Email overload, after falling in the lake--again! No, this time it wasn't frozen and I was only in up to my armpits. It wasn't even so cold that I didn't go in again to try to free the goddam raft that's still stuck near the beach. But it was cold; my hands were numb for more than an hour and my feet took hours to warm up, .
So, yeah, I'm tired. I watched TV news shows tonight: I'd have to be tired for that. I even saw a bit of O'Reilly: what a know-it-all, what a snide SOB he is! Both Schultz and Chris Matthews were shrill, the NPR people were understated, but not that interesting. And Piers Morgan, when I was watching, was covering the most inconsequential stuff I've seen on evening news shows. I was looking forward to Rachel Maddow, but some geek was subbing for her, talking about the "trigonometry" of news, and I switched the channel. And then, after Piers Morgan, I turned the boob tube off.
Now, to the substance of what I saw, After the Santorum sweep of Mississippi and Alabama, of course, there was a lot of gossip--on all the channels--about how Romney was having problems, but amassing more delegates than his rivals. More gossip was: how Santorum supporters wished Gingrich would bow out, and the reason he didn't was, as Matthews suggested, because of his outsize ego.
Afghanistan was yesterday's news, Sudan was visited because of George Clooney's interest, not for any other reason, although the situation there is dire. O'Reilly said snide things, still, about Sandra Fluke, and implied that Obama must want higher gas prices.
Which is absurd: it's one thing that could defeat Obama in the election. If oil skyrockets and not only does gasoline, but fuel oil, then the nation's economy, just getting into gear, will have to downshift once again. Yes, I do drive a shift.
The only thing that could win Obama the election then, would be the absolute idiocy of the Republican candidate--if it's Santorum--or the transparent hypocrisy and vacuity if it's Romney.
But it's a real danger. If the economy had to weather an oil shock, because of Israeli threats, or attack, against Iran, or if the hot peace in Sudan continues to disrupt the oil market, or if any number of other things might slow down our shaky recovery, then whichever clown the Republicans nominate might just win. He'd bring a mandate for: cutting the bejeezus out of social programs and "entitlements," bringing "religion" into government, while cutting taxes for the wealthy. He'd also pursue more wars, including the one on women and corporations would rule.
That looks like the 21st century version of the Roman Empire's Fifth Century, you know, the one that ended the western Roman Empire in 476.
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rick Santorum. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Reaction and Sharing--Romney, et al
Reactionary means someone whose politics could be characterized as "an action in a reverse direction or manner." Our whole politics is reactionary!
Santorum, and Romney have both endorsed "personhood" legislation: it would ban most methods of contraception. Even conservatives haven't been against contraception for about three decades! Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon all accepted the New Deal. Nixon expanded the Great Society. Yet, since Reagan, Republicans have progressively dismantled parts of both, helped by Milquetoast Democrats. Now, they want to repeal the Progressive era: cut and flatten taxes further and repeal all regulations.
The Republicans are driven by ideology and money, big money. Romney has recast himself as a conservative, from his moderate stance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation. Reaction may be his more natural mode: he's a very rich man, son of a very rich man, and became wealthier as a predator capitalist.
Why would Republicans drive so far right? Marx would have a good explanation: they represent the rise of an extremely wealthy class, which has cornered (stolen) most of the growth in productivity for the last thirty years. They have done so through corporate-friendly policies, favorable taxation, easy government contracts, imperial protection and the lax oversight they buy.
Romney, who never saw a pink slip and never imagined one until he blithered about it while electioneering, likens criticism of the wealthy expropriating more and more as "the politics of envy."
People who envy the wealthy, don't advocate fairer taxes, they play the lottery and vote Republican. It's people who object to the deck being stacked against them, who advocate progressive policies. They don't want hand-outs, they want fair wages, salaries and opportunities. They want the kind of health care that can keep them healthy. They want their children to have the chance to meet their full potential, too, just like the Romney boys, and they want to be able to retire when they're old and tired, to enjoy what's left of their lives, just as the elder Romneys have done.
That's not envy; that's equal opportunity and humanity. Perhaps, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Republican primary campaigns is the sense that all of the Republican candidates think that equal opportunity is unfair to them; they don't really want to share their cozy little world. Linked with this is an unspoken assumption that we live in a zero-sum world: if the hoi-polloi get more, then they will get less.
They would get less power; they might get less money and they might not, but living in a more egalitarian society has benefits: lower stress, greater safety, more stability, greater predictability, higher productivity and more happiness--for them, too. Studies demonstrate this. They wouldn't lose their riches, but they might save their necks: from revolution, or fascism.
But, like fifth century Roman Senators, our selfish class doesn't want to share.
Santorum, and Romney have both endorsed "personhood" legislation: it would ban most methods of contraception. Even conservatives haven't been against contraception for about three decades! Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon all accepted the New Deal. Nixon expanded the Great Society. Yet, since Reagan, Republicans have progressively dismantled parts of both, helped by Milquetoast Democrats. Now, they want to repeal the Progressive era: cut and flatten taxes further and repeal all regulations.
The Republicans are driven by ideology and money, big money. Romney has recast himself as a conservative, from his moderate stance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation. Reaction may be his more natural mode: he's a very rich man, son of a very rich man, and became wealthier as a predator capitalist.
Why would Republicans drive so far right? Marx would have a good explanation: they represent the rise of an extremely wealthy class, which has cornered (stolen) most of the growth in productivity for the last thirty years. They have done so through corporate-friendly policies, favorable taxation, easy government contracts, imperial protection and the lax oversight they buy.
Romney, who never saw a pink slip and never imagined one until he blithered about it while electioneering, likens criticism of the wealthy expropriating more and more as "the politics of envy."
People who envy the wealthy, don't advocate fairer taxes, they play the lottery and vote Republican. It's people who object to the deck being stacked against them, who advocate progressive policies. They don't want hand-outs, they want fair wages, salaries and opportunities. They want the kind of health care that can keep them healthy. They want their children to have the chance to meet their full potential, too, just like the Romney boys, and they want to be able to retire when they're old and tired, to enjoy what's left of their lives, just as the elder Romneys have done.
That's not envy; that's equal opportunity and humanity. Perhaps, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Republican primary campaigns is the sense that all of the Republican candidates think that equal opportunity is unfair to them; they don't really want to share their cozy little world. Linked with this is an unspoken assumption that we live in a zero-sum world: if the hoi-polloi get more, then they will get less.
They would get less power; they might get less money and they might not, but living in a more egalitarian society has benefits: lower stress, greater safety, more stability, greater predictability, higher productivity and more happiness--for them, too. Studies demonstrate this. They wouldn't lose their riches, but they might save their necks: from revolution, or fascism.
But, like fifth century Roman Senators, our selfish class doesn't want to share.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Only His Hairdresser
…knows for sure. After seeing the ABC debate in New Hampshire: both Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney must dye their hair, including those carefully crafted perfect gray temples connoting wisdom. Neither projects a real person. Rick Santorum manages to look chinless, despite his long face; he's not quite as robotic as Romney, but still there is something not real about him. Gingrich, the Newt, projects a real person, albeit an unpleasant, even a nasty one. My wife found Rick Perry the only candidate who was at all attractive, but he was oh, so dumb! And then there's Ron Paul: he's not stupid, and he's real, but he's crazy, like a crazy older uncle.
I find it unbelievable that the 1% hasn't found a more personable representative than any of the above, especially Romney, to whom the major money seems to be flowing. Republicans should hire a real actor, like Reagan.
The ABC panel lobbed such softball questions. The classic: Do you, Rick Perry, believe that because you served in the military you'd be the best to lead this country as Commander in Chief?
What's he going to say? "Of course not; I wasn't a General?" Gingrich claims to empathize with every soldier he would send to war, because he was an Army brat growing up. He brushes aside the claim that he got five deferments.
Gingrich came across as the most articulate--and cantankerous--but he made a major booboo at the end: he said he'd be watching Saturday night basketball; it's still the football season.
Every GOP candidate except Ron Paul acts as if he's raring to attack Iran. Each, again except Paul, also states as fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons: there is no proof that it is, only data that imply it's keeping the option open. Santorum goes everyone one worse. We should attack Iran: our credibility is at stake.
All of the candidates, excepting Ron Paul, also deplore Obama's proposed cuts to Defense: Romney and Santorum want to spend more, although they make pro-forma noises about cutting the deficit. Only Paul addresses our fundamental budget problem with Defense--maybe that's why significant campaign funds come from rank and file military--but his solution--cut almost everything government does--would usher in the Dark Ages, like the Goths' takeover in 476.
If any one of these men becomes President, we'll have a disaster that makes 2008 look like a minor rehearsal. Slash regulations to unleash business--like the deregulation that led to the 2008 collapse? We need more regulations. Cut taxes on "job creators," cut or eliminate the corporate tax--and the "death tax?" Who will pay for the expanded military, the police to enforce abortion and immigration laws and the support for unwanted babies, generated by banning abortions and Santorum's desired elimination of contraception?
The "99%."
These "leaders" are as awful as Honorius and Valentinian III at the tail end of the Roman Empire.
I find it unbelievable that the 1% hasn't found a more personable representative than any of the above, especially Romney, to whom the major money seems to be flowing. Republicans should hire a real actor, like Reagan.
The ABC panel lobbed such softball questions. The classic: Do you, Rick Perry, believe that because you served in the military you'd be the best to lead this country as Commander in Chief?
What's he going to say? "Of course not; I wasn't a General?" Gingrich claims to empathize with every soldier he would send to war, because he was an Army brat growing up. He brushes aside the claim that he got five deferments.
Gingrich came across as the most articulate--and cantankerous--but he made a major booboo at the end: he said he'd be watching Saturday night basketball; it's still the football season.
Every GOP candidate except Ron Paul acts as if he's raring to attack Iran. Each, again except Paul, also states as fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons: there is no proof that it is, only data that imply it's keeping the option open. Santorum goes everyone one worse. We should attack Iran: our credibility is at stake.
All of the candidates, excepting Ron Paul, also deplore Obama's proposed cuts to Defense: Romney and Santorum want to spend more, although they make pro-forma noises about cutting the deficit. Only Paul addresses our fundamental budget problem with Defense--maybe that's why significant campaign funds come from rank and file military--but his solution--cut almost everything government does--would usher in the Dark Ages, like the Goths' takeover in 476.
If any one of these men becomes President, we'll have a disaster that makes 2008 look like a minor rehearsal. Slash regulations to unleash business--like the deregulation that led to the 2008 collapse? We need more regulations. Cut taxes on "job creators," cut or eliminate the corporate tax--and the "death tax?" Who will pay for the expanded military, the police to enforce abortion and immigration laws and the support for unwanted babies, generated by banning abortions and Santorum's desired elimination of contraception?
The "99%."
These "leaders" are as awful as Honorius and Valentinian III at the tail end of the Roman Empire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)