January 24, 2006
Now that the cat is out of the bag and it has become clear to us all that the President and his Cabinet intend to spy on Americans and to stretch the meaning of the law until it is paper thin, all we can do is sit back and reflect on how we got this far.
The neo-cons have succeeded in painting liberal democracy as an evil, as the weak stepchild of failed socialist policy. They have succeeded in painting any kind of dissent as inviting terrorism, if not outright fostering it. They have succeeded in convincing the poor and the marginalized that their condition is wholly their fault and that if they were morally upright, they would be destitute or in want.
How did this happen?
The Failure of Liberal Policy. Liberal Policy failed because it created bureaucratic entanglements that have made it increasingly hard for small businesses to operate and because the rhetoric often used was of the Yippy variety, i.e., “if you are not with me then you are against me.” In short, it was polarizing. The objective of Liberal Policy was certainly not either of these things, but both are the logical outcome of extremism and fundamentalism within the ranks of the liberals themselves. In a two party system, there necessarily have to be extremists on both ends of the spectrum. There is no where else for them to go, yet they need to be somewhere. The neo-cons have just shifted the focus and the mirrors in such a way that all liberals are seen in the same light – one that is bad and bad for America. It is a dirty word. “Oh, you liberal, you!”
For years, the neo-cons have been wheedling their way into the common parlance; they have used persuasion both pretty and ugly to convince Americans that liberalism is going to weaken the country so that “others” can come in and destroy us. They do not see the country so much as a shining star of freedom as much as they see it as the current reigning heavyweight champion. They do not see the American people as free citizens so much as they see them as potential security risks; otherwise, why would they want to spy on us?
Cheney has been a mastermind of creating the “us” versus “them”, like a Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam cartoon. For him, “us” means only those who agree with him. Taking the Yippy movement’s own rhetoric as his own, he has created an image of Americans that is absolutely frightening. His vision is that we are either all 100% behind his policies to spy, to torture, to forfeit due process, to suspend the First Amendment and so forth, or we are liberals who threaten the very security of the country and therefore our very way of life.
What is our very way of life? If it is not a right to privacy, due process, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of the press and free speech, then just what is our way of life? Many young people believe that our way of life means free to consume at will, whether food, SUV’s, shopping, energy, sex or drugs. They do not see invasion of privacy as an issue as long as they continue to consume at alarming rates. This is exactly what the neo-cons want.
The pacifier of unbridled consumerism is a necessary ingredient of the Cheney & Bush War. Without it, they could not convince the rest of the people that they are preserving anything, much less our way of life. Leading economic indicators are tossed around daily. This is an attempt to convince us that our way of life is in fact being preserved and that we should carry on as normal. And they warn us that voting for liberals will bring down our way of life, because liberals raise taxes, weaken the military and befriend terrorists. They tell us that in order to keep this from happening, we must have a strong authoritarian government.
In the political history of Man, the natural desire to have a participatory government is always stressed when social problems become complex. The Greek “demos”, from which we take the name “democracy” ended up with an autocratic government precisely because the threat of outside invasion (which was very real) stressed the old tribal process. The French Revolution found itself quickly faced with Empire when Napoleon came to power – again during a time of serious threat. Hitler’s rise to power was patterned on history – he and his publicists knew that by convincing the German people that their very identity was at risk he could persuade them to give him more and more power. Fascism in fact requires that the “us” fear the “them” and that a patriarchal figure of immense authority be installed as head of state. If Caesar or Augustus were alive today, both would agree that any threat real or imagined should be snuffed out, and that, if required, dissolution of the legislative power would be as valid a response as any to a serious outside threat.
But is the threat we face now serious enough that we should consider empowering the Executive Branch in such a way that it has no Congressional or Judicial oversight, or in such a way that domestic spying can take place without any of the checks and balances set in place by codified law? Is the threat significant enough to unravel the thread of democratic fabric, and re-weave it into a sackcloth for the People to wear? Is consumerism that thing that we are protecting? Are we preserving our rights or are we sacrificing them to the God of War?
Just thinking out loud.
Tags:
bush, cheney, fundamentalism, liberalism, neo cons, war
© All rights reserved.
Posted on 1/24/2006
(
Permanent Link
)
 Send to Friend
|
January 20, 2006
While the Mayor has not reacted to the Bin Laden tape in the same way as the rest of the conservative crowd, he did say that the City is perpetually in a state of Orange.
Will there ever be a time when the City is in a state of Green, or perhaps a nice tertiary color, or an ochre perhaps? If we’re always Orange, won’t we forget about it, and start behaving as if everything was green? What is the point if we are all complacent?
The very minute that the CIA gave the nod to the Bin Laden tape, the conservative pundits and Republican consultants declared war on the President’s detractors, accusing them of giving Bin Laden exactly what he wanted. One woman with a particularly large set of teeth (she looked like a character from South Park), brought her cartoon-like face to MSNBC and used threatening language aimed at “those members of congress who oppose the President, and even some filmmakers”. Damn those artists! They always fuck it up for the rest of us!
The spin so far goes like this:
Optimistic, Bellicose Spin: We have Bin Laden on the run and he is so desperate that he is plagiarizing dorkish statesmen and insane movie directors. He is hiding in a cave somewhere on the verge of losing his power and credibility. No change in policy necessary. We are kicking ass! (PS, let’s invade Iran!)
Optimistic but Restrained Spin: Bin Laden needed to appease his believers so he opted to borrow language from Americans opposed to the war, proving to his apparently very ignorant believers that his policies are effective. We should review our policy to see if he knows more than he should.
Pessimistic, Bellicose Spin: Bin Laden is stronger than ever and has infiltrated the minds of many Americans. We must step up efforts to stamp him out, improve domestic surveillance, eliminate all avenues for internal dissent and crush anyone Cheney finds too wussy to me a man. We must change our policy to remove as much power from the Congress, those fucking whiners, and give it to the President and Vice President so that they don’t have to worry about the minutia of law. It’s time for a more authoritarian form of democracy. Enough with the First Amendment, that stinking piece of trash!
Pessimistic but Restrained Spin: Bin Laden is stronger than ever and will continue to be stronger until we come up with a really good reason for being in Iraq. We are mired in a war that we can never win and need to either just take over the whole damn country and administer it like Puerto Rico, or we need to get the hell out and leave them to their own devices. Either way, this is costing a lot of money.
The Existential Spin: We fucked it up therefore we are fucked.
The New Age Spin: The Piscean Age was bound to bring about literalist fundamentalism, and ruin any chance for Valhalla.
The Fascist Spin: Why should we care about these “other” people? They deserve to be nuked.
The Inexplicable Jacques Chirac Spin: We have nuclear warheads you couldn’t imagine in your worst nightmare, and we are not afraid to use them.
The Marmiar Spin: We invaded an autonomous nation without due cause; prior to that time, Bin Laden was a separate issue. Now, the two issues are melded together like the head of the monstrous Scylla. Until we come up with a solution for Iraq, Bin Laden will be the gadfly that drives the bull to madness.
Back to Bloomberg: While I prefer yellow, I commend him for not pandering to the public panic and for not acting like a Dick Cheney because of a reactionary video tape.
Tags:
bloomberg, cheney, concervatives, neo cons, orange, public panic, religious fundamentalism
© All rights reserved.
Posted on 1/20/2006
(
Permanent Link
)
Send to Friend
|
January 02, 2006
While those who make more than 150,000 per year will no doubt be toasting the mayor for cutting their city taxes from 7.88% to 6.35%, the majority of New Yorkers struggling to pay the rent will be cursing under their breath.
This is just another stick in the eye of the underclass, who always suffer from job eliminations, downsizing, tax increases, prohibitive medical insurance costs, and varying forms of exploitation ranging from credit card deals to block after block of nothing but cheap and nasty fried food.
This tax cut is where Bloomberg kisses the ass of the Republican Machine. Now he can stand up and drawl, “I cut taxes”. How, in a city where homelessness and third world conditions are anything but a secret, can there be a justification for cutting taxes? But I forget that the subway stops in the highly trafficked tourist and High Rent areas are always nice and clean and free of debris, unlike the lesser stops.
Trickle down economics hasn’t gone away – it’s been institutionalized.
Yes, many of us are riders of a Lesser Subway, those who see the same decay and filth and vomit on the platform and on the stairs, day after day, the kind of things that no one getting off at 86th Street on the west side would ever have to look at. And yet, in these "gentrified" neighborhoods where salaries of over $150,000 are common, they pay less tax, so since they pay less, why is more tax revenue spent keeping their subways clean, their streets clean, and them happier than anyone else anywhere else in the city, where personal income tax has not been cut. How many of you have to look at the same pile of vomit or shit, day after day, until a big fat rainstorm washes it away? God forbid the city should clean it up.
Hardly fair, hardly a sign that Bloomberg et al are actually embracing the Two New Yorks that Ferrer was unable to elaborate on in his recent failed campaign.
But none of this is surprising and it is certainly nothing but the same goose-step tax cut seen at the Federal Level for the richest Americans.
Happy fucking New Year
Sorry, i am thinking out loud today (en la mala leche)...
Tags:
bitching, bloomberg, subways, tax cuts, vomit
© All rights reserved.
Posted on 1/2/2006
(
Permanent Link
)
Send to Friend
|
