Monthly Archives: November 2010

Thoughts on the new year from the Island of California



Early explorers thought that California is an island. It might as well be.

2011 should be an interesting political year.

It’s ironic that Repugnican former U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been convicted of money laundering just as his stupid white male ilk, led this time by the steely-cold-blue-eyed Repugnican Rep. John Boehner, are ready to take over the House — you know, to bring back the good old days of Tom DeLay & Co.

When we of the left say that Americans are fucktards, this is the kind of thing that we’re talking about: expecting the same bunch of people who sank the nation in the first place to be the same ones to rescue it.

Here in California, things should be at least a little different next year.

On November 2, not a single Repugnican was elected to statewide office here in California, and come early January, gone will be Repugnican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was elected governor in the gubernatorial recall do-over election of 2003. (The Repugnican candidate in the 2002 gubernatorial election, Bill Simon, was an uncharismatic Richie Rich fucktard who lost to the uncharismatic Democratic incumbent, Gov. Gray Davis, although by just under 5 percent, so the Repugs just orchestrated a do-over election the next year with a much more charismatic candidate this time.)

Schwarzenegger promised to turn California around, but of course he leaves the nation’s most populous state in worse shape than it was when he got it. Ironically, in his too-short recall election campaign, Schwarzenegger blamed the BushCheneyCorp’s sins, including the Enron* debacle, on then-Gov. Gray Davis, even though Schwarzenegger had had a secret meeting with Enron head Ken Lay before he went on to run for governor of the state that Enron crippled. By Schwarzenegger’s own logic in 2003, though, we can blame only him for California’s current mess (even though, of course, the unelected BushCheneyCorp has been a huge factor in California’s decline, from 2001 to present). 

In the days of old, it was believed that California is an enchanted island — the long peninsula of Baja California is what gave the early explorers the idea that California is an island; they didn’t realize that Baja California is attached to the rest of the continent. (It is, in fact, attached to Mexico just under California.)

With the Mojave Desert in the southern part of the state and the Sierra Nevada mountain range running along the eastern part of the state, however, geography actually did leave California as somewhat of an island to itself, and for a while, anyway, these natural barriers for the most part kept the hordes of westward-immigrating white people out (two words: Donner party…).

Speaking of white people, it’s fairly clear that brown is the new black, and that as the nation’s population of Latinos continues to grow — here in California, more than a third of us are Latino, and more Latinos live in California than in any other U.S. state — the white supremacists, whose numbers, at least proportionally to the numbers of non-whites, are dwindling, are going to continue to blame the decline of the Great White American Empire on the browned-skinned.

A tea-bagging white-supremacist dipshit here in California (yes, unfortunately, plenty of fucktarded whiteys have made it past the Mojave Desert and the Sierra Nevada to inflict themselves upon the rest of us) has been given the legal go-ahead to try to collect enough signatures to put an Arizona-like anti-Latino law on the state ballot.

I expect the white supremacist, who used to be a Repugnican Party county chair (surprise surprise), to succeed in getting his signatures; it seems that nothing appeals to the voters like hatred, bigotry, ignorance and making scapegoats of minority groups. The voters seem to be loathe to OK anything productive, but to dog-pile upon already historically persecuted minority groups is just great fun! Proposition Hate was evidence of that.

However, while Prop H8 passed in November 2008, I expect a proposition for an Arizona-style anti-Latino law to fail here in California, where, unlike in Arizona, the majority of us are just fine with sharing our state with those of other races, and here in California, Latinos aren’t “other” — they are part of what makes California California, perhaps especially since California used to belong to Mexico, and the names of California’s largest cities are testament to that historical fact: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento, etc., etc.

Ironically, it seems that it’s the brown-skinned who most likely can save the sinking United States of America. While the United States’ white overlords seem congenitally unable to do anything but to overextend themselves and to self-destruct, like their British forebears did, progress is being made in South America.

Notes a columnist for The Christian Science Monitor:

One in 10 South Americans – about 38 million people – escaped poverty during the past decade. That’s remarkable progress by any measure.

Contrast that with the United States, where poverty has been growing due to a decade-long stagnation of income for the middle class and the Great Recession. In 2009, the U.S. had more poor people than in any of the 51 years since poverty levels have been estimated.

Of course, America’s poor are far better off than South America’s poor. And the U.S. still has a much lower poverty rate (14.2 percent versus around 70 percent). South America remains infamous for huge income gaps between a tiny elite and masses of people making, often, just $1 or $2 a day.

Still, 10 years of growing prosperity has shrunk that gap. The credit goes to democratic leftist governments that have vastly boosted social spending to help the poor, maintains Mark Weisbrot, a left-of-center economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

Half of that improvement comes from Brazil. Under outgoing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the nation pushed up the minimum wage a real 65 percent in eight years, helping to raise the wages of tens of millions of workers, including many receiving more than minimum wage. A program offered small cash grants to poor families if they sent their children to school.

The results? Real income per person is up some 24 percent since 2000. Illiteracy is down. Poverty has been halved since 2002; extreme poverty is down by 70 percent, says Mr. Weisbrot, pulling more than 19 million people into the middle class.

And the economy hasn’t suffered. Unemployment under Mr. da Silva’s presidency dropped from more than 11 percent to 6.7 percent. Income inequality has fallen considerably.

Other nations with “progressive” governments have made much social progress, notes Weisbrot. He lists Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Venezuela. Under President Hugo Chávez, attacked by the right in the U.S., oil-rich Venezuela has tripled social spending per person since 2003. Attendance at universities has doubled. Most of the poor now get health care under a government program.

The continent weathered the financial crisis relatively well. Social spending rose. So there was no big rise in poverty, says Norbert Schady, an economic adviser to the Inter-American Development Bank, speaking from Quito, Ecuador.

Moreover, prospects for continued economic progress are strong. The Institute of International Finance (IIF), set up by the world’s biggest banks, forecasts 6 percent growth in gross domestic product in Latin America this year, which includes Mex­ico and Central America as well as South Am­er­ica. That growth should shrink poverty further.

By contrast, the IIF forecasts a 2.5 percent growth rate this year for the U.S. At that slow pace the U.S. could see a further rise in poverty. [Emphasis mine.]

South America’s new economic vigor is also causing a geopolitical shift. The U.S. has long considered Latin America part of its political and economic sphere of influence. Officials running South America’s left-of-center governments often charge the U.S. with imperial ambitions.

But as U.S. growth slows, South America’s businesses have reached out to other markets. While 15 percent of South America’s trade is still with the U.S., a greater share is tied to Europe. Also, trade within the continent is growing with a free-trade deal. So South American governments no longer feel so much under the thumb of the U.S.

What the columnist doesn’t note is that the Eye of Sauron, which sits atop the Pentagon, for decades focused its evil gaze upon Latin America, where its Uruk-hai ruthlessly quashed any democratically elected governments that actually dared to put the needs of the people above the greed of American corporations. And that now, with the Eye of Sauron having been focused on destroying the Middle East for the past decade, democracy has been flourishing in Latin America, and consequently, poverty there has been declining, now that U.S. interference there is at its lowest in decades.

Filmmaker Oliver Stone, in his worthwhile documentary “South of the Border” (in which he visits with South American presidents Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Lula da Silva, Cristina Kirchner [and her husband, former President Nestor Kirchner] and Rafael Correa and with Cuban leader Raul Castro), posits that, ironically, it might be the democratization of Latin America, with Latinos’ growing influence on U.S. politics, that finally democratizes the United States of America. (You know, something like that dreaded “domino effect” that the right wing used to talk about where Vietnam was concerned.)

California, with more Latinos than any other state (more than 13 million of them**), and now with Democrat Jerry Brown to take back the helm of the state on January 3, just might lead the way in the democratization of the nation.

The myth of California as a magical island might not be so mythical after all.

It will be interesting to watch the rest of the nation from the Island of California in 2011. I expect to see the nation only worsen under a Repugnican-controlled House of Representatives, and it will be interesting to see which wingnut emerges as the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nominee. Will it be Sarah Palin-Quayle, who says that we must stand with our “allies” in North Korea?*** It would be rather Kubrickian if a U.S. president nuked the wrong Korea, wouldn’t it?

Stay tuned. I sure will, from my island.

*Such wonderful things come out of the state of Texas: Tom DeLay, George W. Bush and Enron, to name just three. Really, when Repugnican-of-course Texas Gov. Rick Perry talks about secession, we should give him our full support in such an endeavor.

**Texas is at No. 2 in terms of its Latino population, with around 9 million Latinos.

***Really, though, it’s apparent that white privilege makes whites incredibly stupid, probably from their overly comfortable lives and their lack of any challenges.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Time for revolution in Kabuki Nation

There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — [pauses] — shame on you. Fool me — [pauses] — You can’t get fooled again!

George W. Bush

It’s unsettling to know that you are unrepresented, that your “representative” “democracy” is a fucking sham, but after you see the same patterns over and over again (most notably, the endless back-and-forth between the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Party, which primarily seems to consist of examples of history repeating itself), there is no other conclusion that you can draw.

The us-vs.-them (red-vs.-blue, blue-vs.-red) drama can keep you enthralled for a while, perhaps even for your entire lifetime, but some of us eventually come to realize that under the status quo there never is going to be a winner, that the struggle — which apparently was fabricated, or at least is perpetually stoked, in order to keep us distracted from all of the brazenly treasonous looting and consolidation of power that’s been going on — never was meant to end.

The game is (almost) up, though.

Enough Americans are giving up on both of the two major parties*, as increasingly the members of the two major parties serve themselves and their cronies instead of the American people, and even the left is starting to talk about violent revolution (which the right has been talking about for some time — against the wrong people, though, of course).

Ironically, the left and the right have common enemies, but, being too wrapped up in throwing punches at each other, the left and the right don’t see the instigators who stand at the sidelines, raking in the billions and billions of dollars that they’ve stolen from us on the left and on the right.

This is not to say that I agree with the right. Way too many on the right have a “vision” of the United States of America being under theocratic, “Christo”fascist rule, in which misogyny, patriarchy, racism and white supremacism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., predominate.

Over my dead body.

But the “tea baggers” and I do have common enemies, and no, they’re not Muslims or “illegals.” Our worst enemies are from within; most of them were born and raised here and (would) claim to be staunch patriots.

The documentary “Inside Job,” about the wholly preventable financial meltdown of 2008, makes this clear. For years those in the financial industry have created for themselves — through lobbying politicians to pass laws that benefit themselves, through political campaign contributions, through the revolving door between governmental oversight jobs and financial-industry (and other corporate) jobs, through pro-plutocratic mass media like Faux “News,” etc. — an environment in which they can steal hundreds of billions of dollars yet never see the inside of a prison cell.

These are the traitors who have destroyed the nation — and to their treasonous ranks we must add the traitors of the military-industrial complex, who also rob us blind of billions and billions and billions of our dollars while lying to us that it’s all about “national security” and “defense” when, in fact, it’s all about war profiteering.**

I’m talking about individuals who know that their incredibly selfish actions are harming their own nation — but they don’t give a shit.

If this isn’t treason, then what is?

These traitors throw some of their millions (which to them is chump change) into enough right-wing media operations to ensure that the perpetually battered masses blame the wrong groups for the nation’s ills: “illegals,” Muslims (Osama bin Laden only wishes that he could have done as much damage to the United States of America as the members of BushCheneyCorp and their ilk have done), same-sex couples who wish to marry, et. al.

Because if the masses correctly identified the enemy, they might do something about it. (Now might be a good time to buy stock in pitchforks and torches…)

Fact is, our system is so corrupt, is so rotten to the bone (as “Inside Job” demonstrates perfectly), that the only thing to do now to prevent the total collapse of the nation is to scrap the system and start over. This means that the corrupt old players, all of them, must be forcibly removed from the playing field and put in prison for their treason. (I’d prefer execution for the worst of the mass-murdering traitors, such as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but I’d probably settle for life imprisonment, which is quite just for the amount of pain, suffering and damage that these traitors have caused millions of other people.)

As Ted Rall points out in his excellent new book The Anti-American Manifesto, those who have accumulated an insane amount of political power most likely won’t part with it voluntarily, which makes revolution the only viable course of action. Whether or not such a revolution is bloody is (mostly) up to those who have accumulated an insane amount of power and money at the expense of the rest of us.

Work within the system, you say? Uh, we tried that with Barack Obama, whose only real accomplishment, history could record, is that after having pissed off enough Americans with his promises of “hope” and “change” but only having delivered more of the same, he finally spurred the long-overdue revolution against the plutocracy that saved the nation from complete collapse.

*Ironically, it seems as though the “tea party” is leading this charge, even though I disagree diametrically with the majority of the “tea party’s” platform, and, of course, the Repugnican Party appears to be attempting to co-opt the “tea party” as much as it can, with at least some degree of success.

**The one thing that I have in agreement with libertarians Ron Paul and Rand Paul is that the insanely bloated U.S. military budget has to be reduced. It’s insane — as well as treasonous — to tell the American people that they have to settle for even less in Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements while the war profiteers get more and more each year in what is not “defense,” but in what is thievery.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Issa is an asshole

Republicans flex muscle, Obama promises corrections

AFP photo

Uber-ambitious Repugnican pipsqueak Darrell Issa promises nothing but gridlock in Washington over the next two years.

On November 4, 2008, Democrat Barack Obama received more than 69 million votes, with his Repugnican opponent receiving more than 9 million fewer votes. Obama received the most number of votes for a presidential candidate in U.S. history.

Love him or hate him, but a “tyrant” (as the wingnuts love to call him) Barack Obama is not. He is a democratically elected U.S. president — um, the most democratically elected U.S. president in history.

Repugnican U.S. Representative Darrell Issa of Southern California, by contrast, by the count thus far, received a whopping 110,329 votes on November 2, according to the California Secretary of State’s website. (Some ballots are still being tallied, so his eventual total might be a bit higher than that, but still, I think, you can get the point.)

The numbers don’t daunt Issa, however. He’s a regular Little Napoleon.

Issa initially called Obama “one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times” on Rush Limbaugh’s show. Issa then backed away from that slander, stating, “I am not saying that the president is personally corrupt. But his administration has to change direction…”

(Because the unelected, bogus-war-starting, record-federal-budget-deficit-setting Bush regime was all about not being corrupt, you see.)

Issa is set to head the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in January, and, already having decided that Barack Obama — er, the Obama administration — is “corrupt,” Issa promises an orgy of investigations into the Obama White House.

Politico quotes Issa as having declared, “I want seven hearings a week times 40 weeks,” and Politico adds:

To give an idea of how expansive Issa’s oversight plans are, look at the record of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) when he chaired the oversight committee during in the 110th Congress during George W. Bush’s presidency. Waxman held 203 oversight hearings in two years; Issa has signaled he’s prepared to hold about 280 in just one year.

This isn’t good-faith “oversight.” This is badgering. This is nothing but an attempt of a man with a small mind but big ambitions to try to make a bigger name for himself by ensuring that the Obama administration gets done as little as possible over the next two years.

Darrell Issa — “formerly a CEO of Directed Electronics, the Vista, Calif.-based manufacturer of automobile security and convenience products,” according to Wikipedia (hey, wasn’t Tom DeLay a pest-control guy?) — perhaps is best known here in California for having spent more than $1.6 million of his own money for the petition-signature-gathering effort for California’s 2003 gubernatorial recall election (the election that put Arnold Schwarzenegger in charge of the show). 

“At the time he made the contribution, it was widely believed that Issa intended to place himself on the ballot to replace [Democratic then-Gov. Gray] Davis,” Wikipedia notes, adding, “However, following the entrance of fellow Republican … Schwarzenegger into the [gubernatorial recall] race, two days before the filing deadline, Issa announced that he would not run.”

I see little difference between Repugnican millionaire Issa’s pathetic attempt to buy the California governorship in 2003 and Repugnican billionaire Nutmeg Whitman’s* more recent effort, except that Whitman’s record-smashing self-funding made Issa’s look like chump change, even though Wikipedia calls Issa the “richest member of Congress.”

I’m all for good-faith oversight and I’m all for checks and balances, but what Issa promises us is not an improvement of the state of our nation, but even more gridlock while he tries to make, yet once again, a bigger name for himself.

While Darrell Issa is rabidly investigating the “corrupt” Obama administration, who’s going to be watching Darrell Issa?

*And just as Nutmeg Whitman had never held elected office but sought to buy the governorship of California right off, Wikipedia notes:

Issa’s first campaign for elected office came in 1998, when he sought the Republican nomination for United States Senate to run against incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer. He backed the campaign with $10 million of his personal wealth, but lost the primary election to California State Treasurer Matt Fong. Fong’s campaign raised $3 million from contributions and complained that Issa’s wealth made for an uneven playing field (Issa had only $400,000 in contributions)….

Failing to buy a U.S. Senate seat, Issa then went on to try to buy the governorship of the nation’s most populous state, apparently. I have little personal doubt that he’d love to try to buy the presidency someday.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Barack Obama wastes no time raising white flag — a la Bill Clinton



“Remember what happened to [Bill] Clinton after the ‘Republican Revolution’ sweep of 1994? He spent 1995 locked in a bizarre ‘co-presidency’ with House Speaker Newt Gingrich before figuring out that his ‘partner’ was more interested in obstructionist sabotage than bipartisanship. [Barack] Obama is heading down the same bloody path with John Boehner,” left-wing columnist Ted Rall presciently noted recently. 

President Barack Obama today promised to make “midcourse corrections and adjustments,” already conceding to the Repugnican House majority-elect — and probably giving Repugnican speaker-of-the-House-in-waiting John Boehner a raging boner. (Better than Viagra for the stupid white man, Barack Obama is.)

This is something that no Repugnican president would ever do, surrender before the battle has even begun. Unfortunately, it’s what we’ve grown quite used to seeing from Democrats.

Of course, even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Obama never spent his political capital, but held onto it like Ebenezer Scrooge. As Ted Rall recently pointed out,

If Obama was going to shine, it was going to be during 2009. Elected by a sizable margin with an undeniable, media-backed mandate for change during a severe economic crisis he could exploit to push through his agenda, Obama also enjoyed the rare luxury of a Democratic House of Representatives and a nearly filibuster-proof Democratic Senate.

Instead, Obama surreally spent 2009 (and 2010) accomplishing precious little, and now it’s too late. (As Rall also notes, “the safest time to deliver to your base is the first year of a presidency; the passage of time allows the anger of the moderates to cool in time for the next election.”)

Now, the question seems to be whether Obama will be a one-term Democratic president a la Jimmy Carter or a two-term Repugnican-ass-licking “Democratic” president like Bill Clinton. (My money, like Rall’s, is on the latter.)

I don’t believe that the Repugnicans took back the House on Tuesday because the majority of Americans have any special love for the Repugnican (Tea) Party’s “values” (as these “values” actually are practiced, anyway).

I believe that the Repugnicans took back the House because the Repugnicans talk tough and enough people buy the Repugnicans’ faux populism. And the short memory of the voters here in the United States of Amnesia also certainly greatly helped the Repugnican ticket on Tuesday (except for here in California, where our long-term memory functions much better).

On Tuesday the voters responded to the Repugnicans’ show of confidence, and it seems that the typical voter will side with the candidate who projects the most confidence, no matter how wrong he or she is, over the candidate who is right but who shows any temerity or tentativeness. So all too often the wrong-but-“strong” Repugnican beats the correct-but-cowering Democrat.

After Barack Obama’s bait (“hope” and “change”) and switch (a Clintonian “Democratic” presidency), though, I no longer hold out any hope that the Democratic Party ever will reform itself. One false promise replaces the last one, year after year, and it seems to me that violent revolution will come long before any meaningful reform in Washington ever will.

Ted Rall and I agree on that, too.

I wish that I could say that I disagree with Rall’s assertion, in his latest book, that all that the left can do now is to pre-emptively revolt before the right-wing revolt fully materializes, but I cannot.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bush: Let them (drown while I) eat cake

So there’s a news item about former “President” George W. Bush having told interviewer NBC’s Matt Lauer that allowing a photo of him to be taken above Hurricane Katrina-devastated New Orleans in Air Force One was a “huge mistake.”

Wow.

Here is the exchange:

LAUER: Let’s get to the picture that we may have seen more of you in the last couple years of your presidency than any other picture. You’re sitting in Air Force One, flying back toward Washington. You fly right over New Orleans and you look out the window.

BUSH:  Yes. Huge mistake.

LAUER: Yeah. And in comes the press and they take that picture. And it made you look so out of touch.

BUSH: Detached and uncaring. No question about it.

LAUER: Whose fault was it?

BUSH: It’s always my fault. I mean I was the one who should have said, A, don’t take my picture, B, let’s land in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, C, let’s don’t even come close to the area. Let’s — the next place to be seen is in Washington at a command center. I mean, it was my fault.

LAUER: When the picture’s released, you write, “I immediately knew it was a problem.”

BUSH: Of course. I’d been around long enough to know that when it was released. And the reason why we didn’t land in Louisiana is because I was concerned that first responders would be pulled off their task and I’d be criticized. In retrospect, however, I should have touched down in Baton Rouge, met with the governor and walked out and said, “I hear you. We understand. And we’re going to help the state and help the local governments with as much resources as needed.” And then got back on a flight up to Washington. I did not do that. And paid a price for it.

Nowhere in the news article do I see Bush (or Lauer) express concern for the more than 1,800 confirmed fatalities due to the unelected Bush regime’s criminal negligence regarding Hurricane Katrina. Instead, I see a discussion about how Bush should have handled the public relations aspect of it better.

Does the apparent sociopathic Bush feel any remorse or guilt for the more than 1,800 dead? Or is his only concern that he “paid a [public-relations] price” for his bungled post-Katrina itinerary?

And is the news photo in discussion —

Associated Press photo

really worse than this news photo?

Associated Press photo

That photo is a photo of what George W. Bush was doing on August 29, 2005, the day that Hurricane Katrina made landfall: He was sampling John McCain’s birthday cake near Phoenix, Arizona.

But don’t call Bush detached from just one photo!

How about Barbara Bush’s recorded comment about the Hurricane Katrina refugees in Texas: “And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them”?

No, it wasn’t just one news photo that might have given someone the impression that Richie Rich frat boy George W. Bush is a bit detached.

Again, note that corporate media celebrity Matt Lauer also seems to be pretty fucking detached from the suffering that thousands of people have experienced due to Hurricane Katrina. Lauer is in his own little privileged bubble just as much as Bush is, and no doubt Lauer’s corporate overlords prevent Lauer from asking any tough questions of Bush, such as whether or not Bush feels guilty for the thousands and thousands of deaths that he caused, directly or through criminal negligence, during his eight long years of unelected rule, not only on American soil (such as with Hurricane Katrina and with what took place on September 11, 2001) but also in the sands of Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

Being that George W. Bush was a major fucking liar during his hostile occupation of the White House, I can’t imagine that his forthcoming book, Decision Points, contains much, if any, substantive truth that isn’t flattering. And, as Yahoo! News puts it, “It’s likely that most of the revelations in Bush’s book will be covered before the title becomes available in stores [on November 9],” so that’s further reason not to waste the time and money on the book.

In any event, it was horrible enough having to live the George W. Bush years. I have zero desire to relive them by reading his candy-coated version of the events.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

MSNBC caves in and throws Olbermann under the bus

I learned early on in my days of journalism that there’s no such fucking thing as free speech when you are the property of some corporation.

Oh, sure, you can say or write whatever you want when you are employed by a corporation — subject to termination or other adverse action, of course.

This is why I’d much rather be an unpaid blogger than a paid corporate whore: I can say whatever the fuck I want to say without having to worry about being fired or otherwise shit and pissed upon by my corporate overlords who care only about looking out for their own best plutocratic interests.

Is supporting a political campaign a form of free speech? At least for the corporations it is — the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court more or less ruled so this year; not only are corporations people, but they have free-speech rights, according to the right wing and their friends on the “high” court.

Yet MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who apparently has no rights because he is an actual person and not a corporate “person,” has been suspended indefinitely from his job without pay for having donated to three different Democratic candidates.

Journalistic ethics, you see.

(Because I am not employed by a corporation) I say: Fuck. That. Shit.

If everyone were playing fairly, I might tend to agree that maybe Olbermann has compromised his “journalistic ethics,” but (1) Faux “News” not long ago gave $1 million to the Repugnican Party (to give just one example of how the right-wing media handle “ethics”) and (2) Olbermann makes his political leanings quite well known, so it’s dubious that we can call him a “journalist.” He’s much more of a commentator — that is, a man with an opinion who vocalizes his opinion — than he is a journalist.

Further, the rules have changed. Unbiased journalism is a thing of the past. In the mass media it’s left-vs.-right now, with most of what is called “news” being pro-right-wing. And mass-media journalism never was unbiased anyway. It’s always had a pro-corporate slant because it always has been the plutocrats and the corporatocrats who have owned and controlled the mass media, from William Randolph Hearst to Rupert Murdoch.

In my journalism days I never agreed with the “ethics” rule that a journalist covering politics never should give money to a political candidate or to a political cause. You don’t lose your citizenship and your civil rights because you’re a journalist. Journalists all have their own opinions anyway, so they should be able to participate fully as citizens in the sham that we call a “democracy.”

And it is foolish and dangerous for us serfs to continue to surrender our right to participate politically because some wingnut might cry “foul” while the corporations shamelessly claim “personhood” and participate fully in the political process, throwing millions and billions of dollars behind their right-wing, pro-plutocratic causes.

More rights for the corporations and fewer rights for us serfs — we serfs have to revolt against this kind of bullshit now.

And for the left to disarm unilaterally while the right continues its gross abuses of power will only propel the United States of Amnesia even more quickly into the fascism into which is already has been descending for some time now.

MSNBC is unbiased?

Good!

The nation needs a counterweight to the shameless right-wing excesses of Faux “News” — and to the general pro-corporate slant of the mass media in general.

You can sign the petition to MSNBC to show your disapproval of its suspension of Keith Olbermann by clicking here.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Win some, lose some

Posted November 2, 2010, 10:50 p.m.

John Boehner

Associated Press photo

You say Boehner, I say blogging material: Anyway, here Repugnican U.S. Rep. John Boehner’s steel-cold blue eyes well up with tears as he ponders how he’ll abuse his new-found power to further help the filthy rich at the expense of the dipshits who actually believe that the Repugnicans actually care about them (and also at the expense of the rest of us).

Tonight’s election results turned out to be what I’d expected: A win for Democratic Governor-Elect Jerry Brown and for Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer here in my home state of California, a ref — er, a repudiation of Repugnican millionaires and billionaires who want to buy office, at least here on the Left Coast.

I had expected Proposition 19, which would have legalized the use of marijuana here in California, to fail, as polls had predicted that it would. (Marijuana, like same-sex marriage, will be legal in all 50 states one day; we just have to wait for a lot of old fucks to kick off and take their stodgy, outdated beliefs with them to their graves.)

I had expected Proposition 23, Big Oil’s attempt to hamstring the fight against climate change in California, to fail, and it did, enabling California to remain at the forefront of combatting climate change.

And last but not least, I had expected the Democrats to lose some seats in the U.S. Senate but to retain their majority, and I had expected the Democrats to lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The upshot of the Repugnicans winning control of the House is that (1) I’ll have plenty of blogging material for the next two years, as Repugnican Ohio Rep. John Boehner, to me, with those icy cold blue eyes of his (I have blue eyes also, but mine are warm blue eyes, thank you very much), is Evil Incarnate, and (2) the Repugnicans in the House certainly won’t be able to fix the nation’s economy, any more than the same surgeon who botched your operation is the one to fix the damage that he created, and therefore I expect that in 2012 the Democrats will regain the House after the fickle voters swing back to the Dems, and that the Dems will keep the White House, as well as make up for at least some of today’s losses in the Senate. 

In politics, you rarely get everything you want.

Today, in politics we got most of what I wanted — and, I daresay, now the Democrats will fare better in 2012 than they would have had they retained control of the House of Representatives today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized