Minimum wage, that old bugaboo that never ceases to amaze those who look at it in awe, wondering what went wrong. Mind you, these fast food worker strikes, wherein they ask that they get paid $15 an hour for their labors, can’t help but rankle those amongst the middle class who don’t make nearly as much working “regular” jobs. Especially in places like the Midwest where the cost of living is so low, and with it, the wages as well. It was something I was reminded of when listening to the local right-wing talk show. Caller after caller would phone in talking about themselves or others who were making $12 an hour working a job that required a degree. They were incensed that a (not spoken aloud) lowly fast food worker was demanding $15 for shoveling crap food in to the gaping maws of their fellow man. An d honestly, I couldn’t agree with them more.
But…here’s the rub…I think fast food workers should be paid $15 an hour, just not all of it wage based. I wouldn’t be opposed to, say $12 an hour, with the rest of that $3 paid towards a basic health insurance plan. So that they can get sick, miss work, or just be able to breath a bit easier knowing that they can live life without fear of losing what little foothold they currently have on life. Restaurant work is indeed hard, and like the right-wing likes to flaunt, if someone won’t do a job, someone else will rise up and do it instead. Doubling this, sickness from the hundreds of people that they have to serve, not least amongst themselves. I stopped in to a Taco Bell a few weeks back, not only was one staffer waiting for a ride in the restaurant proper, sick, but quite a few of the people behind the counter, making food, were coughing and sniffling. That I didn’t catch something is a godsend.
The biggest argument the pro-minimum wage hikers have is that long ago, in a land far far away, a man named Henry Ford paid his employees double the wage rate at the time so that those who made his vehicles could afford to buy one. Our old libertarian friend, Lane Filler, comes through just in time for Christmas with a benumbing of an article attempting to defeat this argument.
This entire article is Lane Filler just wasting time, mostly. He doesn’t really disprove the point of those who drop the Henry Ford when talking about wages, and certainly in the context he’s framing his argument, he kind of makes the point for why fast food workers, especially McDonald’s employees should get paid a fair wage. Mr. Filler concludes that of the $5 he was paying his worker half of that was profit sharing. This is the entire argument of the pro-wage hike movement. McDonald’s could use just one billion of it’s four billion dollar annual profits, and pay their employee’s a decent wage, with benefits.
This faulty libertarian idea that the “free market” is a trap door under wages is absurd. Why this idea that perhaps paying wage earners a better wage would then lead to an overall better product is seen as absurd and a fallacy remains puzzling to me. At least Mr. Filler isn’t going all “minimum wage hikes = job killer”, so I can at least respect his attempt at perverting history to make a free market point.
Mr. Filler takes it further by saying that those places that do pay their workers more, like Costco for instance, aren’t interested in bettering their workers lives, just trying to push a better P.R.. This really doesn’t make much sense in the larger argument, and if anything just torpedoes the whole “free market decides all” mentality that infects the right-wing and by extension it’s libertarian practitioners. This is further deepened by Mr. Fillers use of “I think”. So, he doesn’t know, he’s just sort of guessing that this may be why, and not that paying your employees more has the added benefit of making an overall better product top to bottom.
The pro-minimum wage hike supporters argument is pretty simple. The anti-minimum wage folks only have one defense: small businesses will get destroyed. When pressed for examples, umm well, there’s that one place like in rural somewhereachussetts…and Obamacare. So they don’t really have an argument with any weight to it. Supply and demand ultimately decide the fates of most businesses, be they small or gigantic.
The billion dollar profit corporations that make the most money off their wage slave workers are the ones correctly in the cross-hairs here. It’s absurd just how rich these people are, that just taking a tiny fraction of their profits to better care for their employees would do absolutely nothing to their bottom line. It’s becomes an argument of just how much these people plan to take with them when they die? So instead of perhaps correcting this problem, the rich would rather pit middle class worker against middle class worker. These people will always be game to play along, because they are ignorant. They view fast food work as young person’s game, and something you do in the interim before the big job comes along. But what about that big job that never comes? Life gets in the way, any number of other things happen, and that fresh faced 17 year old is now 26 with two children and renting an apartment that he can barely keep ends together? Too often, as middle class people rise up the ranks they forget just how hard it can be at the bottom. This isn’t helped by a pundit class who’s mantra is “I got mine, fuck you, get yours!”, like Mr. Filler, who can write these kind of navel-gazing pieces that pad out their yearly quota.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Byron York: "OH MY GOD...OBAMACARE!!!!"
In the post re-election glow of Obama, the GOP and right-wing set about licking its wounds and wondering what went wrong. How could they have lost to Obama, when the election was theirs to lose! The economy was horrible, absolutely nobody liked Obamacare, and everyone’s taxes were going to go up...all on America’s way to the big slide of fun of socialism!Weeeee!
What was Conservatism to do? According to it’s various members of the pundit class, thinking themselves to still be taste makers, had a wide variety of opinions on the matter. Which essentially went ahead and proved the point that most people were making against the GOP: it’s way too fractured to boil down to a simple fix. A fix that could take place and be implemented in time for the next election cycle at the earliest.
Some fixes: retrench and be more conservative, pander to the Latinos by ginning up their fears (similar to what the GOP/right-wing has been doing to old white men for decades), put their faith back in God and the Evangelical movement, or attempt to culturally influence a need amongst the lower income communities to have stronger marriage thereby having more babies that will eventually become Republicans. Michael Reagan attempted to take his Reagan ball and go Reagan home because the GOP just wasn’t worthy of Ronald Reagan’s majesty.
However, one refrain kept gaining more and more traction. This idea that the problem was not the conservative ideology itself, but that each candidate was failing it spectacularly. Mitt Romney wasn’t just a horrible candidate because he lost the election for the Republicans, he failed to represent the brand in all it’s honest glory, and was summarily sniffed out by the vaunted independents. Disregard the entire clown car rally that was the GOP Presidential Primaries, as you should do with any recent history as a card carrying conservative, and that Romney was honestly their best bet. But the GOP/right-wing accepted Romney because they were supposed to. Romney barely made it out of the primaries if you recall.
What the GOP and right-wing never bothered with really taking seriously was the notion that they spend a goodly amount of time getting high on their own supply. It’s evident everywhere. It even plagued Romney during the Presidential campaign as he attempted to regale us with the tale of Obama not calling the attack on the Benghazi consulate wasn’t an “act of terror” or the fact that he was so sure of his victory he failed to write a concession speech. Now, the latter more could be due to his own much documented hubris, but the fact remains that much of the right-wing spends a fair amount time with their heads in their asses, huffing on their own gases.
It should go without saying that post election, Fox News Channel sending Dick Morris and Karl Rove to the hinterlands to perhaps dial back the ass fumes tinged craze that gripped them as their prophecies and exaltation failed to gain traction, is a good sign that perhaps some much needed fresh air wouldn’t hurt the Conservative brand.
Some would call this adherence to an alternate reality that refuses to be practical about how things really are a “bubble” of sorts. And nothing represented that bubble crashing harder than the failure of Mitt Romney to be elected president, then further as the GOP and right-wing lost their minds as to how they could lose an election they were most assuredly convinced they would win.
All this lengthy preamble is a prologue to Byron York’s recent column where he states that Obamacare is going to ruin America forever, because he and the right-wing media outlets he references says so.
Sadly for the right-wing, Obamacare is here to stay. It didn’t have any real negative impact on Obama’s reelection bid, try as they might to torpedo him with it. This “anxiety” that Mr. York references is only readily apparent to those who would have never voted for Obama to begin with. So why this sudden need to write an umpteenth article about something that’s basically here to stay?
Well, it allows Mr. York to join his pundit class colleagues in not having to write about the “fiscal cliff” at all, or in any real meaningful way. The GOP and right-wing had no real discernable plan aside from making Obama walk back from his policy lines in the sand. Every right-wing stooge can write an “Everyone just HATES Obamacare….here’s how!” article. Mr. York is no different.
What’s most alarming in Mr. York’s article is the liberal usage of “probably”, “maybe” and “likely” to name of few. It’s an extreme hedge feigning as some sort of serious critique on the public’s anxiety over Obamacare that just doesn’t exist in reality. This is even before he references his myriad of sources like Bloomberg News, Washington Post, The Wall Street and Rasmussen polling. Which are all predominantly right-leaning.
According to Rasmussen "Obamacare has never been popular. Indeed, it has been underwater in terms of public approval […] In last month's exit polls, 49 percent said all or part of Obamacare should be repealed, while 44 percent said it should be left as is or expanded.” Not to mention, according to Rasmussen “the beginning, well before the law was passed, public opinion has been remarkably stable and modestly negative.” So using this right-wing thinking since Romney only got 47.2% of the popular vote mean that most American voters had a “modestly negative” view of his bid for President? This also disregards those who would take the time to answer an exit poll that would ask about Obamacare and it’s implementation and it’s effects on the person being asked. It still remains to be seen just exactly what Obamacare’s effect is going to be, and we still have about a year before it’s full implementation.
Not to be undone by the general American’s “anxiety” about Obamacare’s implementation, Mr. York switches focus to state governments. “If Obamacare were popular, there's no doubt more governors would choose to have their states set up insurance exchanges, as the law envisioned. Instead, nearly two dozen Republican governors have refused…” The key thing to note here is that he mentions Republican governors. These governors, coupled with large Republican majorities in State Legislative bodies, have been working overtime to stymie Obamacare at every turn. If it’s not because Obamacare will force businesses to betray their religious beliefs by making employers single-handedly pay for birth control, it's something else that will just absolutely destroy job creators.
They’re not only using straw men arguments, they’re returning money the federal government is giving them to set up these state-run exchanges using tired right-wing talking points like “We can’t keep borrowing from China” and so on and so forth. Mr. York’s assumes that the states fear that the federal government is going to exercise ultimate control over everything. If that’s the case, then why are the states returning the federal funding to establish these exchanges, forcing the federal government to set up the exchanges anyway? Do they really think the federal government is going to back away from a hassle in order to implement Obamacare on the state level? As if Republican obstinacy has somehow established a historic precedent in preventing progressive agendas of any kind to be established.
Finally, according to Mr. York and his sources, Obamacare’s implementation is going to be an unmitigated disaster so why even bother? Due to the severe need to go ahead and establish these insurance exchanges themselves will make the implementation a “train wreck”, which the government will just keep wildly throwing money at. Which, the throwing money at a federal government problem is nothing new, so I don’t see how this one time it’s a complete and utter disaster because it’s a Democrat led initiative.
Not mentioned in this article, at all, whatsoever, is that the majority of Obamacare isn’t going to be in effect until 2014. That all these costs and expansion are leading to healthcare for millions of people. The cost has to come from somewhere, making “corrective” changes to our healthcare system are going to be difficult and won’t be solved with a wave of the hand. If people were so inclined they could educate themselves about how Obamacare is going to effect them. They could actually read the AP article that Mr. York perverts in his article and come to their own conclusions.
The preponderance of completely staying in the right-wing bubble does Mr. York no favors. This article is a right-wing pundit, referencing right-wing media to make a broad stroke argument against Obamacare. Again! Even after right-wing lost their prayers of the Supreme Court booting it to the curb. The argument should be over, yet much like their abortion bugaboo and their inability to respect the separation of church and state this right-wing baloney is far from settled. Especially if there’s always going to be a need to distract and not make a real substantive argument on anything.
What was Conservatism to do? According to it’s various members of the pundit class, thinking themselves to still be taste makers, had a wide variety of opinions on the matter. Which essentially went ahead and proved the point that most people were making against the GOP: it’s way too fractured to boil down to a simple fix. A fix that could take place and be implemented in time for the next election cycle at the earliest.
Some fixes: retrench and be more conservative, pander to the Latinos by ginning up their fears (similar to what the GOP/right-wing has been doing to old white men for decades), put their faith back in God and the Evangelical movement, or attempt to culturally influence a need amongst the lower income communities to have stronger marriage thereby having more babies that will eventually become Republicans. Michael Reagan attempted to take his Reagan ball and go Reagan home because the GOP just wasn’t worthy of Ronald Reagan’s majesty.
However, one refrain kept gaining more and more traction. This idea that the problem was not the conservative ideology itself, but that each candidate was failing it spectacularly. Mitt Romney wasn’t just a horrible candidate because he lost the election for the Republicans, he failed to represent the brand in all it’s honest glory, and was summarily sniffed out by the vaunted independents. Disregard the entire clown car rally that was the GOP Presidential Primaries, as you should do with any recent history as a card carrying conservative, and that Romney was honestly their best bet. But the GOP/right-wing accepted Romney because they were supposed to. Romney barely made it out of the primaries if you recall.
What the GOP and right-wing never bothered with really taking seriously was the notion that they spend a goodly amount of time getting high on their own supply. It’s evident everywhere. It even plagued Romney during the Presidential campaign as he attempted to regale us with the tale of Obama not calling the attack on the Benghazi consulate wasn’t an “act of terror” or the fact that he was so sure of his victory he failed to write a concession speech. Now, the latter more could be due to his own much documented hubris, but the fact remains that much of the right-wing spends a fair amount time with their heads in their asses, huffing on their own gases.
It should go without saying that post election, Fox News Channel sending Dick Morris and Karl Rove to the hinterlands to perhaps dial back the ass fumes tinged craze that gripped them as their prophecies and exaltation failed to gain traction, is a good sign that perhaps some much needed fresh air wouldn’t hurt the Conservative brand.
Some would call this adherence to an alternate reality that refuses to be practical about how things really are a “bubble” of sorts. And nothing represented that bubble crashing harder than the failure of Mitt Romney to be elected president, then further as the GOP and right-wing lost their minds as to how they could lose an election they were most assuredly convinced they would win.
All this lengthy preamble is a prologue to Byron York’s recent column where he states that Obamacare is going to ruin America forever, because he and the right-wing media outlets he references says so.
Sadly for the right-wing, Obamacare is here to stay. It didn’t have any real negative impact on Obama’s reelection bid, try as they might to torpedo him with it. This “anxiety” that Mr. York references is only readily apparent to those who would have never voted for Obama to begin with. So why this sudden need to write an umpteenth article about something that’s basically here to stay?
Well, it allows Mr. York to join his pundit class colleagues in not having to write about the “fiscal cliff” at all, or in any real meaningful way. The GOP and right-wing had no real discernable plan aside from making Obama walk back from his policy lines in the sand. Every right-wing stooge can write an “Everyone just HATES Obamacare….here’s how!” article. Mr. York is no different.
What’s most alarming in Mr. York’s article is the liberal usage of “probably”, “maybe” and “likely” to name of few. It’s an extreme hedge feigning as some sort of serious critique on the public’s anxiety over Obamacare that just doesn’t exist in reality. This is even before he references his myriad of sources like Bloomberg News, Washington Post, The Wall Street and Rasmussen polling. Which are all predominantly right-leaning.
According to Rasmussen "Obamacare has never been popular. Indeed, it has been underwater in terms of public approval […] In last month's exit polls, 49 percent said all or part of Obamacare should be repealed, while 44 percent said it should be left as is or expanded.” Not to mention, according to Rasmussen “the beginning, well before the law was passed, public opinion has been remarkably stable and modestly negative.” So using this right-wing thinking since Romney only got 47.2% of the popular vote mean that most American voters had a “modestly negative” view of his bid for President? This also disregards those who would take the time to answer an exit poll that would ask about Obamacare and it’s implementation and it’s effects on the person being asked. It still remains to be seen just exactly what Obamacare’s effect is going to be, and we still have about a year before it’s full implementation.
Not to be undone by the general American’s “anxiety” about Obamacare’s implementation, Mr. York switches focus to state governments. “If Obamacare were popular, there's no doubt more governors would choose to have their states set up insurance exchanges, as the law envisioned. Instead, nearly two dozen Republican governors have refused…” The key thing to note here is that he mentions Republican governors. These governors, coupled with large Republican majorities in State Legislative bodies, have been working overtime to stymie Obamacare at every turn. If it’s not because Obamacare will force businesses to betray their religious beliefs by making employers single-handedly pay for birth control, it's something else that will just absolutely destroy job creators.
They’re not only using straw men arguments, they’re returning money the federal government is giving them to set up these state-run exchanges using tired right-wing talking points like “We can’t keep borrowing from China” and so on and so forth. Mr. York’s assumes that the states fear that the federal government is going to exercise ultimate control over everything. If that’s the case, then why are the states returning the federal funding to establish these exchanges, forcing the federal government to set up the exchanges anyway? Do they really think the federal government is going to back away from a hassle in order to implement Obamacare on the state level? As if Republican obstinacy has somehow established a historic precedent in preventing progressive agendas of any kind to be established.
Finally, according to Mr. York and his sources, Obamacare’s implementation is going to be an unmitigated disaster so why even bother? Due to the severe need to go ahead and establish these insurance exchanges themselves will make the implementation a “train wreck”, which the government will just keep wildly throwing money at. Which, the throwing money at a federal government problem is nothing new, so I don’t see how this one time it’s a complete and utter disaster because it’s a Democrat led initiative.
Not mentioned in this article, at all, whatsoever, is that the majority of Obamacare isn’t going to be in effect until 2014. That all these costs and expansion are leading to healthcare for millions of people. The cost has to come from somewhere, making “corrective” changes to our healthcare system are going to be difficult and won’t be solved with a wave of the hand. If people were so inclined they could educate themselves about how Obamacare is going to effect them. They could actually read the AP article that Mr. York perverts in his article and come to their own conclusions.
The preponderance of completely staying in the right-wing bubble does Mr. York no favors. This article is a right-wing pundit, referencing right-wing media to make a broad stroke argument against Obamacare. Again! Even after right-wing lost their prayers of the Supreme Court booting it to the curb. The argument should be over, yet much like their abortion bugaboo and their inability to respect the separation of church and state this right-wing baloney is far from settled. Especially if there’s always going to be a need to distract and not make a real substantive argument on anything.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Froma Harrop's Cabaret of Professional Newswomen!
After a rigorous campaign season, I have bested my opponent and have retained my mayoralty of Haterville for another term! Hooray!
In all seriousness, there was just no way I was going to maintain a writing schedule around the Presidential campaign. Sure, there was a few nuggets of gold from our vaunted pundit class, but it was the same nonsense you’d see almost anywhere. I was also gallivanting across the internets writing about things more interesting than this past election cycle.
So I’m back, and what better way to start than with an article about how women are oppressed on talks news programs, by being forced to dress provocatively and wear make up! Written by Kathleen Parker…wait a minute…this isn’t a Kathleen Parker authored article at all…this is Froma Harrop! This is impossible!
Surely, she and Kathleen Parker are friends, and while Ms. Harrop was making tea or a light lunch for the two as they chatted about being women pundits, Ms. Parker tore off towards Ms. Harrop’s office when her back was turned and wrote this incredibly stupid article. It’s the only possibility!
Let it be said now that in my second term as Mayor Of Haterville®, I’m going to broaden my ire towards anyone…not just right-wing blowhards, or “center-right” pundit stooges, or talking points memo written as though they're an independent thought housed by a singular author. No, I’m going after anything insipid that wanders the realm!
It pains me to have to do this to Ms. Harrop, I actually like her writing for the most part. She tends to not do these kind of “Oh, hey I’m a woman, I should write something about women!”, that’s mostly the ply and trade of any white woman pundit and seemingly monopolized by Kathleen Parker during these cold winter months where a pundit doesn’t feel like writing anything of substance. Even your local newspaper’s village idiots are carving out tepid lists of baloney culled from their litany of forwarded e-mails.
Perhaps Ms. Harrop, like a lot of her colleagues in the old-white man pundit class, is feeling a bit put out to pasture. As a middle-aged woman, she just can’t compete with the models that can read a teleprompter and chain together two sentences to form a talking point to regurgitate on a talk news show. Even a well educated, whip smart gal like Ms. Harrop can be a little jealous of her younger, more beautiful peers that she has to pretend are making salient points on these said shows.
It’s also odd that she uses Ann Curry and Mika Brzezinski as these vaunted classy women who have somehow transcended this sorority of vapidity and have become professional newswomen of honor. Except that nine months ago I wrote about this very kind of topic, somewhat. These two women absolutely do not represent a professional newswoman who’s somehow beat back the hard news dolls that have become the scourge of any woman over the age of thirty!
Ms. Harrop uses an Ann Curry quote about being pressed to wear high heels by her bosses. In said interview, Ms. Curry surmises that she was let go from The Today Show mostly because she didn’t want to play dress up, as she was a serious journalist! Not that she wasn’t a very good lead host or that, indeed she did dress up and wear the “ridiculously high-heeled shoes” commanded to her by her NBC overlords regardless of her bona fides. She was a company man…erm…woman all the way to the bank and back with her multimillion dollar contract. How is this somehow suppressing her? She didn’t have to do anything she didn’t want to, and she literally spent fifteen years at NBC, on the Today Show in her oppressive designer wardrobe.
Laughably, Mika is brought to the fore with her complaining that when she first started working on Morning Joe she too was “pushed” in to clothes that where “short, skimpy, tight”. But Ms. Harrop tells of how she escaped and that she now wears freedom incarnate in the form of “sweaters and collared shirts, which is what Joe wears.”
What?!
Obviously, and commenters of the online article also verify, Ms. Harrop hasn’t watched Morning Joe…ever. Even a cursory internet search of Mika Brzezinski provides ample evidence of the exact opposite of the point Ms. Harrop is trying to make. Mika’s wardrobe seems to be primarily those “form-fitting dresses, arms naked to the world” items!
I kid you not:
And this is somehow Froma Harrop's idea of a professional newswoman?
What’s even more insulting, had Ms. Harrop continued her Mika Brzezinski internet search in earnest she would see that every time one Donny Deutsch “wronged” her, he would apologize by giving her a pair of Christian Louboutin heels, which she then coos over and so on and so forth. She’s literally lets men treat her like dirt on Morning Joe, then goes oohing and aahing over heels! What a wonderfully professional newswoman! She’s transcended the doll mentality so hard, she must be ironically enjoying getting shoes from a man!
Ms. Harrop’s claim that perhaps news executives are “Ron Burgundys stuck in the age of disco” with their forcing their females news anchors to “tart up” to deliver the news. But it’s in her odd choices of Mika and Curry that torpedoes her entire argument. These are two women who are holding BACK women from progressing in the news world. It’s been noted that the journalism is indeed a bloodsport full of men, where women have had to fight just to get on air. Progress has been slow, and many, many women have transcended the boys club to be respected journalists. Mika Brzezinski and Ann Curry are not those women, not even in the slightest. They have dutifully been “the skirt” on their respective programs and any respect they get is given in empty platitudes and pats on the heads by their bosses.
Unfortunately for all of this, I don’t empathize in the slightest for the plights of any millionaire news “journalist” that complains that they’re being oppressed by their “chauvinistic” bosses. I’m fairly certain both women have been offered more respectable position in other news operations, but probably for less money. What’s easier, wearing a skirt and heels then being all oppressed on the side, or doing the real yeoman’s journalistic work for peanuts, but more respect amongst your colleagues? It’s clear that Curry and Brzezinski took the easier route, for that they deserve no sympathy from women who do work in deplorable, boys clubs in the hopes of even being that vaunted “skirt” on a news show.
Thankfully, future generations of newswomen are rising up and will indeed use Curry and Brzezinski as a battering ram to smash that glass ceiling and garner true respect for their fields and themselves. Of course, they will pay these women respect, but it will all be lip service, as they, on top of their tanned, short skirted peers on Fox News, have done nothing to advance the cause for women’s right’s in a male dominated career path.
In all seriousness, there was just no way I was going to maintain a writing schedule around the Presidential campaign. Sure, there was a few nuggets of gold from our vaunted pundit class, but it was the same nonsense you’d see almost anywhere. I was also gallivanting across the internets writing about things more interesting than this past election cycle.
So I’m back, and what better way to start than with an article about how women are oppressed on talks news programs, by being forced to dress provocatively and wear make up! Written by Kathleen Parker…wait a minute…this isn’t a Kathleen Parker authored article at all…this is Froma Harrop! This is impossible!
Surely, she and Kathleen Parker are friends, and while Ms. Harrop was making tea or a light lunch for the two as they chatted about being women pundits, Ms. Parker tore off towards Ms. Harrop’s office when her back was turned and wrote this incredibly stupid article. It’s the only possibility!
Let it be said now that in my second term as Mayor Of Haterville®, I’m going to broaden my ire towards anyone…not just right-wing blowhards, or “center-right” pundit stooges, or talking points memo written as though they're an independent thought housed by a singular author. No, I’m going after anything insipid that wanders the realm!
It pains me to have to do this to Ms. Harrop, I actually like her writing for the most part. She tends to not do these kind of “Oh, hey I’m a woman, I should write something about women!”, that’s mostly the ply and trade of any white woman pundit and seemingly monopolized by Kathleen Parker during these cold winter months where a pundit doesn’t feel like writing anything of substance. Even your local newspaper’s village idiots are carving out tepid lists of baloney culled from their litany of forwarded e-mails.
Perhaps Ms. Harrop, like a lot of her colleagues in the old-white man pundit class, is feeling a bit put out to pasture. As a middle-aged woman, she just can’t compete with the models that can read a teleprompter and chain together two sentences to form a talking point to regurgitate on a talk news show. Even a well educated, whip smart gal like Ms. Harrop can be a little jealous of her younger, more beautiful peers that she has to pretend are making salient points on these said shows.
It’s also odd that she uses Ann Curry and Mika Brzezinski as these vaunted classy women who have somehow transcended this sorority of vapidity and have become professional newswomen of honor. Except that nine months ago I wrote about this very kind of topic, somewhat. These two women absolutely do not represent a professional newswoman who’s somehow beat back the hard news dolls that have become the scourge of any woman over the age of thirty!
Ms. Harrop uses an Ann Curry quote about being pressed to wear high heels by her bosses. In said interview, Ms. Curry surmises that she was let go from The Today Show mostly because she didn’t want to play dress up, as she was a serious journalist! Not that she wasn’t a very good lead host or that, indeed she did dress up and wear the “ridiculously high-heeled shoes” commanded to her by her NBC overlords regardless of her bona fides. She was a company man…erm…woman all the way to the bank and back with her multimillion dollar contract. How is this somehow suppressing her? She didn’t have to do anything she didn’t want to, and she literally spent fifteen years at NBC, on the Today Show in her oppressive designer wardrobe.
Laughably, Mika is brought to the fore with her complaining that when she first started working on Morning Joe she too was “pushed” in to clothes that where “short, skimpy, tight”. But Ms. Harrop tells of how she escaped and that she now wears freedom incarnate in the form of “sweaters and collared shirts, which is what Joe wears.”
What?!
Obviously, and commenters of the online article also verify, Ms. Harrop hasn’t watched Morning Joe…ever. Even a cursory internet search of Mika Brzezinski provides ample evidence of the exact opposite of the point Ms. Harrop is trying to make. Mika’s wardrobe seems to be primarily those “form-fitting dresses, arms naked to the world” items!
I kid you not:
What’s even more insulting, had Ms. Harrop continued her Mika Brzezinski internet search in earnest she would see that every time one Donny Deutsch “wronged” her, he would apologize by giving her a pair of Christian Louboutin heels, which she then coos over and so on and so forth. She’s literally lets men treat her like dirt on Morning Joe, then goes oohing and aahing over heels! What a wonderfully professional newswoman! She’s transcended the doll mentality so hard, she must be ironically enjoying getting shoes from a man!
Ms. Harrop’s claim that perhaps news executives are “Ron Burgundys stuck in the age of disco” with their forcing their females news anchors to “tart up” to deliver the news. But it’s in her odd choices of Mika and Curry that torpedoes her entire argument. These are two women who are holding BACK women from progressing in the news world. It’s been noted that the journalism is indeed a bloodsport full of men, where women have had to fight just to get on air. Progress has been slow, and many, many women have transcended the boys club to be respected journalists. Mika Brzezinski and Ann Curry are not those women, not even in the slightest. They have dutifully been “the skirt” on their respective programs and any respect they get is given in empty platitudes and pats on the heads by their bosses.
Unfortunately for all of this, I don’t empathize in the slightest for the plights of any millionaire news “journalist” that complains that they’re being oppressed by their “chauvinistic” bosses. I’m fairly certain both women have been offered more respectable position in other news operations, but probably for less money. What’s easier, wearing a skirt and heels then being all oppressed on the side, or doing the real yeoman’s journalistic work for peanuts, but more respect amongst your colleagues? It’s clear that Curry and Brzezinski took the easier route, for that they deserve no sympathy from women who do work in deplorable, boys clubs in the hopes of even being that vaunted “skirt” on a news show.
Thankfully, future generations of newswomen are rising up and will indeed use Curry and Brzezinski as a battering ram to smash that glass ceiling and garner true respect for their fields and themselves. Of course, they will pay these women respect, but it will all be lip service, as they, on top of their tanned, short skirted peers on Fox News, have done nothing to advance the cause for women’s right’s in a male dominated career path.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Libertarian's Are Dumb!
“If you say you’ll be pulling the lever for the libertarians or any other third party come November? Cue the chorus from both sides of the aisle: “Go ahead, throw your vote away” But that ‘s advice best ignored.” So says Newsday’s Lane Filler, I suppose who’s a libertarian? Who assumes there’s going to be an “any third party” candidate come election time. If they just so happen to get on the ballot in time, which the libertarian party has been lax to do in the past few elections. It’s not that I don’t believe it’s not impossible, because it has become increasingly difficult since Ross Perot’s third party candidacy to get mainstream coverage. There’s just never going to be enough support for a supremely disjointed party amongst an increasingly disjointed voting bloc.
You can find bits and pieces of the Libertarian ideology in either party, and not really have your “independently minded” bonafides tested or mocked. But when Mr. Filler argues both sides’ bad policies are non-starters for most Libertarians, how do they expect to gain traction? “You can only change the Democrats and Republicans by defeating them.[…] Third parties must pursue guerrilla politics.” First of all, if you can’t even propel a strong enough candidate to get on a ballot in ALL 50 states, how can you hope to topple the two-party system? I don’t disagree in Mr. Filler’s notion that the game is “rigged”, but if you can’t even field a competent team to play the game and have to resort to buffoonish political figures that just pay lip service to the Libertarian cause, as it relates to a Republican ideology, then you are wasting your vote. Next, his shining example of guerrilla politics? Ron Paul. “[He] seems to have figured out how to use the Republicans, rather than being used. Paul claims to be GOP, while voting against his party mates’ bills.” You know what would be great here? Some actual evidence to back this up! Granted, column space and all, but if the Libertarian cause is trying to rally troops and bring in new converts pointing to Ron Paul and saying “This Guy!” isn’t going to help, especially when he’s just as regressive and obstinate as his housing party the GOP.
“Since he’s a “Republican” and has support, he gets to participate in debates and the media runs stories about him.” Ah, a delicious right-wing idiotic mind meld of a point! So whether or not the “stories” the media run are bad or not doesn’t hold any water to a voter? Any news is good news eh?
To even further this disjointed third party nonsense Mr. Filler name drops four of the “party’s”(for lack of a better term) would be ideal candidates from 2008 that Ron Paul wasted his endorsement on: The Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party…and Ralph Nader (Independent). Because Ron Paul didn’t agree with any of McCain’s policies, this is the route he chose.
The game analogy is apt because it sadly needs to be played in this day and age. Unfortunately for “third party’s” their lack of a recent serious candidate of any ilk isn’t going make the game change itself. Using vague notions like “guerrilla politics” or Manchurian Candidate-ing either of the two political parties, then yeah, the critique of wasting your vote is very cogent. Honestly, you’re also obstructing people’s right to chose a candidate that would best serve the country. Not one candidate is ever going to be the “perfect” guy for the job, and that’s just the way the game is played.
The third party/Libertarian “movement” must also come to grips with the very real danger their ideology promotes. Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and opened the door for W. to get in. I don’t think you’ll find very many ground floor Libertarians that are plussed by the eight years of that Bush presidency. That is the real danger of wasting your vote.
Is that a reductive argument? Sure. But so is pretending that by being a giant asshole and voting for a Unicorn is the voice of change.
“If change is what you want, you can’t keep voting for the status quo when November rolls around. As things stand right now, the third-patty votes, not matter which off-rand ticket they go to, are the only ballots that won’t be wasted.” Thanks for making my point for me Mr. Filler. It doesn’t really fit too good on a bumper sticker, but the idea that wasting your vote could propel anything is absurd. The voting booth is where representative change is enacted, but that’s not where it takes place. If the third-party’s are serious they have to change the mind of the people and there’s plenty of evidence to do so. They are lazy, obviously unfocused, and would rather backseat drive our political system than actually promote a real change to our country.
Suggesting that if the voters refused to vote for a major party, that the total number would shock and the in the next election cycle people would recognize this…and then what? Is Mr. Filler riding a Unicorn whacked out on his mind when he wrote this? You would have to assume that an actual viable third-party candidate would be able to pull all these voters together to vote for him. But if the previous points in the article show that four different people could represent third-party ideals, then voters are even more out of luck then when it was just “this guy or this guy”.
You can find bits and pieces of the Libertarian ideology in either party, and not really have your “independently minded” bonafides tested or mocked. But when Mr. Filler argues both sides’ bad policies are non-starters for most Libertarians, how do they expect to gain traction? “You can only change the Democrats and Republicans by defeating them.[…] Third parties must pursue guerrilla politics.” First of all, if you can’t even propel a strong enough candidate to get on a ballot in ALL 50 states, how can you hope to topple the two-party system? I don’t disagree in Mr. Filler’s notion that the game is “rigged”, but if you can’t even field a competent team to play the game and have to resort to buffoonish political figures that just pay lip service to the Libertarian cause, as it relates to a Republican ideology, then you are wasting your vote. Next, his shining example of guerrilla politics? Ron Paul. “[He] seems to have figured out how to use the Republicans, rather than being used. Paul claims to be GOP, while voting against his party mates’ bills.” You know what would be great here? Some actual evidence to back this up! Granted, column space and all, but if the Libertarian cause is trying to rally troops and bring in new converts pointing to Ron Paul and saying “This Guy!” isn’t going to help, especially when he’s just as regressive and obstinate as his housing party the GOP.
“Since he’s a “Republican” and has support, he gets to participate in debates and the media runs stories about him.” Ah, a delicious right-wing idiotic mind meld of a point! So whether or not the “stories” the media run are bad or not doesn’t hold any water to a voter? Any news is good news eh?
To even further this disjointed third party nonsense Mr. Filler name drops four of the “party’s”(for lack of a better term) would be ideal candidates from 2008 that Ron Paul wasted his endorsement on: The Green Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party…and Ralph Nader (Independent). Because Ron Paul didn’t agree with any of McCain’s policies, this is the route he chose.
The game analogy is apt because it sadly needs to be played in this day and age. Unfortunately for “third party’s” their lack of a recent serious candidate of any ilk isn’t going make the game change itself. Using vague notions like “guerrilla politics” or Manchurian Candidate-ing either of the two political parties, then yeah, the critique of wasting your vote is very cogent. Honestly, you’re also obstructing people’s right to chose a candidate that would best serve the country. Not one candidate is ever going to be the “perfect” guy for the job, and that’s just the way the game is played.
The third party/Libertarian “movement” must also come to grips with the very real danger their ideology promotes. Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election in 2000 and opened the door for W. to get in. I don’t think you’ll find very many ground floor Libertarians that are plussed by the eight years of that Bush presidency. That is the real danger of wasting your vote.
Is that a reductive argument? Sure. But so is pretending that by being a giant asshole and voting for a Unicorn is the voice of change.
“If change is what you want, you can’t keep voting for the status quo when November rolls around. As things stand right now, the third-patty votes, not matter which off-rand ticket they go to, are the only ballots that won’t be wasted.” Thanks for making my point for me Mr. Filler. It doesn’t really fit too good on a bumper sticker, but the idea that wasting your vote could propel anything is absurd. The voting booth is where representative change is enacted, but that’s not where it takes place. If the third-party’s are serious they have to change the mind of the people and there’s plenty of evidence to do so. They are lazy, obviously unfocused, and would rather backseat drive our political system than actually promote a real change to our country.
Suggesting that if the voters refused to vote for a major party, that the total number would shock and the in the next election cycle people would recognize this…and then what? Is Mr. Filler riding a Unicorn whacked out on his mind when he wrote this? You would have to assume that an actual viable third-party candidate would be able to pull all these voters together to vote for him. But if the previous points in the article show that four different people could represent third-party ideals, then voters are even more out of luck then when it was just “this guy or this guy”.
Monday, July 2, 2012
It is usually about this time of year that my political bullshit canister tops off and I just stop caring about all of it. I loathe to read anything the pundit class writes, because it’s the most obviously cyclical at this time of year, as the echo chamber starts to heat up for the end of year elections. But what I have found to rest my ire on is this unbelievable notion that has sprouted the longest legs in recent memory: the both sides are doing it argument.
Oh, it’s true both sides are to blame for it, or one side started doing it so the other side had to do something back. It’s amazing to hear this day in and day out as politicians belly up to the Sunday talk shows and spout nonsense. Because it is nonsense. The culture of victimization is at the heart of what ails this “Do-Nothing-Congress 2.0”, and I don’t even think an infusion of new blood will help the matter.
Look at the last batch of fresh blood that entered office in 2010. They’re politically inert individuals that are only learning how to play the game. Yet they have this ability to whine and point fingers already down pat. For reference of this, watch Marco Rubio’s 6/25 Daily Show interview. He waves the victimization card so hard, that I thought his arm was going to snap off. It’s pathetic how this is what our representatives are beginning to look like. As the both side argument would concur: both sides are playing victims to one another’s shenanigans. But not only does the GOP not have any ideas to the ones they wish to lambaste, they don’t have the fortitude to perhaps “man up” and stop the “both sides” chicanery.
It would be a political/societal boon for them if they just stopped being the “Party of NO” and actually sacked up and started owning their regressive political ideologies. Most of the GOP establishment has been on record with there anti-Obama anything. They’ve vaguely hinted at an idea that would replace and improve upon a repealed Obamacare, what is that idea: oh well you know vague notions, free capital, some sort of voucher whatchamacallit, states’ rights/problem.
Their single-minded ideological approach is all fine and good. David Brooks asserted weeks ago that the GOP isn’t partisan and crazy as it seems: they just have a viewpoint…that no one else sane shares with them. But that linear ideology is only served with a corresponding viewpoint, wherein the two shall meet and compromise to form our collective wishes. Being rigid isn’t a viewpoint, or acceptable in a day and age where things are so supposedly dire.
If we are to believe the right-wing ONE of these days we’re going to turn in to Greece, one of these days. They’ve been crowing about it for nigh on four years, and for some reason we don’t seem any closer to Greece’s economy than we were three years ago.
“First let’s be clear. All argument that the court is a far right cudgel hovering over our delightful, evenhanded, fair-minded nonpartisan democratic Republic are off the table. And celebrants of the court as just and true and lovely only when it suits their personal agenda should put up their bumper stickers…” This is by America’s Treasure™ Kathleen Parker and what is my most recent evidence of this “both sides” nonsense that chokes our Democracy right now. Firstly the Citizens United ruling will have a far more greater impact on our country than Obamacare. Elections are now up for the highest bidder. If you thought that running for office was fiscally prohibitive before, it’s only going to get worse as Citizens United finds it’s footing. On Obamacare, what is really so horrible to the GOP when their corporate backed Healthcare money is going to get a giant financial goose from all the new people that are now required by law to have health insurance? “We don’t know what’s in the law!” They scream, but it’s all playing to the crowd.
That’s been my biggest aggravation thus far with The Beltway and it’s actors: a serious lack of sincerity in governance. It’s all for show, it’s for the next election cycle, it’s pandering ignorance as hard as humanly possible. If it’s not that, then it’s the tired moral issues that we should be over with by now. What would we rather have go in to the history books: our economy came back harder and awesome than ever, or instead of dealing with the economy we legislated abortion clinics into oblivion and argued over whether the President was a natural citizen or not?
Watching Marco Rubio on the Daily Show was mighty informative to me. That even after all his pro-growth nonsense, sensible immigration policy, and trying to find compromise amongst the two parties, he had the audacity to tip his hand and reveal a dreadfully partisan GOP card. He began this whole flat-tax, growth in small business, pro-growth through innovation spiel that flew in the face of everything he was successfully selling in the first part of the interview. That somehow the GOP was going to establish certainty to an completely uncertain economy/world should have led to him being laughed out of the studio, down the street and off the face of the earth. It may as well be wizardry economics. Certainty is going to lead the rich to invest in the economy? That the rich are going to invest in new innovation and that yet another bubble is all we need? It sounds less like sound economic policy and more like a junkie looking for another hit of the good stuff.
Rubio steadfastly argued that the reason he disagrees with the Democrats is because they have “bad ideas”. But I’d honestly rather have a bunch of bad ideas that are workable than just the House GOP’s “ideas” that are purely partisan and are just begging to be ignored by the Senate. The GOP is playing to the stands and they should be called on it by the media as a whole.
Marco Rubio’s victimization story is great and all until you give it context. He’s a freshman senator, a majority of his bills aren’t going to see the light of day, regardless of who controls the House majority and he knows it. So he can write all kinds of baloney legislation and run on that pretending he’s just trying so damn hard for the people. It’s the same logic that the GOP used when they pushed Paul Ryan’s budget around congress. The bill was dead and politically inert as soon as it was born, they know that. The American public must begin to recognize this context and understand that any (bad) idea and a workable (good) idea are two very separate things.
Oh, it’s true both sides are to blame for it, or one side started doing it so the other side had to do something back. It’s amazing to hear this day in and day out as politicians belly up to the Sunday talk shows and spout nonsense. Because it is nonsense. The culture of victimization is at the heart of what ails this “Do-Nothing-Congress 2.0”, and I don’t even think an infusion of new blood will help the matter.
Look at the last batch of fresh blood that entered office in 2010. They’re politically inert individuals that are only learning how to play the game. Yet they have this ability to whine and point fingers already down pat. For reference of this, watch Marco Rubio’s 6/25 Daily Show interview. He waves the victimization card so hard, that I thought his arm was going to snap off. It’s pathetic how this is what our representatives are beginning to look like. As the both side argument would concur: both sides are playing victims to one another’s shenanigans. But not only does the GOP not have any ideas to the ones they wish to lambaste, they don’t have the fortitude to perhaps “man up” and stop the “both sides” chicanery.
It would be a political/societal boon for them if they just stopped being the “Party of NO” and actually sacked up and started owning their regressive political ideologies. Most of the GOP establishment has been on record with there anti-Obama anything. They’ve vaguely hinted at an idea that would replace and improve upon a repealed Obamacare, what is that idea: oh well you know vague notions, free capital, some sort of voucher whatchamacallit, states’ rights/problem.
Their single-minded ideological approach is all fine and good. David Brooks asserted weeks ago that the GOP isn’t partisan and crazy as it seems: they just have a viewpoint…that no one else sane shares with them. But that linear ideology is only served with a corresponding viewpoint, wherein the two shall meet and compromise to form our collective wishes. Being rigid isn’t a viewpoint, or acceptable in a day and age where things are so supposedly dire.
If we are to believe the right-wing ONE of these days we’re going to turn in to Greece, one of these days. They’ve been crowing about it for nigh on four years, and for some reason we don’t seem any closer to Greece’s economy than we were three years ago.
“First let’s be clear. All argument that the court is a far right cudgel hovering over our delightful, evenhanded, fair-minded nonpartisan democratic Republic are off the table. And celebrants of the court as just and true and lovely only when it suits their personal agenda should put up their bumper stickers…” This is by America’s Treasure™ Kathleen Parker and what is my most recent evidence of this “both sides” nonsense that chokes our Democracy right now. Firstly the Citizens United ruling will have a far more greater impact on our country than Obamacare. Elections are now up for the highest bidder. If you thought that running for office was fiscally prohibitive before, it’s only going to get worse as Citizens United finds it’s footing. On Obamacare, what is really so horrible to the GOP when their corporate backed Healthcare money is going to get a giant financial goose from all the new people that are now required by law to have health insurance? “We don’t know what’s in the law!” They scream, but it’s all playing to the crowd.
That’s been my biggest aggravation thus far with The Beltway and it’s actors: a serious lack of sincerity in governance. It’s all for show, it’s for the next election cycle, it’s pandering ignorance as hard as humanly possible. If it’s not that, then it’s the tired moral issues that we should be over with by now. What would we rather have go in to the history books: our economy came back harder and awesome than ever, or instead of dealing with the economy we legislated abortion clinics into oblivion and argued over whether the President was a natural citizen or not?
Watching Marco Rubio on the Daily Show was mighty informative to me. That even after all his pro-growth nonsense, sensible immigration policy, and trying to find compromise amongst the two parties, he had the audacity to tip his hand and reveal a dreadfully partisan GOP card. He began this whole flat-tax, growth in small business, pro-growth through innovation spiel that flew in the face of everything he was successfully selling in the first part of the interview. That somehow the GOP was going to establish certainty to an completely uncertain economy/world should have led to him being laughed out of the studio, down the street and off the face of the earth. It may as well be wizardry economics. Certainty is going to lead the rich to invest in the economy? That the rich are going to invest in new innovation and that yet another bubble is all we need? It sounds less like sound economic policy and more like a junkie looking for another hit of the good stuff.
Rubio steadfastly argued that the reason he disagrees with the Democrats is because they have “bad ideas”. But I’d honestly rather have a bunch of bad ideas that are workable than just the House GOP’s “ideas” that are purely partisan and are just begging to be ignored by the Senate. The GOP is playing to the stands and they should be called on it by the media as a whole.
Marco Rubio’s victimization story is great and all until you give it context. He’s a freshman senator, a majority of his bills aren’t going to see the light of day, regardless of who controls the House majority and he knows it. So he can write all kinds of baloney legislation and run on that pretending he’s just trying so damn hard for the people. It’s the same logic that the GOP used when they pushed Paul Ryan’s budget around congress. The bill was dead and politically inert as soon as it was born, they know that. The American public must begin to recognize this context and understand that any (bad) idea and a workable (good) idea are two very separate things.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
So you’re David Brooks, pundit/columnist who’s contribution to the status quo is Thomas Friedman quantities of vagueness that pepper your columns. So afraid of biting the hand that feeds, that you refuse to acknowledge the very vague notions you are presenting in your articles. Mr. Brooks has tried to break down our current economic nightmare in to economic “tribes” trying to find their way, has wondered aloud where all the liberals are, poorly peddles the notion that the GOP is really the party of the working class, and now claims that “our generation” has borrowed from the future like no other generation before.
Firstly, what is Mr. Brooks’ “our generation”? The vague notion is key to his status quo clutching baloney of an article, but I think if it was given parameters would definitely allow this article to be more substantive than it ultimately turns out to be.
Like most of his columns, Mr. Brooks spends an inordinate amount of time selling you a bill of goods you must buy or his entire article don’t make sense…relatively speaking. They’re all boiler-plate, run-of-the-mill, status quo maintaining non-articles generally, but the amount of slack you have to cut the articles so the ideas can even be taken seriously is pretty ridiculous.
Because older generations didn’t have the luxuries of modern technology and were so often one misstep away from utter catastrophe that they remained insecure. “[the older generations] developed a moral abhorrence about things like excessive debt, which would further magnify their vulnerability.” So if you completely ignore American history where expansionism and risk are inherently the “American way“, sure this makes some sense. If you believe, like Mr. Brooks seemingly does, that indebtedness is a modern trope, and that peaks and valley’s in our economy didn’t occur with such veracity until the late 20th century, then sure Mr. Brooks is on to something.
Because modern generations are more secure, we’ve become complacent with debt, according to Mr. Brooks. Which, arguably, the point can be made to this. But I think it’s less compliancy with debt, and more that debt is utterly necessary in this day and age. The standard of living has gone up, while the wages that are paid have plateau-ed and stagnated for decades so that some debt is necessary to the modern nuclear family, even if both parents are working.
It seems Mr. Brooks is making the argument that people just take on debt because they don’t see any harm in it. That people are so stupid as to be tricked by credit card companies to accumulate more debit, or to take out student loans to pay for college and view it less as debt and more as an investment in the future, which is the general line that is used when attempting to pursue higher education. This right-wing ideal that the blame for America’s larger economic ills rest squarely on the general public is old and tired and who’s refutation must become louder and known to all.
That’s not to say there isn’t some truth to “the general public is over entitled and spoiled”, but it doesn’t rest on the general public who’ve paid their taxes and spent their money like the good citizens they are. These citizens were told by the older generations that if they did so they needn’t worry when it was their turn to rest and depend on the next generation. Meanwhile that older generation misrepresented their lessers and filled our “entitlements” with IOU’s that must be paid back more than the government needs to diminish it’s deficits.
The center right and GOP want to keep painting their plan of economic recovery as “we’re all in this together”. It’s utter bullshit, and slowly but surely the voting public must become aware of this, as history has shown, it takes entirely too long to figure this out. In the meantime, the very pundits of status quo that peddle this shared sacrifice narrative are attempting to chain the current economic climate on to a new boogeyman.
Also, what do we have to make of the “We’re not a nation of have and have nots, but a nation of have’s and soon to have’s”? Perhaps this could be related to the tolerance of indebitude that Mr. Brooks seems to think is the major problem our nation is facing at this moment. Is it not inconceivable that an optimistic citizen would view taking on loans or accrue a large credit card debt, if they think that eventually their number will be pulled and their wildest dreams and riches will be at hand?
Mr. Brooks refuses to use this because it would show the sham of that right-wing rhetorical device. Can’t tip the status quo boat, so it’s best to just assume that the American dream has a price tag that many of it’s citizenry can no longer afford on their own because it’s tolerance for debt is soo great.
What the general public is to blame for is being a schizophrenic, ill-informed voting bloc. This constant notion that if that one guy with the “D” next to his name isn’t getting it done, that we may as well get that guy with the “R” next to his name in there is what is truly fueling this continued political strife. That our political parties are becoming more and more similar isn’t helping either, but I believe that is more the fault of a disjointed voting public and the political class evolving to pander to it.
This is why when Mr. Brooks mentions in his article that states are struggling with pensions promises that should never have been made, you have to, as a reader see that he’s pissing on your back and telling you it’s raining. That unions and their desires are crippling our states economies is utterly false. It’s when these Republicans governors are trying to please their corporate overlords with generous tax cuts, subsides and incentives coupled with previous “pension promises” that you have the current deficit debacle that states are supposedly going through. Not even to mention the regressive legislative agendas towards women’s rights, the educational system and public works.
Unfortunately, states can’t run the deficits that the federal government can. So when a republican governor passes a regressive economic agenda, he knows full well he won’t have to deal with the fiscal fall out that will occur long after they have left office. The short term political gain is ALWAYS the prime agenda of the right-wing and GOP, because they are so ideologically bankrupt that they can’t even fathom nuanced, pragmatic policy of any kind.
Mr. Brooks article then switches to the recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. According to him Scott Walker turning a $3.6 billion deficit into a $150 million surplus. What David Brooks doesn’t’ relate is that Scott Walker was the chief agent of the $3.6 billion deficit when he propelled a regressive tax plan furl of corporate subsides through the republican dominated legislature. His attempt to fix the deficit he created was to gut the public unions of Wisconsin.
According to pollster Scott Rasmussen that Scott Walker keeps his job will be proof that voters do value deficit reduction and will vote for people who accomplish it. There is no truth in that whatsoever. It proves that voters only turn out for the big elections (your senators, presidents, and governors), and that their ambivalence is not complicit agreement to anything set forth. It also refuses to acknowledge that Tom Barrett, the man running against Scott Walker was limited by campaign rules and only had about $3.9million to campaign with, whilst Scott Walker had $45.6 million dollars, was not confined by rules, which allowed him to collect more than state regulated $10,000 per donor, due to a loop-hole for incumbents. Three-fourths of the funds for Walker came from out of state donors. It’s an unfair fight, and one that laissez-faire “independent” voters will be completely oblivious to. It’s also kind of shows that unions aren’t nearly as powerful and government killing as the right-wing would like you to believe.
Mr. Brooks assertion that a move to populism is what will fix our economic ills is also a right-wing tale as old as time. It’s about as close to “remember how awesome Ronald Reagan was (so awesome)" that you can get without being yet another Ronald Reagan myth fellating right-wing blowhard. And honestly just how much more populist can Obama get and still be tagged with the liberal socialist banner by the right-wing? If by populist we’re referring to kowtowing or caving to House republicans on most of his “liberal socialist” agenda.
The shift back to economic awesomeness isn’t going to be lead by a cultural shift. It’s going to happen after our society reclaims it’s equilibrium and we can tip back to a sort of political pragmatism that’s sorely been lacking. Sadly, it’s just not going to happen any time soon, and maybe not even in MY generation. The conclusion that the current generations need to come to is that the boomers and their ilk have let us all down, and they’re too delusional to admit to as much. The art of kicking the can down the road and “borrowing from the future” was an idea mostly held by them, and sure as hell wasn’t brought on by any insecurity born of a classical age. At a certain point they must be held accountable for the current trend of our politics and socio-cultural trajectory.
Firstly, what is Mr. Brooks’ “our generation”? The vague notion is key to his status quo clutching baloney of an article, but I think if it was given parameters would definitely allow this article to be more substantive than it ultimately turns out to be.
Like most of his columns, Mr. Brooks spends an inordinate amount of time selling you a bill of goods you must buy or his entire article don’t make sense…relatively speaking. They’re all boiler-plate, run-of-the-mill, status quo maintaining non-articles generally, but the amount of slack you have to cut the articles so the ideas can even be taken seriously is pretty ridiculous.
Because older generations didn’t have the luxuries of modern technology and were so often one misstep away from utter catastrophe that they remained insecure. “[the older generations] developed a moral abhorrence about things like excessive debt, which would further magnify their vulnerability.” So if you completely ignore American history where expansionism and risk are inherently the “American way“, sure this makes some sense. If you believe, like Mr. Brooks seemingly does, that indebtedness is a modern trope, and that peaks and valley’s in our economy didn’t occur with such veracity until the late 20th century, then sure Mr. Brooks is on to something.
Because modern generations are more secure, we’ve become complacent with debt, according to Mr. Brooks. Which, arguably, the point can be made to this. But I think it’s less compliancy with debt, and more that debt is utterly necessary in this day and age. The standard of living has gone up, while the wages that are paid have plateau-ed and stagnated for decades so that some debt is necessary to the modern nuclear family, even if both parents are working.
It seems Mr. Brooks is making the argument that people just take on debt because they don’t see any harm in it. That people are so stupid as to be tricked by credit card companies to accumulate more debit, or to take out student loans to pay for college and view it less as debt and more as an investment in the future, which is the general line that is used when attempting to pursue higher education. This right-wing ideal that the blame for America’s larger economic ills rest squarely on the general public is old and tired and who’s refutation must become louder and known to all.
That’s not to say there isn’t some truth to “the general public is over entitled and spoiled”, but it doesn’t rest on the general public who’ve paid their taxes and spent their money like the good citizens they are. These citizens were told by the older generations that if they did so they needn’t worry when it was their turn to rest and depend on the next generation. Meanwhile that older generation misrepresented their lessers and filled our “entitlements” with IOU’s that must be paid back more than the government needs to diminish it’s deficits.
The center right and GOP want to keep painting their plan of economic recovery as “we’re all in this together”. It’s utter bullshit, and slowly but surely the voting public must become aware of this, as history has shown, it takes entirely too long to figure this out. In the meantime, the very pundits of status quo that peddle this shared sacrifice narrative are attempting to chain the current economic climate on to a new boogeyman.
Also, what do we have to make of the “We’re not a nation of have and have nots, but a nation of have’s and soon to have’s”? Perhaps this could be related to the tolerance of indebitude that Mr. Brooks seems to think is the major problem our nation is facing at this moment. Is it not inconceivable that an optimistic citizen would view taking on loans or accrue a large credit card debt, if they think that eventually their number will be pulled and their wildest dreams and riches will be at hand?
Mr. Brooks refuses to use this because it would show the sham of that right-wing rhetorical device. Can’t tip the status quo boat, so it’s best to just assume that the American dream has a price tag that many of it’s citizenry can no longer afford on their own because it’s tolerance for debt is soo great.
What the general public is to blame for is being a schizophrenic, ill-informed voting bloc. This constant notion that if that one guy with the “D” next to his name isn’t getting it done, that we may as well get that guy with the “R” next to his name in there is what is truly fueling this continued political strife. That our political parties are becoming more and more similar isn’t helping either, but I believe that is more the fault of a disjointed voting public and the political class evolving to pander to it.
This is why when Mr. Brooks mentions in his article that states are struggling with pensions promises that should never have been made, you have to, as a reader see that he’s pissing on your back and telling you it’s raining. That unions and their desires are crippling our states economies is utterly false. It’s when these Republicans governors are trying to please their corporate overlords with generous tax cuts, subsides and incentives coupled with previous “pension promises” that you have the current deficit debacle that states are supposedly going through. Not even to mention the regressive legislative agendas towards women’s rights, the educational system and public works.
Unfortunately, states can’t run the deficits that the federal government can. So when a republican governor passes a regressive economic agenda, he knows full well he won’t have to deal with the fiscal fall out that will occur long after they have left office. The short term political gain is ALWAYS the prime agenda of the right-wing and GOP, because they are so ideologically bankrupt that they can’t even fathom nuanced, pragmatic policy of any kind.
Mr. Brooks article then switches to the recall of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. According to him Scott Walker turning a $3.6 billion deficit into a $150 million surplus. What David Brooks doesn’t’ relate is that Scott Walker was the chief agent of the $3.6 billion deficit when he propelled a regressive tax plan furl of corporate subsides through the republican dominated legislature. His attempt to fix the deficit he created was to gut the public unions of Wisconsin.
According to pollster Scott Rasmussen that Scott Walker keeps his job will be proof that voters do value deficit reduction and will vote for people who accomplish it. There is no truth in that whatsoever. It proves that voters only turn out for the big elections (your senators, presidents, and governors), and that their ambivalence is not complicit agreement to anything set forth. It also refuses to acknowledge that Tom Barrett, the man running against Scott Walker was limited by campaign rules and only had about $3.9million to campaign with, whilst Scott Walker had $45.6 million dollars, was not confined by rules, which allowed him to collect more than state regulated $10,000 per donor, due to a loop-hole for incumbents. Three-fourths of the funds for Walker came from out of state donors. It’s an unfair fight, and one that laissez-faire “independent” voters will be completely oblivious to. It’s also kind of shows that unions aren’t nearly as powerful and government killing as the right-wing would like you to believe.
Mr. Brooks assertion that a move to populism is what will fix our economic ills is also a right-wing tale as old as time. It’s about as close to “remember how awesome Ronald Reagan was (so awesome)" that you can get without being yet another Ronald Reagan myth fellating right-wing blowhard. And honestly just how much more populist can Obama get and still be tagged with the liberal socialist banner by the right-wing? If by populist we’re referring to kowtowing or caving to House republicans on most of his “liberal socialist” agenda.
The shift back to economic awesomeness isn’t going to be lead by a cultural shift. It’s going to happen after our society reclaims it’s equilibrium and we can tip back to a sort of political pragmatism that’s sorely been lacking. Sadly, it’s just not going to happen any time soon, and maybe not even in MY generation. The conclusion that the current generations need to come to is that the boomers and their ilk have let us all down, and they’re too delusional to admit to as much. The art of kicking the can down the road and “borrowing from the future” was an idea mostly held by them, and sure as hell wasn’t brought on by any insecurity born of a classical age. At a certain point they must be held accountable for the current trend of our politics and socio-cultural trajectory.
Friday, June 1, 2012
If there’s one thing I love more than anything else about Bill O’Reilly it’s his never ending supply of blue collar platitudes that “form” his world-view. You’d think that by now, someone who’s spent predominantly more of his life as a millionaire than a blue collar fella, he’d can it with the “tough guy” business.
In his article "Are teenagers really Americans?” starts off by commenting that he knows one of the great challenges in education is getting teenagers interested in their country. He knows this because he was once a high school teacher. For two years. 40 years ago. He doesn’t relate the length of his tenure as a teacher or how long ago it was presumably because it’s boring. But I think it speaks volumes as to why some old white guy insists that teenagers aren’t interested in their country and that only he has the answers. Teenagers according to Bill O’ Reilly “…are too busy keeping up wit the Kardashians to absorb John Adams.”
What’s exactly so wrong with that? The right-wing is always pooh-poohing young voters for making poor voting decisions. The decisions are poor because that don’t involve much support for right-wing agenda, and the republican party may as well be an old white man factory of utter uncool to young voters. So why now is it so important that teenagers learn how to be “real Americans”? Does “real American” mean that the voter is informed has their own opinions on the things they are about to vote on. More likely “real American” means conservative, all republican voting, and ill-informed.
Bill O’Reilly then takes it upon himself a new project: teaching a 13 year old girl how to care about being an American. I hope that this is some sort of satire, and not a real project. I think there’s Geneva Convention stipulations against this sort of thing. Also, he doesn’t appear to say whether or not this 13-year-old girl is relation or not. Did Bill O’Reilly kidnap a 13-year-old girl, take her to a sub-basement on his compound/lair, and attempt some odd psychological experimentation on how to care about being an American? Is the Department of Justice following up on this? Where’s the law enforcement community in all this or are they being complicit in a kidnapping of a 13-year-old girl?
His first lesson: Obey the rules. This is definitely a kidnapping scenario if he’s dealing in “lessons” and “rules”. The enforcement of such involves all doors being open, “unless there is a dressing situation”. So I guess bath time isn’t covered in that rules, sorry young lady. If Bill O’Reilly wishes to engage in conversation, you’re going to have to hide in the shower with the curtain drawn, or be in a constant state of “dressing situation”. Bill O’Reilly’s reasoning for the “open door” policy: “To discourage internet chicanery and encourage lively conversation”. Has Bill O’Reilly raised any children, in the last decade, or ever? There are computer programs that you can use to stop “internet chicanery”. And I think Bill O’Reilly is using chicanery wrong. How exactly is this 13-year-old girls clever manipulation of language. If he’s being literal, then he shouldn’t allow this 13-year-old girl on the internet at all! It’s chock full of chicanery, and not even to mention things like messenger services, or e-mail, or social networking sites. Also, the internet is full of informative information. Does reading Huffington Post count as chicanery, if the 13 year-old isn’t on BillOReilly.com? What if she doesn’t want to sign up for his e-mail list?
Lesson 2: Discuss Intelligent things - not just reality shows and music maniacs. First of, music maniacs? What is this, the town of Bomont? I can understand things like The Black Eyed Peas or LMFAO being considered “music maniacs” as I do believe they are terrorizing our young people with some sort of noise and light chicanery. And that by it’s very nature would frighten an old white man like Bill O’Reilly. But really, how far would a conversation involving “music maniacs” go between Bill O’Reilly and a 13-year-old girl?
13-year-old girl: Uhh, ummm so have you seen “Party Rock Anthem” By LMFAO
Bill O’Reilly: A what?
13-year-old: NO…it’s a group called LMFAO, they’re pretty cool.
Bill O’Reilly: A what? You know, when I was growing up in the tough streets of Levittown, we beat up LMFAO’s all the time. They were punks and burnouts…and they even asked me to join them, because I was so cool. But I didn’t because they were "hoodlums".
13-year-old: What’s that go to do with anything?
Scene
The greatest thing about lesson 2, aside from the “music maniacs” portion, is that in his scene the 13-year-old girl says “Nobody wants to talk about politics. That’s boring!” To which later in the scene he replies “I do just fine talking about them. Millions of people listen.” It’s phenomenally awesome to read that scene not even two weeks after he went on an entire bender about politics being boring. Is Bill O’Reilly having his Factor writing staff just write his editorials? I mean, it wouldn’t be the hardest thing to do. But to not even have the wherewithal to notice that he literally had a 13-year-old girl tantrum-read-column that said the exact same thing is delicious! I also love the classic Bill O’Reilly “how awesome am I? so awesome” of dropping his “millions of people listen” right in the middle of this column. He’s not done with that stuff either.
Suddenly, the lessons fall away and “rules” begin! This has to be a hostage situation, as this is a classic psychological turn. The ole’ switcheroo! Caring benevolent caretaker, suddenly becomes cruel dominator! Rule 3: Learn about your country’s past. Doesn’t it kind of seem odd that Bill O’Reilly would reach for this when so much about his politics and the very channel “millions of people listen” to him on a nightly basis are revisionist historians and sheer ignorance/fear based ideology? As a former teacher, wouldn’t Bill O’Reilly also remember just how poorly written and fallacious history books can be? Especially in America, where the “history” books we give our children should just be titles “White Guys: Yup, we sure did kick some ass! Oh and we wrote most of history because most brown people are liars. Volume One: How Hard Columbus Kicked Ass!”
The Bill O’Reilly fun zone doesn’t stop there. This 13-year-old girl has just been assigned to read over the summer Bill O’Reilly’s (with "historian" Martin Dugard as co-author) new book "Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever”! Whoa! Even the education system is complicit in this hostage situation, having to assign something like that AND make the child buy the book (he actually has the temerity to say the book is $20). Surely this material is a bit over the head of a 13-year-old?
The disdain that Bill O’Reilly shows this 13-year-old girl, doesn’t just stop at his young hostage, it spills out onto all today’s young people. He calls them urchins that need to be forced or bribed to pay attention to “important things”. Sadly, I don’t think the 13-year-old girl really thought that paying $20 for “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever” was a bribe of any kind. And this idea that kids today just need book learning, is absurd. Bill O’Reilly says in his article that as a child you had to read to fight off boredom. Yet, he’s a part of such a monolithic entity that preys on peoples ignorance, and buoys itself on rhetoric and misinformation.
What exactly is so important about learning about the value your country? I thought the idea was to be a “real American”, not being informed about your country’s value? It seems rather vague right? At least he didn’t actually say “Hey, watch The O’Reilly Factor every night at 8pm EST on the Fox News Channel and be a “real American!”
Apparently Bill O’Reilly thinks the lessons and rule in his article are a successful way of educating America’s youth about the value of their country. He also tosses in that current right-wing gem of how this election is a battle for the souls of the next generations. It’s kind of sickening that the very thing Bill O’Reilly represents is the chief agent in darkening those souls, and poisoning generations further down the road as well. That he thinks his teaching plan would somehow be approved by Abe Lincoln would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic. The right-wing is literally turning our history and politicians in to those whacky animatronic monstrosities that resides in museums and amusement parks. The bullet point list of achievements that white wash away the context and human nature that actually surrounded those men. While I can’t argue that they need to be eradicated from existence, as I do think they have some place in helping to inform children under the age of six, the idea that these caricatures are made mythological and important should be terrifying to those of us who do know our history.
In his article "Are teenagers really Americans?” starts off by commenting that he knows one of the great challenges in education is getting teenagers interested in their country. He knows this because he was once a high school teacher. For two years. 40 years ago. He doesn’t relate the length of his tenure as a teacher or how long ago it was presumably because it’s boring. But I think it speaks volumes as to why some old white guy insists that teenagers aren’t interested in their country and that only he has the answers. Teenagers according to Bill O’ Reilly “…are too busy keeping up wit the Kardashians to absorb John Adams.”
What’s exactly so wrong with that? The right-wing is always pooh-poohing young voters for making poor voting decisions. The decisions are poor because that don’t involve much support for right-wing agenda, and the republican party may as well be an old white man factory of utter uncool to young voters. So why now is it so important that teenagers learn how to be “real Americans”? Does “real American” mean that the voter is informed has their own opinions on the things they are about to vote on. More likely “real American” means conservative, all republican voting, and ill-informed.
Bill O’Reilly then takes it upon himself a new project: teaching a 13 year old girl how to care about being an American. I hope that this is some sort of satire, and not a real project. I think there’s Geneva Convention stipulations against this sort of thing. Also, he doesn’t appear to say whether or not this 13-year-old girl is relation or not. Did Bill O’Reilly kidnap a 13-year-old girl, take her to a sub-basement on his compound/lair, and attempt some odd psychological experimentation on how to care about being an American? Is the Department of Justice following up on this? Where’s the law enforcement community in all this or are they being complicit in a kidnapping of a 13-year-old girl?
His first lesson: Obey the rules. This is definitely a kidnapping scenario if he’s dealing in “lessons” and “rules”. The enforcement of such involves all doors being open, “unless there is a dressing situation”. So I guess bath time isn’t covered in that rules, sorry young lady. If Bill O’Reilly wishes to engage in conversation, you’re going to have to hide in the shower with the curtain drawn, or be in a constant state of “dressing situation”. Bill O’Reilly’s reasoning for the “open door” policy: “To discourage internet chicanery and encourage lively conversation”. Has Bill O’Reilly raised any children, in the last decade, or ever? There are computer programs that you can use to stop “internet chicanery”. And I think Bill O’Reilly is using chicanery wrong. How exactly is this 13-year-old girls clever manipulation of language. If he’s being literal, then he shouldn’t allow this 13-year-old girl on the internet at all! It’s chock full of chicanery, and not even to mention things like messenger services, or e-mail, or social networking sites. Also, the internet is full of informative information. Does reading Huffington Post count as chicanery, if the 13 year-old isn’t on BillOReilly.com? What if she doesn’t want to sign up for his e-mail list?
Lesson 2: Discuss Intelligent things - not just reality shows and music maniacs. First of, music maniacs? What is this, the town of Bomont? I can understand things like The Black Eyed Peas or LMFAO being considered “music maniacs” as I do believe they are terrorizing our young people with some sort of noise and light chicanery. And that by it’s very nature would frighten an old white man like Bill O’Reilly. But really, how far would a conversation involving “music maniacs” go between Bill O’Reilly and a 13-year-old girl?
13-year-old girl: Uhh, ummm so have you seen “Party Rock Anthem” By LMFAO
Bill O’Reilly: A what?
13-year-old: NO…it’s a group called LMFAO, they’re pretty cool.
Bill O’Reilly: A what? You know, when I was growing up in the tough streets of Levittown, we beat up LMFAO’s all the time. They were punks and burnouts…and they even asked me to join them, because I was so cool. But I didn’t because they were "hoodlums".
13-year-old: What’s that go to do with anything?
Scene
The greatest thing about lesson 2, aside from the “music maniacs” portion, is that in his scene the 13-year-old girl says “Nobody wants to talk about politics. That’s boring!” To which later in the scene he replies “I do just fine talking about them. Millions of people listen.” It’s phenomenally awesome to read that scene not even two weeks after he went on an entire bender about politics being boring. Is Bill O’Reilly having his Factor writing staff just write his editorials? I mean, it wouldn’t be the hardest thing to do. But to not even have the wherewithal to notice that he literally had a 13-year-old girl tantrum-read-column that said the exact same thing is delicious! I also love the classic Bill O’Reilly “how awesome am I? so awesome” of dropping his “millions of people listen” right in the middle of this column. He’s not done with that stuff either.
Suddenly, the lessons fall away and “rules” begin! This has to be a hostage situation, as this is a classic psychological turn. The ole’ switcheroo! Caring benevolent caretaker, suddenly becomes cruel dominator! Rule 3: Learn about your country’s past. Doesn’t it kind of seem odd that Bill O’Reilly would reach for this when so much about his politics and the very channel “millions of people listen” to him on a nightly basis are revisionist historians and sheer ignorance/fear based ideology? As a former teacher, wouldn’t Bill O’Reilly also remember just how poorly written and fallacious history books can be? Especially in America, where the “history” books we give our children should just be titles “White Guys: Yup, we sure did kick some ass! Oh and we wrote most of history because most brown people are liars. Volume One: How Hard Columbus Kicked Ass!”
The Bill O’Reilly fun zone doesn’t stop there. This 13-year-old girl has just been assigned to read over the summer Bill O’Reilly’s (with "historian" Martin Dugard as co-author) new book "Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever”! Whoa! Even the education system is complicit in this hostage situation, having to assign something like that AND make the child buy the book (he actually has the temerity to say the book is $20). Surely this material is a bit over the head of a 13-year-old?
The disdain that Bill O’Reilly shows this 13-year-old girl, doesn’t just stop at his young hostage, it spills out onto all today’s young people. He calls them urchins that need to be forced or bribed to pay attention to “important things”. Sadly, I don’t think the 13-year-old girl really thought that paying $20 for “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever” was a bribe of any kind. And this idea that kids today just need book learning, is absurd. Bill O’Reilly says in his article that as a child you had to read to fight off boredom. Yet, he’s a part of such a monolithic entity that preys on peoples ignorance, and buoys itself on rhetoric and misinformation.
What exactly is so important about learning about the value your country? I thought the idea was to be a “real American”, not being informed about your country’s value? It seems rather vague right? At least he didn’t actually say “Hey, watch The O’Reilly Factor every night at 8pm EST on the Fox News Channel and be a “real American!”
Apparently Bill O’Reilly thinks the lessons and rule in his article are a successful way of educating America’s youth about the value of their country. He also tosses in that current right-wing gem of how this election is a battle for the souls of the next generations. It’s kind of sickening that the very thing Bill O’Reilly represents is the chief agent in darkening those souls, and poisoning generations further down the road as well. That he thinks his teaching plan would somehow be approved by Abe Lincoln would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic. The right-wing is literally turning our history and politicians in to those whacky animatronic monstrosities that resides in museums and amusement parks. The bullet point list of achievements that white wash away the context and human nature that actually surrounded those men. While I can’t argue that they need to be eradicated from existence, as I do think they have some place in helping to inform children under the age of six, the idea that these caricatures are made mythological and important should be terrifying to those of us who do know our history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)