Americans are fascinated by people who voluntarily choose to shut their gates against the maddening crowds. Well, fascinated by famous people who do so. If you're just some guy living in a cave in Santa Cruz, you're probably just a sad failure of a human being who uses Eastern spirituality to justify his lack of motivation.
On the other hand, if you're J.D. Salinger, and you walked around campus proclaiming that you were going to write The Great American Novel--and then actually did it--shouldn't you stick around to enjoy the mindless adoration of vapid acolytes? We bought your book, so we each bought a little tiny piece of your soul. Now you have to tell us what you had for breakfast, your views on the current political situation, and whether or not you like Labradoodles.
The fascination with Salinger's relentless solitude far outstrips interest in his work (what little of it there was, after all). The same is true for Thomas Pynchon, another author invariably described as a "recluse," which puts one rather in mind of a poisonous spider. The fact that they've made a point of anonymity and silence seems to offend people, who then become quite determined to scale the walls (literally and figuratively--people were apparently always trying to get into the Salinger estate--which is usually described as a "compound," a word one tends to associate with cults, and which doesn't get applied to, say, Oprah's house in Santa Barbara). It is strange, because by and large most Americans don't care at all about authors, and wouldn't recognize John Updike if he foisted his aged, impotent alter ego on them at Starbucks.
Americans do not do well with rejection (which is why we dislike the French so much--because they don't seem to like us), so to want nothing so much as to be left alone is taken as more than writerly reticence. It causes unease as it implies the rejection of taken-for-granted values; self-evident truths, if you will. The point of writing a book (or any other endeavor not directly associated with commerce), is to get acclaim if not wealth (though preferably, of course, both). It is to get a seat at the table of influence. It is to elevate oneself. Otherwise, what is it all for? Why bother? That someone could not want to eat the bitter fruit of fame, that they would refuse to be the object of adoration or idolization, that they would wish to keep some part of themselves to themselves: this is now anathema to the American public, almost all of whom would gladly trade their life story for shekels and spotlights.
Salinger's withdrawal, and his refusal to write for public consumption, is therefore puzzling and disconcerting. He wouldn't even give interviews to explain why he wouldn't give interviews. His solitude obliquely critiqued our national obsession with attention, our perpetual toddler-hood. When asked what we want, all we can say is "More!" And Salinger said, instead, "Enough."
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Pitchforks! Torches!
Oh, David Brooks, you mewling, puking, shitheel of a "columnist." I hope that whatever university you went to (did you go to a university? a) it's hard to tell and b) you damn elitist) has rescinded your diploma. I would continue to eviscerate you, but Matt Taibbi has already done so in such a masterful manner than anything I say would be but a pale imitation.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Upper Deck of a Large Ship, Somewhere in the North Atlantic Ocean
Obama: The arrangement as it stands is unsatisfactory. We must have change! We must work together, first class and second class and steerage passengers alike, for a more just and equitable distribution, a distribution that does not favor the special interests of the stewards or the captain, but one which we all determine, together, with hope for a better future...
Passenger 1: Sir, what are you talking about? And why are you standing on that soap box? It's really cold out.
Obama: I am talking, of course, about the arrangement of deck chairs! Some people have deck chairs with better views! Some people have more deck chairs than they can possibly ever sit in at once! We must redistribute the deck chairs!
McCain: When I was a P.O.W., we didn't have chairs! We had sharpened bamboo sticks to sit on, and they gave us character and a lifetime of random bursts of anger. Bunch a pansies!
Passenger 2: Where did that other soap box come from?
[Several hours of rhetoric ensue, with commentary from people who have put on hats with little pieces of paper that say "Media" on them. Passengers take a vote: they're not entirely sure what they're voting for, but the grumpy old white guy is scary, so they go for the other guy. Mostly, they just want everyone to stop talking.]
THE FOLLOWING DAY
Obama: All right people, let's get to it. We have promised change, and we will deliver! I suggest we begin by reupholstering, and then move on to deck chair placement.
Democrats: Maybe we should wait until Al Franken gets here.
Obama: Oh. All right.
Passenger 1: Seems like there are already a lot of you...maybe you should just get started. We don't have work at the moment, so we could help...just tell us what to do.
Passenger 2: Look, it's Al Franken! 'E's kinda funny lookin', innit he? Right, let's go, before it gets cold again.
Democrats: Well, Ted Kennedy's sick. And he's really the man who knows fabric around here. We really can't move forward without him.
Passenger 1: But there are, like, hundreds of us just standing around. Can't we just...
Passenger 3: Hey, I heard there's a former beauty queen in the lounge. Apparently she doesn't say anything that makes sense, but she's really pretty, and if we get lucky, she might wink at us.
[Passengers take off for a while. Return to find Democrats standing in place, as if frozen, although it is 80 degrees out. Obama is now sitting on his soap box, but is still talking.]
Democrats: Okay, we've picked a fabric!
Passengers: Wow, that's really ugly. It's like, shit brown and bile green. Don't we have some gays around? They're good at this kind of thing.
Democrats: SHHHHHH! Don't say the "G" word! This was the only fabric we could agree on. We had almost settled on something kind of neutral and beige-y, but Lieberman insisted on this one.
Passenger 1: And you couldn't have thrown him overboard?
Passenger 2: Okay, well, whatever, the fabric sucks, but it's better than nothing, and maybe the sun will bleach out most of that utterly vile green later. Hand me the scissors.
Republicans: Just a minute there, sonny boy.
Passenger 3: Who are these guys? And, seriously, where the fuck do all these soap boxes come from? How could we ever need this much soap?
Captain: Oh, we had some extra space for some reason. So we stocked up on soap boxes. These guys love 'em!
[Passenger 1: Dude, what do you think was supposed to be in that space?
Passenger 2: Well, I hope not something we might actually need.]
Republicans: That fabric is clearly SOCIALIST fabric, and not fabric that Jesus would love. Also.
Passenger 1: How's that? Socialist fabric?
Republicans: We saw a teenager once wearing a Che Guevara shirt that was exactly that green color. And didn't the NAZIS wear brown?
Passenger 2: JESUS CHRIST ON A CRUTCH!
Republicans: Where? Where? Jesus is here? Hold on, we have to fix our hair.
Passenger 2: No, just, never mind.
[Republicans are crestfallen.]
Republicans: Anyway, it's clear that that fabric will kill people.
Gullible Passengers: OMG! Socialist fabric that kills people! Europeans! The freedoms! [RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE]
Democrats: Okay, well, you could be right, maybe we could just use less of this fabric. What if we just cut the amount of fabric in half?
Ben Nelson: I'm sorry, but I must insist that Nebraska receive twice as many deck chairs as other states if I'm to vote for this fabric. But this is only because of my principled stand against abortion, and not because I get really really high off the fumes of power.
Democrats: Obama, do you want to chime in here?
Obama: No, I'm due to give another speech in the bar. [Exits.]
Passenger 2: Where did all these horses come from?
[Interminable horse trading ensues.]
Democrats: Okay, we did it! We can give 1/4 of the fabric to 1/2 as many deck chairs, and the steerage passengers will be allowed to sit on them for one hour on every other Sunday.
[Count heads.]
Democrats: Wait, we're one short.
Passenger 2: But there are still so many of you!
Scott Brown: I drive a truck!
Passenger 1: Who gives a fuck?
Gullible Passengers: OOOOOOH, a TRUCK!
Democrats: Oh well! Guess we can't reupholster the deck chairs this time! Let's go to the bar.
[Obama shows back up. Dems are milling about, drunkenly. Republicans are masturbating in a group. Glenn Beck is crying with joy. Rush Limbaugh has exploded and left one hell of a mess.]
Obama: What happened here?
Democrats: Well, some guy with a truck showed up and the Republicans said some mean words, so we gave up!
Obama: But I promised people a change of fabric!
Democrats: Well, frankly, our chairs have great fabric, and plenty of padding. So, fuck it.
Obama: Okay, okay. [Attempts to move 1 deck chair 1 inch.]
Republicans: [Pull guns, aim.]
Kucinich: Did anyone else hear that noise?
Republicans: JESUS IS HERE!
Kucinich: No, it's an iceberg.
Republicans: JESUS IS HERE!
Captain: Boy, is my face red! Guess there should have been lifeboats where those soap boxes were!
Passengers 1 and 2: HOLY FUCK.
Captain: Not to worry! There's enough room for 1/5 of 1/2 of you!
[Republicans, weapons out, stampede the lifeboats, trampling old people and shooting small children.]
Democrats: Wait, what's happening?
Captain [to other passengers]: Okay, so, luckily we've got a soap box for each of you! We think they'll float. For a couple of minutes.
Obama: I will not abandon my soap box! I will go down with this soap box!
[Deck chairs start sliding wildly about the deck as the ship tilts.]
Obama: Look! The arrangement of the deck chairs has changed!
Finis.
Passenger 1: Sir, what are you talking about? And why are you standing on that soap box? It's really cold out.
Obama: I am talking, of course, about the arrangement of deck chairs! Some people have deck chairs with better views! Some people have more deck chairs than they can possibly ever sit in at once! We must redistribute the deck chairs!
McCain: When I was a P.O.W., we didn't have chairs! We had sharpened bamboo sticks to sit on, and they gave us character and a lifetime of random bursts of anger. Bunch a pansies!
Passenger 2: Where did that other soap box come from?
[Several hours of rhetoric ensue, with commentary from people who have put on hats with little pieces of paper that say "Media" on them. Passengers take a vote: they're not entirely sure what they're voting for, but the grumpy old white guy is scary, so they go for the other guy. Mostly, they just want everyone to stop talking.]
THE FOLLOWING DAY
Obama: All right people, let's get to it. We have promised change, and we will deliver! I suggest we begin by reupholstering, and then move on to deck chair placement.
Democrats: Maybe we should wait until Al Franken gets here.
Obama: Oh. All right.
Passenger 1: Seems like there are already a lot of you...maybe you should just get started. We don't have work at the moment, so we could help...just tell us what to do.
Passenger 2: Look, it's Al Franken! 'E's kinda funny lookin', innit he? Right, let's go, before it gets cold again.
Democrats: Well, Ted Kennedy's sick. And he's really the man who knows fabric around here. We really can't move forward without him.
Passenger 1: But there are, like, hundreds of us just standing around. Can't we just...
Passenger 3: Hey, I heard there's a former beauty queen in the lounge. Apparently she doesn't say anything that makes sense, but she's really pretty, and if we get lucky, she might wink at us.
[Passengers take off for a while. Return to find Democrats standing in place, as if frozen, although it is 80 degrees out. Obama is now sitting on his soap box, but is still talking.]
Democrats: Okay, we've picked a fabric!
Passengers: Wow, that's really ugly. It's like, shit brown and bile green. Don't we have some gays around? They're good at this kind of thing.
Democrats: SHHHHHH! Don't say the "G" word! This was the only fabric we could agree on. We had almost settled on something kind of neutral and beige-y, but Lieberman insisted on this one.
Passenger 1: And you couldn't have thrown him overboard?
Passenger 2: Okay, well, whatever, the fabric sucks, but it's better than nothing, and maybe the sun will bleach out most of that utterly vile green later. Hand me the scissors.
Republicans: Just a minute there, sonny boy.
Passenger 3: Who are these guys? And, seriously, where the fuck do all these soap boxes come from? How could we ever need this much soap?
Captain: Oh, we had some extra space for some reason. So we stocked up on soap boxes. These guys love 'em!
[Passenger 1: Dude, what do you think was supposed to be in that space?
Passenger 2: Well, I hope not something we might actually need.]
Republicans: That fabric is clearly SOCIALIST fabric, and not fabric that Jesus would love. Also.
Passenger 1: How's that? Socialist fabric?
Republicans: We saw a teenager once wearing a Che Guevara shirt that was exactly that green color. And didn't the NAZIS wear brown?
Passenger 2: JESUS CHRIST ON A CRUTCH!
Republicans: Where? Where? Jesus is here? Hold on, we have to fix our hair.
Passenger 2: No, just, never mind.
[Republicans are crestfallen.]
Republicans: Anyway, it's clear that that fabric will kill people.
Gullible Passengers: OMG! Socialist fabric that kills people! Europeans! The freedoms! [RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE]
Democrats: Okay, well, you could be right, maybe we could just use less of this fabric. What if we just cut the amount of fabric in half?
Ben Nelson: I'm sorry, but I must insist that Nebraska receive twice as many deck chairs as other states if I'm to vote for this fabric. But this is only because of my principled stand against abortion, and not because I get really really high off the fumes of power.
Democrats: Obama, do you want to chime in here?
Obama: No, I'm due to give another speech in the bar. [Exits.]
Passenger 2: Where did all these horses come from?
[Interminable horse trading ensues.]
Democrats: Okay, we did it! We can give 1/4 of the fabric to 1/2 as many deck chairs, and the steerage passengers will be allowed to sit on them for one hour on every other Sunday.
[Count heads.]
Democrats: Wait, we're one short.
Passenger 2: But there are still so many of you!
Scott Brown: I drive a truck!
Passenger 1: Who gives a fuck?
Gullible Passengers: OOOOOOH, a TRUCK!
Democrats: Oh well! Guess we can't reupholster the deck chairs this time! Let's go to the bar.
[Obama shows back up. Dems are milling about, drunkenly. Republicans are masturbating in a group. Glenn Beck is crying with joy. Rush Limbaugh has exploded and left one hell of a mess.]
Obama: What happened here?
Democrats: Well, some guy with a truck showed up and the Republicans said some mean words, so we gave up!
Obama: But I promised people a change of fabric!
Democrats: Well, frankly, our chairs have great fabric, and plenty of padding. So, fuck it.
Obama: Okay, okay. [Attempts to move 1 deck chair 1 inch.]
Republicans: [Pull guns, aim.]
Kucinich: Did anyone else hear that noise?
Republicans: JESUS IS HERE!
Kucinich: No, it's an iceberg.
Republicans: JESUS IS HERE!
Captain: Boy, is my face red! Guess there should have been lifeboats where those soap boxes were!
Passengers 1 and 2: HOLY FUCK.
Captain: Not to worry! There's enough room for 1/5 of 1/2 of you!
[Republicans, weapons out, stampede the lifeboats, trampling old people and shooting small children.]
Democrats: Wait, what's happening?
Captain [to other passengers]: Okay, so, luckily we've got a soap box for each of you! We think they'll float. For a couple of minutes.
Obama: I will not abandon my soap box! I will go down with this soap box!
[Deck chairs start sliding wildly about the deck as the ship tilts.]
Obama: Look! The arrangement of the deck chairs has changed!
Finis.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Stop Feeding the Breeders
This was really too good to pass up: the lieutenant governor of South Carolina, who is apparently trying to fill the hiking boots of a certain Mark Sanford, compared poor people to stray animals in a speech the other day. It was awesome. Then he suggested that people receiving public assistance should have to earn their life of luxury: "he said government should take away assistance if those receiving help didn't pass drug tests" and attend PTA meetings.
So I expect that the heads of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, as grateful recipients of billions of dollars in government assistance, will be lining right up to take those drug tests, no? I mean, we all know that the only people who do drugs in this country are poor people, so I'm sure that all those stockbrokers and CEOs will be pure as the driven snow. And if parents receiving 200 bucks a month in food stamps for their children have to do some kind of community service, well, I can hardly wait to see what's required of people who received (on average) half a million dollars of taxpayer money.
So I expect that the heads of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, as grateful recipients of billions of dollars in government assistance, will be lining right up to take those drug tests, no? I mean, we all know that the only people who do drugs in this country are poor people, so I'm sure that all those stockbrokers and CEOs will be pure as the driven snow. And if parents receiving 200 bucks a month in food stamps for their children have to do some kind of community service, well, I can hardly wait to see what's required of people who received (on average) half a million dollars of taxpayer money.
The Party of No
So now the Obama administration has come up with another series of incremental, surely-no-one-can-object-to-these, proposals. They include a tax cut for middle class families, allowing a credit of $900 for child care (which I think is what babysitters now charge to take care of your child on a Saturday night). The Republicans, naturally, have objected to these proposals. That's right, the Republicans are against a tax cut, despite the fact that tax cuts are the only "idea" recently proposed by the Republicans to solve any kind of problem. From this we can conclude a few things. First, that even if the Democrats adopted the Republican platform in its entirety and tried to base a bill on it, the Republicans would vote against it. ("Putting Regan on the five dollar bill? Only a communist would suggest such a thing! This is yet one more step towards adopting a global currency!") If I were running the Democratic party (and I again note that they have thus far failed to consult me) I would abandon all hope of working with these people. Take it as a given that they will vote no on everything, and see what other possibilities you have. Possibly you should get rid of the fucking filibuster.* Just a suggestion. I would also realize that there is nothing to be gained by putting forward incremental policies. Even apart from the fact that they have as little chance of passing as more radical proposals would, such policy proposals gain you no support among the public. They are not enough to make a tangible difference to most people, they are not based on actual ideological commitments worth fighting for, they are, in short, boring.
*Digression on filibusters: they strike me as so inherently undemocratic that I can't really see the argument in favor of them. Yes, I know that the Democrats want to keep the filibuster so that, when they are inevitably in the minority again because of their short-sighted, lame-ass, ineffective governing, they can threaten to use the filibuster against insane conservative judges. I note two things: one, the Democrats never really had the spine to actually filibuster things far worse than conservative judges (cf. 2000-2008, wars of, tax cuts for the wealthy during, massive boondoggles by government contractors during, lack of accountability or oversight during). And two, all that happened was that Bush then appointed slightly less insanely conservative judges, who ruled basically the same way as the insane judges would have anyway. The Senate is already undemocratic: it is bullshit, frankly, that South Dakota gets as many votes as California, but okay, I see the point of allowing smaller states to have a say. Sort of. The filibuster, though, means that senators from states that are, say, Nebraska, can hijack entire bills until they get the pork they want.
*Digression on filibusters: they strike me as so inherently undemocratic that I can't really see the argument in favor of them. Yes, I know that the Democrats want to keep the filibuster so that, when they are inevitably in the minority again because of their short-sighted, lame-ass, ineffective governing, they can threaten to use the filibuster against insane conservative judges. I note two things: one, the Democrats never really had the spine to actually filibuster things far worse than conservative judges (cf. 2000-2008, wars of, tax cuts for the wealthy during, massive boondoggles by government contractors during, lack of accountability or oversight during). And two, all that happened was that Bush then appointed slightly less insanely conservative judges, who ruled basically the same way as the insane judges would have anyway. The Senate is already undemocratic: it is bullshit, frankly, that South Dakota gets as many votes as California, but okay, I see the point of allowing smaller states to have a say. Sort of. The filibuster, though, means that senators from states that are, say, Nebraska, can hijack entire bills until they get the pork they want.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Good Times
Two outraged posts in two days gives me that good ol' 2004 feeling.
In your busy life, do you take a moment to spare a thought for the victimized, the downtrodden, those who are without voice and without power? And when you do, which corporation comes to mind first? Is it poor, beleaguered Citigroup? Is it Wal-Mart, so nobly promoting "Buy American" campaigns against so much opposition?
Well, fear not, friends, because 5 men in black robes have come to the rescue (which makes it feel very 2000 around here). Through blinding leaps of logic, they have determined that money is the same thing as speech, and that therefore money is protected under the First Amendment in the same way as, say, an unknown blog written by some outraged grad student somewhere. And if money is speech, then your right to put your money where your mouth is cannot be abridged. From here it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to remember that 1) somehow corporations have the same rights as individual people, that is, that they are treated as persons under the law, and 2) these corporate personages coincidentally have a lot of money, which they would like to give to political causes just out of the goodness of their hearts, for the betterment of society yet 3) are unable to do so because of mean rules made up by elected people so therefore 4) the right of corporations to free speech has been abridged, which is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
So brace yourselves for the absolute ungodliness of what is about to follow: the floodgates have been opened (in an election year, no less) and there is now no limit to what corporations can spend on elections and candidates. Whereas before, our elected officials were kind of like a high-class escort service, discreet negotiations in nice hotels, now it's going to be more like crack-hungry prostitutes in the back seat of a Mazda.
What is also awesome about this ruling is that it makes a lovely Orwellian (sorry, sorry, I know anything Orwellian is now cliche, which should really tell us something about the current state of affairs) point. All of us are equal, but some of us are more equal than others. All of us have the right to free speech, but some of us have a LOT more free speech than others.
Alex Pareene at Gawker said it better: "The Conservative Justices are all Constitutional Originalists who don't believe in Judicial overreach or legislating from the bench, which is why they completely overturned decades of established campaign finance law and negated previous Supreme Court decisions. Because, you know, it's what the original Framers intended: multinational corporations, unlike black people, are 5/5ths of a person."
In your busy life, do you take a moment to spare a thought for the victimized, the downtrodden, those who are without voice and without power? And when you do, which corporation comes to mind first? Is it poor, beleaguered Citigroup? Is it Wal-Mart, so nobly promoting "Buy American" campaigns against so much opposition?
Well, fear not, friends, because 5 men in black robes have come to the rescue (which makes it feel very 2000 around here). Through blinding leaps of logic, they have determined that money is the same thing as speech, and that therefore money is protected under the First Amendment in the same way as, say, an unknown blog written by some outraged grad student somewhere. And if money is speech, then your right to put your money where your mouth is cannot be abridged. From here it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to remember that 1) somehow corporations have the same rights as individual people, that is, that they are treated as persons under the law, and 2) these corporate personages coincidentally have a lot of money, which they would like to give to political causes just out of the goodness of their hearts, for the betterment of society yet 3) are unable to do so because of mean rules made up by elected people so therefore 4) the right of corporations to free speech has been abridged, which is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
So brace yourselves for the absolute ungodliness of what is about to follow: the floodgates have been opened (in an election year, no less) and there is now no limit to what corporations can spend on elections and candidates. Whereas before, our elected officials were kind of like a high-class escort service, discreet negotiations in nice hotels, now it's going to be more like crack-hungry prostitutes in the back seat of a Mazda.
What is also awesome about this ruling is that it makes a lovely Orwellian (sorry, sorry, I know anything Orwellian is now cliche, which should really tell us something about the current state of affairs) point. All of us are equal, but some of us are more equal than others. All of us have the right to free speech, but some of us have a LOT more free speech than others.
Alex Pareene at Gawker said it better: "The Conservative Justices are all Constitutional Originalists who don't believe in Judicial overreach or legislating from the bench, which is why they completely overturned decades of established campaign finance law and negated previous Supreme Court decisions. Because, you know, it's what the original Framers intended: multinational corporations, unlike black people, are 5/5ths of a person."
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Why I Un-Friended You on Facebook
Dear Girl From High School Who, Now That I Think About It, Was Actually a Bitch,
I accepted your friend request yesterday because, hey, why not, you're friends with lots of other people I moderately liked in high school and what's one more person on my news feed anyway. Then the very first status update I see from you says, "Brown won in Massachusets! That's _one_ more thing against socialism in this country!"
And you know what, I just wasn't in the mood. I mean, I realize the Democrats did their usual impression of a party run by arrogant retards, and they chose a candidate who was basically mediocre on every register, and then assumed they would win, and then Obama sort of meandered in during the fourth quarter when Rahm Emanuel finally went, "OH SHIT, we might lose TED KENNEDY'S seat to a COSMOPOLITAN CENTERFOLD" and so on. And I despise the Democrats for it, I truly do. But the fact that we're now probably not even going to get a bill (that was only-slightly-better-than-nothing anyway, and don't get me started on this socialism nonsensery) through because of a handful of voters in one state who thought that driving a pickup truck around was some sign of character...well, fuck that noise.
Current NYT headline: "Obama Weighs Shift in Health Plan, Seeking G.O.P. Backing"--well, that took all of ten goddamn minutes. Keep standing up for what you believe in, Obama! Otherwise we'll think your campaign was just a bunch of beautifully delivered empty rhetoric.
Anyway, if anyone was asking me (and I notice that they are not), a couple of things. First, I think Obama actually moved on health care too soon. I think he should have spent the first two years on a dedicated jobs creation program, a la FDR. Put people back to work, get them spending money, get the economy moving. Then, when the economy is on the upswing and everyone is feeling rather more benevolent and less pinched, proposing a new government program might have been a little more palatable. Too late now! Hunker down and eat some organic beets, because the Democrats are going to get spanked in the midterms. Oh, and your legislative agenda is now DOA. So kick back. Maybe Jersey Shore is on. (I'm building on a nice post by Brad at Sadly, No! here, by the way).
Secondly, since you're getting kicked to the curb anyway, you might as well go out screaming. Withdraw the POS bill and replace it with one that actually does something. Go full tilt: universal healthcare, goddammit, make them block it. Make them stop little Susie from getting her asthma medication and Grandma from getting her insulin. Make them stand up and defend corporations that directly (and immorally) profit from the illness and misfortune of Americans. Sack up and actually ask for the change that you believe in. A clear, simple, short bill, one that everyone can read and understand:
Resolved: that every American, regardless of occupation, income, race, class, or gender, is equally deserving of life-sustaining medical care. That every American should be at liberty to choose an occupation best suited to their abilities and desires, and that this choice shall not be hindered due to the necessity of getting or keeping basic health care for themselves and their children. That good health is essential for the pursuit of happiness to which we are all entitled. Starting today, every American will be able to receive basic medical care from the doctor of their choice. Cost controls have been put into place so that a blood transfusion in Kansas City costs the same as in Duluth. Insurance companies have agreed to become non-profit entities; they have done so because their only other option was to be put out of business by a single-payer system. We have lifted the ban on importation of prescription drugs, because we also believe in a free and competitive market, from which American drug companies are currently protected, at great cost to the American people. You and your children will keep your health care regardless of job loss or relocation. You will keep it regardless of the profit margins of your employer. You will keep it if you are already ill, and you will keep it if you have the misfortune to become ill.
We have sided with the American people over the powerful, moneyed interests who would stop children from receiving care and who would subject our grandparents to the indignity of deciding between food and medication. We have sided with small business owners who are burdened with the rising costs of providing health insurance for their employees. This is the right thing to do, it is the fair thing to do, and we are pursuing it because we are convinced of its rightness and fairness. Because we are convinced that the benefits of this will so greatly outweigh the costs. We are pursuing it even if it means that we lose the next election, and the next; we would gladly sacrifice our own shallow electoral pursuits for the good of the American people.
(All right, the last line is a bit much.)
I accepted your friend request yesterday because, hey, why not, you're friends with lots of other people I moderately liked in high school and what's one more person on my news feed anyway. Then the very first status update I see from you says, "Brown won in Massachusets! That's _one_ more thing against socialism in this country!"
And you know what, I just wasn't in the mood. I mean, I realize the Democrats did their usual impression of a party run by arrogant retards, and they chose a candidate who was basically mediocre on every register, and then assumed they would win, and then Obama sort of meandered in during the fourth quarter when Rahm Emanuel finally went, "OH SHIT, we might lose TED KENNEDY'S seat to a COSMOPOLITAN CENTERFOLD" and so on. And I despise the Democrats for it, I truly do. But the fact that we're now probably not even going to get a bill (that was only-slightly-better-than-nothing anyway, and don't get me started on this socialism nonsensery) through because of a handful of voters in one state who thought that driving a pickup truck around was some sign of character...well, fuck that noise.
Current NYT headline: "Obama Weighs Shift in Health Plan, Seeking G.O.P. Backing"--well, that took all of ten goddamn minutes. Keep standing up for what you believe in, Obama! Otherwise we'll think your campaign was just a bunch of beautifully delivered empty rhetoric.
Anyway, if anyone was asking me (and I notice that they are not), a couple of things. First, I think Obama actually moved on health care too soon. I think he should have spent the first two years on a dedicated jobs creation program, a la FDR. Put people back to work, get them spending money, get the economy moving. Then, when the economy is on the upswing and everyone is feeling rather more benevolent and less pinched, proposing a new government program might have been a little more palatable. Too late now! Hunker down and eat some organic beets, because the Democrats are going to get spanked in the midterms. Oh, and your legislative agenda is now DOA. So kick back. Maybe Jersey Shore is on. (I'm building on a nice post by Brad at Sadly, No! here, by the way).
Secondly, since you're getting kicked to the curb anyway, you might as well go out screaming. Withdraw the POS bill and replace it with one that actually does something. Go full tilt: universal healthcare, goddammit, make them block it. Make them stop little Susie from getting her asthma medication and Grandma from getting her insulin. Make them stand up and defend corporations that directly (and immorally) profit from the illness and misfortune of Americans. Sack up and actually ask for the change that you believe in. A clear, simple, short bill, one that everyone can read and understand:
Resolved: that every American, regardless of occupation, income, race, class, or gender, is equally deserving of life-sustaining medical care. That every American should be at liberty to choose an occupation best suited to their abilities and desires, and that this choice shall not be hindered due to the necessity of getting or keeping basic health care for themselves and their children. That good health is essential for the pursuit of happiness to which we are all entitled. Starting today, every American will be able to receive basic medical care from the doctor of their choice. Cost controls have been put into place so that a blood transfusion in Kansas City costs the same as in Duluth. Insurance companies have agreed to become non-profit entities; they have done so because their only other option was to be put out of business by a single-payer system. We have lifted the ban on importation of prescription drugs, because we also believe in a free and competitive market, from which American drug companies are currently protected, at great cost to the American people. You and your children will keep your health care regardless of job loss or relocation. You will keep it regardless of the profit margins of your employer. You will keep it if you are already ill, and you will keep it if you have the misfortune to become ill.
We have sided with the American people over the powerful, moneyed interests who would stop children from receiving care and who would subject our grandparents to the indignity of deciding between food and medication. We have sided with small business owners who are burdened with the rising costs of providing health insurance for their employees. This is the right thing to do, it is the fair thing to do, and we are pursuing it because we are convinced of its rightness and fairness. Because we are convinced that the benefits of this will so greatly outweigh the costs. We are pursuing it even if it means that we lose the next election, and the next; we would gladly sacrifice our own shallow electoral pursuits for the good of the American people.
(All right, the last line is a bit much.)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Some People Are Bad People
Or, chickens are better people than people:
George Carlin - Chickens
Zacmac | MySpace Video
There is a Bible passage (there's a phrase I don't use very often) that used to puzzle me, but which I now think is the societal-level equivalent of one of Newton's Laws of Motion. It says, "To them that hath shall be given, but from them that hath not shall be taken even that which they have." The rich get richer, the poor get poorer; those of us who already have plenty keep getting more, and those that have nothing keep getting screwed. I am, of course, thinking of the terrible tragedy in Haiti, a country which was already part of the Axis of the Seriously Fucked Up, and which is now rubble.
So Rush Limbaugh (I keep waiting for that man to explode. When will it happen? Will it be on YouTube?) said he wasn't going to donate money to relief efforts in Haiti because they're already getting our tax money, whatever the fuck that means, and that this will just "burnish the Obama administration's credentials with both light and dark skinned black people" please die already, okaythanks. But the topper, as always, goes to Pat Robertson, who opined that Haiti was hit by an earthquake because they did a deal with the Devil.
And this is why I don't believe in God. Bear with me. See, Pat Robertson has to believe that there is a reason for things. He believes in an omnipotent, watchful, vengeful--but not unjust--God. If bad things happen to good people, then they clearly were not actually good people. The proof is in the pudding, the shit pudding, the natural disaster dessert flambe. So when sucky bullshit like this happens, Pat Robertson has to scratch around in his empty little bag of tricks and pull something out. Gays, lesbians, fornicating, uppity womenfolk, deals with the devil, what have you: you got what was coming to you! (As Jesus so eloquently said.)
The thing is, though, that this means that Pat Robertson has to believe that, along with the (only apparently) good people who were killed, the infants and children who died in Haiti yesterday made a deal with the Devil too. He has to think that no one who died in the earthquake (or who will die, be raped, starve, or catch an easily preventable disease, in the aftermath of the earthquake) is innocent. He has to believe this, because there's a corollary assumption: he, Pat Robertson, has succeeded not because of a fortuitous combination of race, education, background, timing, and con artistry, but because God loves him more, because he is a good person. In a way, I envy the simple egotism of this belief system. Bad things only happen to bad people, and it is their fault that they are bad, so let's not lose any sleep over it.
More proof that there is no God.
George Carlin - Chickens
Zacmac | MySpace Video
There is a Bible passage (there's a phrase I don't use very often) that used to puzzle me, but which I now think is the societal-level equivalent of one of Newton's Laws of Motion. It says, "To them that hath shall be given, but from them that hath not shall be taken even that which they have." The rich get richer, the poor get poorer; those of us who already have plenty keep getting more, and those that have nothing keep getting screwed. I am, of course, thinking of the terrible tragedy in Haiti, a country which was already part of the Axis of the Seriously Fucked Up, and which is now rubble.
So Rush Limbaugh (I keep waiting for that man to explode. When will it happen? Will it be on YouTube?) said he wasn't going to donate money to relief efforts in Haiti because they're already getting our tax money, whatever the fuck that means, and that this will just "burnish the Obama administration's credentials with both light and dark skinned black people" please die already, okaythanks. But the topper, as always, goes to Pat Robertson, who opined that Haiti was hit by an earthquake because they did a deal with the Devil.
And this is why I don't believe in God. Bear with me. See, Pat Robertson has to believe that there is a reason for things. He believes in an omnipotent, watchful, vengeful--but not unjust--God. If bad things happen to good people, then they clearly were not actually good people. The proof is in the pudding, the shit pudding, the natural disaster dessert flambe. So when sucky bullshit like this happens, Pat Robertson has to scratch around in his empty little bag of tricks and pull something out. Gays, lesbians, fornicating, uppity womenfolk, deals with the devil, what have you: you got what was coming to you! (As Jesus so eloquently said.)
The thing is, though, that this means that Pat Robertson has to believe that, along with the (only apparently) good people who were killed, the infants and children who died in Haiti yesterday made a deal with the Devil too. He has to think that no one who died in the earthquake (or who will die, be raped, starve, or catch an easily preventable disease, in the aftermath of the earthquake) is innocent. He has to believe this, because there's a corollary assumption: he, Pat Robertson, has succeeded not because of a fortuitous combination of race, education, background, timing, and con artistry, but because God loves him more, because he is a good person. In a way, I envy the simple egotism of this belief system. Bad things only happen to bad people, and it is their fault that they are bad, so let's not lose any sleep over it.
More proof that there is no God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)