arabs, I think) as automatic entry into a war. It is, after all, a state built through recent conquest. It shouldn't have to be that way, but that requires the creation of a peace treaty. And treaties can only happen between legitimate authorities recognized both by their people (learn from Iran, McCarthyite assholes) and foreign policymakers.
But, final consideration: perhaps the only thing Israel can do against Hamas is attack and seize the most strategic parts of Gaza. Their human lives are a priority, after all.
Right now, Israel claims that it wants to come to terms with the Palestinians. But I've already pointed out a major problem with this: they are "the Palestinians." Not Palestine, not any legitimately recognized government. Terrorist groups like Hamas, lacking political recognition, turn immediately to violence as a way to get attention. I think it's horrible, but they see this as the only way that anyone will listen to them. One could even use the comparison of a little kid: no one listens to them unless they throw a tantrum. Anyway, to the original point: how can Israel expect any anti-Israeli (wishing that more of them were pro-Palestinian...) group to not retaliate if Israel itself encroaches onto territory that it claims not to want?
And how can there be talks if there's no one to talk with? Israel has to recognize some Palestinian leader that is accepted by the Arab world and is conciliatory before initiating a meaningful discourse. As long as there is violence, it shouldn't surprise either side that there will be retaliations. And driving all the way into Gaza after saying that they aren't going to touch it isn't helping, nor is the lack of a Palestinian government with which the Israelis could cooperate to drive Hamas out. Even Pakistanian action is having more success, simply because there is a state of Pakistan that other states can collaborate with or coerce.
I once heard it said that moving to Israel is regarded (by the Arabs, I think) as automatic entry into a war. It is, after all, a state built through recent conquest. It shouldn't have to be that way, but that requires the creation of a peace treaty. And treaties can only happen between legitimate authorities recognized both by their people (learn from Iran, McCarthyite assholes) and foreign policymakers.
But, final consideration: perhaps the only thing Israel can do against Hamas is attack and seize the most strategic parts of Gaza. Their human lives are a priority, after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)