The One About The Future I Am Working For.

I recently came across this little screed in The New York Post.

In Obama World, what are we supposed to "hope" for? Certainly not vast riches.

What would be the point? His budget swipes massive amounts of wealth from top earners.

Consider, too, his resentful rhetoric toward them. Recall his despicable failure to block the House from moving to rip up private contracts and confiscate past earnings via a 90 percent, retroactive tax.

Really, in this climate, who can muster enthusiasm for personal fortune-building?

Obama says Wall Streeters "need to spend a little time outside of New York" -- to see that folks in North Dakota, Iowa or Arakansas "would be thrilled to be making $75,000 a year."

That's backward: Wall Streeters shouldn't go to Arkansas; Arkansans should come to New York -- and see the grand opportunities that lie before them. That's how you inspire hope.

Let's face it: If youngsters can't even fantasize about becoming the next Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, what "hope" is there for the American dream?

And now to put all that through The One About... Translator,



The thing is, though that for many people money alone is not what motivates them. And some people even believe that past a certain point having more money than they reasonably need is morally wrong.

Believe it or not Mr. Brodsky, some of us actual feel that achievment is its own reward.

I know, you no doubt view such sentiments as naive. That's okay. You choose your world, and I'll choose mine.

Keep The Faith Brothers And Sisters!

The following resources were used in creating this article:

From The New York Post;
WHY IS THE PREZ SNUFFING OUT HOPE?

From Youtube;
Gordon Gekko "Greed is Good"
Examples of Communism in star trek

The One About My Political Journey Part Two.

When last we left our young hero, he had discovered Politics, albeit only barely. Now we look at his first and to date last Presidential ballot, in part two which we call...

The One About Bullshit Walks But It Takes Money To Buy Whiskey.

So, we come to the 1992 presidential campaign. For the Republicans, we had George Bush (no need for the Sr. yet as jr. was not even a glimmer on the horizon for most of us just yet)

For the Democrats, a scrappy young hopeful, then Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton, Bill to his friends. 

And most astonishingly of all, for the first time in the 20th century if not ever, a viable third party candidate. Businessman Ross Perot.

Excited about getting to be a part of the political process I did my best to follow the candidates and to understand their positions. This was not as easy then as it is now when the web puts a wealth of information at our finger tips. Ultimately it was as much the image that the candidates presented as their stated positions that swayed me.

Bush, frankly seemed to me, to be well meaning but wholely out of touch with what life is like for most people. Clinton, well they don't call him Slick Willy for nothing. A little too slick for my liking.

And then there was Ross Perot. A decidely odd duck. A Texas billionaire who decided to run for president as an independent. While on the one hand his candicacy was saddening, because it pretty well proved that running for President was only possible if you had acccess to large bags of cash, on the other hand, it also indicated that many people were growing increasingly unsatisfied with the non choices offered them by the two party system.

For myself, my decision was made by Perot's willingness to talk directly to the people. The man bought half hour blocks of air time, and sat down and outlined the problems and solutions as he saw them. It was the first time that I saw a politician attempt to really engage the voters. Sadly in many ways I think it was exactly this that doomed his campaign. Those who enforce the status quo don't really like it when you try to buck said quo. So attempts to demonize the man were begun in earnest, which admittedly he didn't help fight by being more than a bit of an odd duck.

In the end, both Perot and Bush lost, and Bill Clinton became president. Given that he seemed more in touch than Bush, I was not terribly upset at the time. It would only be deeper into Clinton's presidency that I would come to have massive objections to the man.

But there were deeper, and more immediate results from that election. It came from a conversation I had after the fact with someone. It was the typical "who did you vote for" conversation. I told this person I had voted for Perot. His response shocked me. "I would have but I knew there was no way he could win." My reply was, "You're probably right, but it would have been nice if he could have gotten enough votes." "It wouldn't have mattered even if he had gotten the most votes. That's just the popular vote and it really doesn't count." He went on to explain about The Electoral College, and how even though they are supposed to be beholden to the popular vote, in truth they can cast their electoral votes any way they like, and suffer little to no penalty for it. After doing some reading on my own, I came to the conclusion that as long as TEC exists, we the people do not truly elect the President. Because even if they voted in accordance with the popular vote every time (and they don't) just the fact that they exist undermines the people's authority. As result until TEC is either disbanded, or reform is enacted making it treason to vote in opposition to the popular vote in your sector I will not be voting in Presidential Elections.

To my brothers and sisters who subscribe to the idea that those who do not vote have no right to complain, I will hew to the wisdom of the late great George Carlin,

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created."

Tune in next time for part three wherein I discover that no matter what party claims it, and asshole still produces the same old shit.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

The One About Making Allegedly Progressive Anti-EFCA Corporations Pay.

The Employee Free Choice Act, perhaps the first serious attempt in many years to re-energize American Labor Unions, at the legislative level. Almost all pro-labor groups agree, that for the most part the bill is both needed and good for workers. The only contentious bit is the provision that would allow the government to force a contract if one at a newly unionized business is not reached within a certain time period. Personally that particular provision smells to me like it was designed to be excised, a bit like the things that Hitchcock would put in his films that he knew the censors would demand be removed, allowing him to get what he really wanted past them with little or no notice. But as is always the case, the minute you talk about giving the workers any meaningful power, the heads of corporations begin to have a grand mal seizure.

Some of the ones who are working against EFCA, include Wal-Mart, and Home Depot. But the simple truth is that this is nothing new. Wal-Mart is so anti worker that I'm surprised employee paychecks don't say "Here's your Federally mandated blood money you greedy, ungrateful bastard!" Frankly where EFCA is concerned, I think that the wise activist would do well to simply ignore Wal-Mart, and those other companies that are known to be anti worker. Rather I think that the focus of our activism and outrage must be aimed at those companies who claim or cultivate a pro-worker, progressive image and are working against EFCA.

Most notably, Costco., Whole Foods Market, and Starbucks.

These three have gathered together to offer what they wish to be seen as a "third way forward" but if you read through it carefully it's anti-worker intent becomes clear.

(1) Secret Ballot. Guarantee the right of management and unions to require a secret ballot under all circumstances.

(2) Certification and Decertification Treated Equally. Permit management to initiate a decertification campaign through a secret ballot election just as employees and unions are presently able to initiate certification and decertification campaigns.

Danger American Worker! Danger!

Right there, they make their anti-worker bias plain for all to see. Any, and I do mean Any! alleged compromise bill that includes language that gives "equal" power to management, when it comes to deciding whether to unionize or de-unionize a workplace, is untrustworthy. End of discussion.

Had the groups mentioned above crafted a document that was about ensuring that those workers who desired it could call for secret ballot it would have been acceptable. Had the document omitted the portion about requiring binding governmental arbitration and instead called for both sides to be required to stay in negotiation until a contract was reach, that too might have been alright. But the language of this farce makes it very clear that they are more concerned with protecting their own prerogatives, than with seeing their wage slaves, attain enough power to affect the way they do business. But hey that's okay. After all, all's fair in love and war and free market capitalism. Right?

And so if that's fair so's this.

Boycott them.

If Starbucks, Costco, and Whole Foods Market wish to advance their anti-worker agenda, then they should be made to suffer the repercussions of such a choice. So from now until they either alter substantially or kill their proposed "third way" I am calling for all persons of conscience to openly, and publicly refuse to contribute to these businesses bottom line. Don't just not buy. Don't buy loudly. Blog about it, tweet about it, email about it. Tell your friends, hell tell your enemies. To quote Bud's boss Larry from Kill Bill...

Fuckin With Your Cash Is The Only Thing You Kids Seem To Understand!!!

So make them understand.

Keep The Faith Brothers And Sisters!

Resources used in the creation of this article:

The Employee Free Choice Act Union Busting Club  blog.

From Earth Times;

“Committee for Level Playing Field” Organized To Offer “Third Way” on Card Check Bill; Costco, Starbucks, and Whole Foods Market Are Founding Companies

The One About There Is A War.

You cannot stand what I've become,
you much prefer the gentleman I was before.
I was so easy to defeat, I was so easy to control,
I didn't even know there was a war.

Radicalism! Activism! These are words that those who champion the status quo in America have programmed most of us to recoil from, in fear and disgust, in an almost Pavlovian manner. Any time that a person or group says something that those in power don't want to be heard they use one of those words to marginalize them. Another classic ploy is the one used recently by Barney Frank. In an attempt to shut up the members of the activist group Code Pink Frank attacked the "maturity" of members who were present at the hearing about AIG bonuses protesting.

Here is a simple truth. The current political system has rendered the average person all but voiceless. We are dependent on "champions" to advance our cause within the system, and frankly true champions are few and far between. President Obama may be one, but sadly he is hampered by a system that favors business as usual over any kind of meaningful reform. And on those rare occasions that meaningful reform is made, it is only a matter of time before subsequent administrations see it undone. In the case of many of the reforms instituted under FDR it took business friendly Republicans and Democrats several decades, but they managed finally to gut and neuter most of them. And in almost no time things have tanked. But instead of putting these protections back in place, the government is much like Homer Simpson still declaring "It's still good, it's still good."

It's not still good. And the only hope that most of us have is to take radical action. To stand up and make our voice heard, even if it means that we must risk looking silly, or stupid, or god forbid narrow minded.

The only other alternative is to surrender and accept whatever our corporate masters deem meet for us to enjoy.

You can put me down in the Fuck No! column on that one.

Keep The Faith Brothers And Sisters!

The following resources were linked to from this article:

From Youtube;
Leonard Cohen There is a war

From Wikipedia;
Code Pink

From The Boston Herald;
‘Code Pink’ protesters leave Barney Frank seeing red

Lyrics to The War found on Lyrics Domain.

The One About My Political Journey Part One.

As a long time comic book geek, I'm a sucker for what are commonly called "Secret Origins". That's when it is revealed how a character went from a (usually) ordinary person to a life of super heroics. Usually there is a fateful mugging, radioactive spider, or alien power ring involved.

In real life, people's origins are usually not quite so, grandiose, but they are interesting to me non the less. For example how did a ne'er do well drug runner become one of the most important voices in the quest for civil rights? Well read The Autobiography of Malcolm X and you'll find out.

So I've decided to offer you the reader, yes you, not the person reading this over your shoulder. If they want to know then they'll just have to sit they ass down and read this blog like a proper reader instead of a back seat driver er reader.

Since it's a long and twisted history I've decided to break it up into several short chapters, to be posted occasionally when the mood strikes me.

Today we have Part One, which we shall call;

The One About Not Putting Away Childish Things.

Kids, and their crazy notions eh? How many of you can recall something that when you were a kid you believed with all the power and passion your young heart possessed, only to realize when you got a little older and maybe a little wiser that it just wasn't true?

Sometimes it's the obvious ones, like Santa Claus, or monsters under the bed. Sometimes it's more subtle and personal, like being an ace pitcher, or becoming an actual real live super hero.

But what about the flip side? What about those ideas and opinions that you form when you are young, that no matter how hard you, and life may try, you just can't ever seem to shake off. Until one day you finally give up fighting and realize, "Oh hey, I guess maybe jr. Me wasn't so dumb after all."

Well, for me one of those ideas has pretty much shaped all of my political thinking for the majority of my life.

My dad's a pretty smart guy. Always been fairly physical, but a thinker at the same time. I'm a lot like him, in ways both good and bad. One of the things that still has him on my very short candidates for Best Dad Ever, is the fact that he would talk to me about stuff. Grown up stuff. Politics included. And while he was never mean, he would not hesitate to point out the flaws in my not yet fully formed logics.

One day we were talking about welfare. Something which I had only an imperfect understanding of at the time. But while I did not exactly think it was right for people to get money for doing nothing, at the same time I could see that it was important for people to have a place to live, and decent food to eat, and clothes to wear (I hated doctors like most kids so there was no way you'd have convinced me that getting to go see one was a "right".) So in the course of the conversation a thought burbled up in my just barely thirteen year old brain. "I think that everyone should be free to go as far as their talents and willingness to work will take them. But that no one should be allowed to fall below the level of human dignity." Honestly sometimes I wonder if it wasn't a TimeTweet from future Me to past Me. All I knew then was that the idea struck me as absurdly simple and absolutely correct. And it stuck with me.

As I grew up, I kept my eye out, in a kind of casual way for a political ideology that made sense to me and I felt I could belong to.

I looked at Republican conservatism, and Democrat liberalism, and frankly neither one suited me very well. I tried Libertarianism and while I agree with many of their social views, their belief in totally unregulated free market capitalism doesn't sit well with me at all.

While I was pondering all this, the first presidential election came that I was old enough to vote in. It was 1992. I looked at The Republican candidate, I looked at the Democratic candidate, and I looked at some guy named Ross Perot? Finally I cast my first, and so far to date last presidential vote ever.

Who did I vote for? Why did I vote for him? And why have I vowed to never vote in another one until...? Well for that you'll have to check back with this Blog, because this topic is...

To Be Continued!

The One About One Hundred Bullets: Bullet Number Two.

A while back, I wrote about a little fantasy project of mine based on the comic book 100 Bullets. My first pick had been the lovely and winsome Ann Coulter. But since then despite some tempting targets *cough*RushLimbaugh*cough*, I have kept my gun in its holster. But a recent tragedy and one mans reaction to it has caused me to decide that it's time to unleash bullet number two.

This honor goes to...

Hate mongering nut job Fred Phelps.

Fred is the charm school graduate who appears at funerals representing his group of fellow hate mongering zealots, God Hates Fags.

Most recently it was rumored that he and his band of merry fuckernutters was going to be present at the funeral of Natasha Richardson.

But hey it's not like he's an elitist. I mean Mr. Phelps is more than willing to appear at the funerals of commoner and king alike. Spreading his message of hatred, and intolerance.

So here you go Fred.

BANG!

Now who wants to join me in a God Hates Fred Phelps rally?

What too soon?

The One About The First Heroes Of The Digital Age.

Usually for Science Saturday, after I do the round up I offer an article about a person or group that seems to have an anti science agenda. But not this week. This week I want to draw attention to the men and women that not only helped save England from Germany, but also paved the way for the exciting digital age that we enjoy today.

British code crackers reunite, pride unbroken

During World War II, the best brains in Britain cracked Germany's encrypted secrets but never broke their own code of silence.

Now gray-haired and using walking sticks and at least one wheelchair, the legendary code breakers returned for a reunion Tuesday at Bletchley Park, where they labored in the grim, blacked-out rooms and played a key role in defeating the Nazis.

The code breakers who worked here in anonymity helped alter history, frustrating Adolf Hitler's ambitions by giving Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his wartime Cabinet crucial advance knowledge of Germany's invasion plans, defenses, and U-boat movements.

I encourage everyone to read the full article. To the men and women of Bletchley Park, I would just like to say, sincerely thank you for everything you did not only to help secure England and the world from the Nazi's but also to advance the science of computing.

The One About For The Love Of Science Saturday

Science is neat! Neat enough that I devote an entire Saturday to it. So let's not waste any more time. On to the science.

Dog Owners More Likely To Share Germs With Pets By Not Washing Hands Than By Sleeping With Dog

Dog owners who sleep with their pet or permit licks on the face are in good company. Surveys show that more than half of owners bond with their pets in these ways.

Honestly as someone who has always been very close to my pets, (rough housing with them, letting them sleep in bed with me etc.) it honestly never occurred to me it could be a problem. I'm glad to discover that it's not.

Swimming Pool Game 'Marco Polo' Used To Develop Robot Control

Scientists have used a popular kids swimming pool game to guide their development of a system for controlling moving robots that can autonomously detect and capture other moving targets.

I am a huge believer that robotic developments are one of the many ways we come to better understand our own intelligences. And the idea that they have been inspired in their developments by a kids game, is just really neat.

'Ice That Burns' May Yield Clean, Sustainable Bridge To Global Energy Future

In the future, natural gas derived from chunks of ice that workers collect from beneath the ocean floor and beneath the arctic permafrost may fuel cars, heat homes, and power factories. Government researchers are reporting that these so-called "gas hydrates," a frozen form of natural gas that bursts into flames at the touch of a match, show increasing promise as an abundant, untapped source of clean, sustainable energy.

There are so many interesting discoveries being made. I often honestly feel that we are so close to finding if not The Way, then several ways of replacing the fossil fuels we are currently so dependent on.

Upcoming ruling could seal Titanic’s fate

Nearly a century after the Titanic struck ice in the North Atlantic, a federal judge in Virginia is poised to preserve the largest collection of artifacts from the opulent oceanliner and protect the ship’s resting place.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith, a maritime jurist who considers the wreck an “international treasure,” is expected to rule within weeks that the salvaged items must remain together and accessible to the public. That would ensure that the 5,900 pieces of china, ship fittings and personal belongings won’t end up in a collector’s hands or in a London auction house, where some Titanic artifacts have landed.

The judgment could also end the legal tussle that began when a team of deep-sea explorers found the world’s most famous shipwreck in 1985.

I think this is the best possible ruling. It keeps the wreck from being exploited, but also counters Bob Ballard and his belief that basically only he had any business exploring Titanic.

Driving software saves big chunk on gasoline

Drivers willing to turn braking and acceleration over to a computer could save nearly 25 percent on their annual gas bills, say the British developers of an advanced new cruise control system.

This kind of development while interesting, and with a lot of potential for good always makes me just a little bit nervous. If they start to explore having computer controlled cars they need to make it quick and easy to switch back to manual.

Well that's it for this Science Saturday. Until next time stay Sciency!

The One About What's This Twit.

Hey all. For those of you who use Twitter, you already know all about #FollowFriday. And for those of you who don't, well you are just sad. No really I love all my readers even the ones who fear this thing called technology, oh hey there are some kids on your lawn, better go chase 'em off.

Anyway, since I have a blog, and can never do anything the easy way, it's not enough for me to just tweet my follow Friday pick. Oh no. I've got to make a blog post about it. Thereby saving me having to come up with something original. Oh wait did I say that?

And now without further ado, or Mountain Dew for that matter, I present my pick for this weeks follow Friday.

Joe The Peacock!

I actually found Joe through his blog, where he was talking trash on Twitter.

Now, I myself luvs the Twitter and hates the haters. But what got my attention was that his rant was funny, some of his points weren't completely wrong, and he actually uses Twitter in spite of his bitching and moaning. I like to think of him as Twitters Loyal Twoposition. I started following him, and discovered that his tweets are very familiar.

Here's a sample of some of his tweets;

There are wriststraps on the wiimote for a reason. That reason is DRUNKEN WII BOXING

At the Nissan dealership, being lied to about my wife's catalytic converter. Do these guys not know we can Google 'EPA catalytic warranty'?

I have been getting wierd texts all day from someone who insists I'm actually 'Dana' who is apparently his dealer and is holding his pills.

After careful consideration, I've realized that with his equal parts geek, and raving dick tweets, with a lot of humor and a little in your face, this is the love child of Wil Wheaton and Warren Ellis.

Seriously though, The Peacock is worth following, and do yourself a favor and check out his blog too. You'll be glad you did.

The One About Son Of Follow Up Friday!

Alright, if you're a regular reader of The One About... then you know all about Follow Up Fridays. If not, well then shame on you. In brief this is the time when I check out new developments relating to subjects covered in previous articles. So let's get started.

First off, some updates about the situation in Afghanistan which was originally covered in;

The One About Please Mr. Custer Er Obama We Don't Wanna Go.

A lot, and I mean, a lot of us seem to be trying to explain to President Obama that going from a pointless war and occupation in Iraq, which we are not fully out of, and will not be fully out of until (hopefully) 2011 is a bad idea. And frankly most of us are not buying this whole advisory capacity guff. In is in, and out is out. And we will not be out of Iraq until (hopefully, please baby jebus) 2011. Meanwhile, we are gearing up to expand our actions in Afghanistan. We are going from one unstable region that does not want us there as an occupying force, to another unstable region that does not want us there as an occupying force. And frankly a growing number of people in this country do not want us there in a combative capacity either.

Well it seems like every time things look a little better,

"What we can't do is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems," the president said on CBS' "60 Minutes." "So what we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's got to be an exit strategy. There's got to be a sense that this is not perpetual drift."

they then quickly start to look a lot worse

The military buildup in Afghanistan is stoking a surge of private security contractors despite a string of deadly shootings in Iraq in recent years that has called into question the government's ability to manage the guns for hire.

and way beyond worse.

The US and its European allies are preparing to plant a high-profile figure in the heart of the Kabul government in a direct challenge to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, the Guardian has learned.

The creation of a new chief executive or prime ministerial role is aimed at bypassing Karzai. In a further dilution of his power, it is proposed that money be diverted from the Kabul government to the provinces. Many US and European officials have become disillusioned with the extent of the corruption and incompetence in the Karzai government, but most now believe there are no credible alternatives, and predict the Afghan president will win re-election in August.

The proposal for an alternative chief executive, which originated with the US, is backed by Europeans. "There needs to be a deconcentration of power," said one senior European official. "We need someone next to Karzai, a sort of chief executive, who can get things done, who will be reliable for us and accountable to the Afghan people."

The risk for the US is that the imposition of a technocrat alongside Karzai would be viewed as colonialism, even though that figure would be an Afghan. Karzai declared his intention last week to resist a dilution of his power. Last week he accused an unnamed foreign government of trying to weaken central government in Kabul.

Enough with this jiggery pokery. Get US out of Afghanistan Now! Before this truly becomes a twenty first century Vietnam, and a massive embarrassment to us all.

Next up, a follow up to an article regarding health care for all and the Republicants.

The One About That And A Thousand Dollars Will Buy You A Cup Of Coffee.

Access is a word that Republicants like to use, because it sounds so good and so noble. Oh, well, every thing's okay. After all, thanks to the Party Of Rush, we'll still have "access". No fucking money to pay for it. But we'll have "access", so everything will be alright.

You know what? Access is pretty much meaningless, without the means to pay. Ever watch Breakfast At Tiffany's? If no then go and rent it and watch it. Then come back. It's okay, I'll wait. ... ... Alright. Back? Good. Trippy isn't it. very much a product of its time, but still great. Yeah, yeah, I know Mickey Rooney as Japanese man equals epic fail but it was a different time. Anyone, getting back on track. One of the sweetest scenes in the movie, is when George Peppard and Audrey Hepburn go into Tiffany's, and he wants to buy her a gift. So they cast about for what one can get for... Wait for it. Here it comes. Five dollars. Yep five bucks. Which, even back in the before time, aka the 60's, was not a lot of money, especially in a place like Tiffany's. But the important thing is that their "access" to Tiffany's was not obstructed. Right?

Bottom line, access is only half of the issue. I mean, I've got access to the road outside my house. Right now, I can walk out of the house, down the stairs, and step onto the road. Nothing's stopping me. But without a car I'm not going to get very far very fast.

Well the spin doctoring and lies from the Right continues and intensifies.

American workers — whose taxes pay for massive government health programs — are getting squeezed like no other group by the nation's health insurance woes.

While just about all retirees are covered, and nearly 90 percent of children have health insurance, workers now are at significantly higher risk of being uninsured than in the 1990s, the last time lawmakers attempted a health care overhaul, according to a study to be released Tuesday.

The study for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that nearly 1 in 5 workers is uninsured, a statistically significant increase from fewer than 1 in 7 during the mid-1990s.

The problem is cost. Total premiums for employer plans have risen six to eight times faster than wages, depending on whether individual or family coverage is picked, the study found.

"The thing I think is interesting is how many workers are newly uninsured," said Lynn Blewett, director of the State Health Access Data Assistance Center at the University of Minnesota, which conducted the research. "In the last couple of years we've seen a deterioration of private health insurance."

About 20.7 million workers were uninsured in the mid-1990s. A decade later, it was 26.9 million, an increase of about 6 million, the study found.

In the 1990s, there were eight states with 20 percent or more of the working age population uninsured. Now there are 14: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina and Texas.

Yet workers continue to pay the bill for covering others. Their payroll taxes help support Medicare, which covers the elderly. Income taxes and other federal and state levies pay for covering the poor and the children of low-income working parents. But government provides little direct assistance to help cover workers themselves.

"There really aren't safety-net programs for adults," Blewett said.

And all of this is true enough. However I find it very interesting that while they make sure to put the old and the young front and center, and imply that they are the reason why the average working adult American doesn't have government supplied health care, they don't at any point mention the Republicants and their perpetual cock blocking any time attempts have been made at national healthcare.

Next up, we get a look at what we could have expected regarding a womans right to choosehad a popular Republicant former Presidential candidate gotten elected instead of Barack Obama.

The One About It Being Fark Barkin Time.

Needless to say I don't think this(Obama's reversal of the gag order regarding family planning clinics that receive Federal money not being able to even discuss abortion) could have come too soon. The only bad part is that no doubt as soon as a Republican gets back in the whitehouse he'll undo this.

Well at a recent anti-abortion rally former Republicant governor and scarily popular presidential candidate Mike Huckabee gave us a taste of the kind of rhetoric, we would have been treated to had he been elected President.

Former Arkansas governor and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee likened abortion to slavery in a Monday speech during a fundraiser for an anti-abortion group.

Huckabee said that when it abolished slavery, the U.S. debated and decided it was immoral for one person to have complete, life-or-death power over another. He said that should not change whether the control involves racial bigotry or a pregnant woman making a decision for her unborn child.

"What are we saying to the generation coming after us when we tell them that it is perfectly OK for one person to own another human being?" Huckabee said. "I thought we dealt with that 150 years ago when the issue of slavery was finally settled in this country, and we decided that it no longer was a political issue, it wasn't an issue of geography, it was an issue of morality. That it was either right or it was immoral that one person could own another human being and have full control even to the point of life and death over that other human being."

He said civilization cannot survive if "one group of people have life and death control over another for no particular reason other than their own conveniences and, in that case, prejudices."

Huckabee said his ultimate goal is the enactment of a federal constitutional amendment "that protects every human life from the point of conception until its natural conclusion." But to make government action possible, he said society must first change the way it views abortions.

"Before laws get changed, we have to change minds and hearts of all the American people, but especially those who will ultimately make the decision as to whether or not they will give an unborn child life or whether they will give it a death sentence," he said.

Sadly, I stand by my earlier assessment, that the instant a Republicant is back in the White House, the anti-abortion gag order will be put back into law via executive order.

Next up, a little bit of potential good news, and some interesting thinking regarding the challenges that newspapers are facing.

The One About Well That's More Like It.

Not too long ago, I wrote an article about TJ Sullivan, and his opinion piece for the LA Observed, regarding his outrage, over people getting their news from the Internet, rather than actual news papers and magazines. His suggestion, was to have all news content providers go dark for 6 days, starting July 4th. I detailed my problems with such a suggestion. The One About Homo Sapiens Unfair To Neanderthals!

Since then, I've been keeping my eye out, for other points of view. Some of which, make a lot of sense, many of which honestly don't quite. But the best I've found so far, comes from Tom Foremski writing for the Silicon Valley Watcher.

25 ideas: Creating An Open-Source Business Model For Newspapers

Well this week I found an interesting thought experiment regarding a variation on the micro payment model for online news content.

What would happen if some top English language journalism organizations simply merged and started charging for their breaking news and commentary about policy, economics and and other national/international topics. That is, what if they were to combine for critical mass and keep most of their journalism off the public Internet for a few days after publication but then make the archives freely available?

The full article is well worth reading, and offers some ideas that even if ultimately not workable at least serve as a starting point for discussion.

I also found a bit of news that while it largely may be good, is not without a troubling element.

Struggling newspapers should be allowed to operate as nonprofits similar to public broadcasting stations, Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., proposed Tuesday.

Cardin introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to choose tax-exempt status. They would no longer be able to make political endorsements, but could report on all issues including political campaigns.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage could be tax deductible.

I'd like to be unreservedly thrilled, but since to the best of my knowledge political endorsements have always been done within proper editorials, to me this would amount to dictating editorial policy, and could perhaps be just the first step to administrations down the line seeking to exercise even greater control. Personally I think it has to be all or nothing. Either the newspapers must be free to act within the boundaries of law and consience, with the law written to secure that, or they must continue to seek another way of survive, lest they risk merely becoming yet another tool of the government.

And finally an amusing bit of perspective from a fellow blogger regarding what many call the "Bible" of Libertarians.

The One About Oh Yeah That'll Work.

Well it seems that everyone has an idea or two about what President Obama should, or should not, be doing right about now. And Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University is no exception. In his op-ed piece Commentary: Libertarian ideas to stimulate economy, he lists what is basically the standard Libertarian party line.

Repeal the Corporate Income Tax:
Increase Carbon Taxes While Lowering Marginal Tax Rates:
Moderate the Growth of Entitlements:
Eliminate Wasteful Spending:
Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan:
Limit Union Power:
Renew the U.S. Commitment to Free Trade:
Expand Legal Immigration:
Stop Bailing out Businesses that Took on Too Much Risk:


Frankly, to me, these sound like more of the same crap that has caused some of the problems in the first place.

Most if not all of the ideas I deconstructed in that article come from the philosophy known as Objectivism, which was created by Russian born writer Ayn Rand. Most people consider her novel Atlas Shrugged to be the "Bible" of Objectivism, and of Libertarianism, which largely hews to Objectivist principles. However, debates on the merits or lack thereof aside, one thing that a great many people agree on, is that Atlas Shrugged is not even close to the greatest thing ever written.

This isn't even the cranky asshole left-wing liberal in me telling you this, this is the cranky asshole English-lit minor: Atlas Shrugged sucks. It sucks as both a political allegory and a work of fiction. It sucks hard. Atlas Shrugged is not a novel, it is a pissy, monotonous political treatise disguised as a novel, only the disguise is as threadbare as literary gloss gets, because less than 100 pages in it's clear that Rand never bothered to listen to the "show, don't tell" part of her creative-writing classes, nor did she listen to the part where somebody might've taught her how to base her characterizations on anything deeper than what brilliant, calculating industrialists her characters are. It is melodramatic, cartoonish, and as deep as a kiddie pool, but while the simplistic banality of Rand's central conceit seems like something that the average writer could explain and wrap up pretty efficiently, she manages to go on and on and on for more than a thousand pages. Here's a tip: If you're trying to write something as cut-and-dried as a political allegory but you can't bring that bird in for a landing in anything less than 1,088 pages, maybe you need to hang up your literary ambitions and go get your MBA instead. Either that, or find a more diligent editor.

If you're still of an age where teachers or professors are still making you read certain things, I have a bit of advice for you: If any of your teachers have put Atlas Shrugged on your assigned-reading list, drop that class and don't look back. Atlas Shrugged is not just awful, it is godawful. It does not need to be read or analyzed, much less lived; it exists for only two reasons: first, to demonstrate that economic conservatives can be just as annoyingly self-righteous as liberals and religious conservatives, and second, to show you whom you should avoid getting involved in conversations with at parties. I speak from experience here, for I've had the misfortune of running into a few Rand devotees in social settings, and to call them dipshits would be an insult to both dip and shit. This is not meant as a slam against libertarians in general, because I've known some very bright ones, but Ayn Rand is to libertarianism what Fall Out Boy is to punk rock: It's what you get into before you grow up and start actually thinking.

All I'll say, is that I tried to read it and I crapped out about halfway through.

Well that's it for this weeks rewind roundup. Until next time, keep your chin down and your guard up.

Sources linked to from this article:

From The Guardian;
US will appoint Afghan 'prime minister' to bypass Hamid Karzai

From MSNBC;
Obama wants exit plan strategy in Afghanistan
U.S. has 'Help Wanted' sign in Afghanistan
Nonprofit status for newspapers proposed

From Fox News;
Nearly 1 in 5 Workers Has No Health Insurance

From The Kansas City Star;
Huckabee likens abortion to slavery at Missouri fundraiser

From Boing Boing;
Paying for News: A Mega-Merger Thought Experiment

From Hey Jenny Slater;
Atlas sucked.

From Wikipedia;
Libertarianism
Atlas Shrugged
Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
Ayn Rand

The One About President Obama The Workers Friend?

(Note: All quoted text in this article is courtesy of Dick Meister)

It all started with Ronald Reagan. Essentially, his entire presidency, was about gutting the advances made by organized labor. Rendering it, if not dead, then severely wounded.

Republican presidents never have had much regard for unions, which almost invariably have opposed their election. But until Reagan, no GOP president had dared to challenge labor's firm legal standing, gained through Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the mid-1930s.

Reagan's Republican predecessors treated union leaders much as they treated Democratic members of Congress -- as people to be fought with at times, but also as people to be bargained with at other times. But Reagan engaged in precious little bargaining. He waged almost continuous war against organized labor.

He had little apparent reason to fear labor politically, with opinion polls at the time showing that unions were opposed by nearly half of all Americans and that nearly half of those who belonged to the unions had voted for him in 1980 and again in 1984.

Reagan,in any case, was a true ideologue of the anti-labor political right. Yes, he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, but he was notoriously pro-management, leading the way to a strike-ending agreement in 1959 that greatly weakened the union and finally resigning under membership pressure before his term ended.

Reagan's war on labor began in the summer of 1981, when he fired 13,000 striking air traffic controllers and destroyed their union. As Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson noted, that was "an unambiguous signal that employers need feel little or no obligation to their workers, and employers got that message loud and clear -- illegally firing workers who sought to unionize, replacing permanent employees who could collect benefits with temps who could not, shipping factories and jobs abroad."

However sadly it did not end with Reagan. Even though Bill Clinton was more Union friendly, he himself, committed what some see as his greatest act of betrayal when he signed off on NAFTA, a treaty which, while initially did not seem to have resulted in massive job loss, some feel has reduced the quality of the jobs being created in this country, as it makes it easier for a company to move it's operations out of the US than allow its workers to unionize.

Bush of course, did nothing to reverse Reagan's anti-labor policies, and even instituted some of his own.

President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress agree that airport screeners play a vital role in the war against terror, yet continue to deny them the basic right of unionization by asserting that it would "threaten national security."

The actual motive is as obvious as the often demonstrated anti-unionism of Bush and friends. House members recognized that in January when they voted 299-128 for a bill that would repeal a provision of the five-year-old Aviation Transportation and Security Act that gives the president authority to bar screeners from exercising the collective bargaining rights granted other federal employees.

And now we come to the Labor's great hope. President Obama!

But is he really? It seems that for every pro-labor move Obama makes, he makes one that is at best troubling, such as his mushy language regarding NAFTA while visiting Canada. Or countering his appointment of progressive, pro-labor congresswoman Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor, by seeking to appoint the notoriously pro unrestrained free trade Gary Locke for his Secretary of Commerce.

Now, it seems that everyone on the pro-labor side of things is pinning their hopes on the Employee Free Choice Act.

Honestly I do not believe that the unions should get their hopes up. Keep in mind this is the administration that sees nothing wrong with demanding that union employees have their lawful contract broken by companies taking bailout money, while insisting on honoring dubious contracts with other companies white collar executives.

My prediction is that the EFCA, will either make it through the two houses, only after a thorough neutering, or it won't make it at all. In another time, Obama might have been the workers friend, but both circumstances and poor choices seem to be conspiring to make him a fair weather friend indeed.

Resources linked to from this article:

From Dick Meister;
Ronald Reagan's War on Labor
Busting Unions to Protect "National Security"

From Wikipedia;
North American Free Trade Agreement
Hilda Solis
Employee Free Choice Act

From MSNBC.com;
Organized labor gives Obama high grades so far
Workers have a friend in Obama

From The Nation;
Obama Needs to Keep Promise to Rewrite NAFTA
Gary Locke: Militant (and Misguided) Free Trader

From The New York Times;
In Obama, Labor Finds the Support It Expected

From The Seattle Times;
A government of men, not laws

The One About Maybe President Obama's Trying A New Approach Because The Old One Isn't Working.

The perpetual obtuseness of those on the political right, never ceases to amaze me. Right at a time when many of us who self identify as progressive, are pushing for President Obama to move as far away from the previous administrations policies of attempted global imperialism, The Weekly Standard, takes him to task over what they call the "kowtowing" tone of his recent message to Iran.

"Liberty" isn't a word you'll find in President Obama's Iranian New Year message to "the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran." Nor is "freedom." Nor "democracy." Nor "human rights."

Nor will you find any expression of solidarity with the people of Iran--though you'll find plenty of solicitude for their rulers. The president bends over backwards to reassure the mullahs that our government wishes them well.

You'll find a paragraph addressed to "the people and leaders of Iran," as if the people and leaders were in harmony, and shared a need to be reassured that we seek "a future with .  .  . greater opportunities for partnership and commerce."

You'll find two paragraphs devoted to speaking directly to Iran's leaders. Obama reassures them of his commitment to diplomacy, and to an engagement grounded in "mutual respect." Of course expressions of respect for the people of Iran are nothing new--President Bush reiterated our respect for the people of Iran many times, including a year ago on the occasion of Nowruz, as they call their New Year. No, what's distinctive about Obama's statement is his respect for the "leaders," the clerical dictatorship.

Indeed, "the United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations." Note: "the Islamic Republic of Iran." Does Obama routinely refer to Pakistan as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, its formal name? Of course not. But Obama goes out of his way to mention (twice) "the Islamic Republic of Iran." He's kowtowing to a regimethat is anything but republican, implicitly forswearing any plan--any hope--of regime change to free the Iranian people.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is exactly the rationale we have used in the past. In Vietnam, in Iraq, and to an extent even in Afghanistan. It has done nothing good for us. Frankly it seems that because things happened to work out well for us with World War Two, some people seem to think that, armed intervention should be the model for all future situations. Well clearly it is a flawed model. It is not our place to force regime change. It has never been our place, in any of these countries and it is high past time that we stop acting like it is. Obama is showing his intelligence and good sense by acknowledging this fact in the tone of his address to Iran. But more than that, it makes good political sense, as it allows him to claim the high ground by reaching out, so that if there is conflict down the road he can play the, "Hey I tried" card.

Sources linked to from this article:

From Wikipedia;
The Weekly Standard

From The Weekly Standard;
Happy New Year, Mullahs

The One About Obama May Be Right But He's Still Not Getting It.

When I read about President Obama's opposition to the scheme to tax back the bonuses from current and former AIG employee's I was extremely grateful that I wasn't drinking anything. The spit take might be a staple of physical comedy, and a classic bit, but it does not do good things for ones computer.

President Barack Obama wagered significant political capital Sunday, signaling opposition to a highly popular congressional drive to slap a punitive 90 percent tax on bonuses to big earners at financial institutions already deeply in hock to taxpayers.

Obama defended his stance by saying the tax would be unconstitutional and that he would not "govern out of anger." He declared his determination, nevertheless, to make Wall Street understand it must shed "the old way of doing business."

The most frustrating part of it all is that he is most likely correct. Whatever is done, has to be crafted to be as close to irreversible as possible.

However, for all that I'm not entirely sure, if the president really understands exactly how dispirited and angry this is making people.

We have had eight years of a president who may have well married big business, so great was his love for it. Prior to that, while there may have been some reform under Clinton, it was nowhere near enough to reverse what Reagan had wrought, and frankly in some cases Clinton's administration was every bit as de-regulationist as his predecessors.

We are a bit like a battered spouse, who thought we had gotten away. Found someone decent, who would protect us. And now we discover that he's on far friendlier terms with our abuser than we realized. And while we are crying for justice, he is worrying about the law.

Mr. President, if you truly want the rule of law to triumph, then for the love of sanity Do Something! Do it now! And make certain that it truly addresses the core of the problem. Or you will start to see some people embracing the idea of armed response to these injustices. Everyone says it will never happen, but I don't buy it. We are reaching a point where so many of us are for all intents and purposes the working poor, and there are more of us every day. We are tired of not seeing any way to just have a decent, safe, stable life, while corporations destroy anything that gets in their way of doubling profits every year. We are tired of being told things like "healthcare is a privilege not a right." Tired of being made to feel that we exist at the sufferance of our corporate "betters". And if you cannot recognize our wail of agony for what it is, then at the very least I can guarantee that your first term will be your last, and quite possible there might be worse than that to come. Please don't let that happen.

Sources linked to from this article:

From MSNBC.com;
Obama signals opposition to bonus tax

The One About Has It Ever Occurred To People That Iraq Might Not Want Tourists?

Iraq. A country that six years ago we invaded under the pretense of there being weapons of mass distraction which there were not. Then we depose their leader Saddam Hussein. And then we impose our rule under the guise of "helping" them. Now we are finally, maybe, moving towards leaving. But the country is still far from stable, and still far from in love with their western "liberators". So maybe, just maybe, selling tour packages is not the best idea right now.

Ancient ruins aside, touring war-torn Iraq for the last two weeks hasn't been as satisfying as Tina Townsend Greaves had hoped.

Not because of safety fears. To the contrary.

More because some sights that the Briton wanted to explore during her two week visit have been closed.

"I think Iraq is safe for tourists," Greaves said. "But I think maybe a few more of the sites need to be open to tourists because if tourists are going to come to Iraq, there has got to be things for them to see when they get here."

This is astonishing. I honestly don't understand how a person can be so entirely thick headed. The issue isn't whether or not the region is safe for tourists. Nor whether there is enough for them to do. The issue should be, whether or not the Iraqi people even want tourists coming into their country right now. Frankly I suspect that if we bothered to condescend to ask, the answer would be a ringing "NO!" But hey why should we let that stop us. I mean it's our country right? After all we paid for it.

The following resources were linked to in creating this article:

From MSNBC.com;
First Western tourists visit war-torn Iraq

The One About Perhaps It's Time To Get Serious About Weeding Out Truly Bad Teachers.

It seems like, on at least a weekly, if not daily basis, there is a story in the news, of a female teacher, having sex, with an underage male student. It is so regular, that it has almost lost its power to shock. But then, some new story of unique malfeasance, will come along to stoke the fires of our collective outrage anew.

Documents obtained by The Dallas Morning News say the "cage fights" took place between 2003 and 2005. The records don't say how many fights may have taken place.

Despite investigators' assertions that the staff's conduct "may constitute a criminal violation," charges were never filed against Moten or the hall monitors accused of organizing the fights. Many of those employees were still working on campus at the beginning of this school year.

"It was gladiator-style entertainment for the staff," said Frank Hammond, a middle school counselor in Cedar Hill who was fired from South Oak Cliff High School and has filed a whistleblower lawsuit. "They were taking these boys downstairs to fight. And it was sanctioned by the principal and security."

DISD trustee Lew Blackburn, whose district includes South Oak Cliff High School, said mere disciplinary action isn't enough. District administrators never informed the school board of the fights, Blackburn said. He found out from a reporter Wednesday, and he questioned why no one pursued criminal charges.

"Adults encouraging kids to fight and there was no criminal action?" Blackburn asked. "We should have at least let the [district attorney] look into it."

The district report on cage fighting, dated March 17, 2008, was just one part of an investigation into wrongdoing at South Oak Cliff High School. The report also focused on allegations of grade-changing for athletes and unauthorized fundraising.

Investigators found that security monitors routinely used "the cage" – a section of the boys basketball locker room barricaded by wire mesh and metal lockers – to force problem students to fight out their disputes.

In one incident documented by investigators, a security monitor tried to fight a student in the cage, but Moten intervened and broke it up. In another incident, the report said, Moten told security staff to put two fighting students "in the cage and let 'em duke it out." According to the report, students told their teachers that they were "gonna be in the cage" over arguments with their peers.

Asked about these charges, Moten said: "I don't even know what you're talking about." But Hammond said the cage fights were common knowledge at the high school.

A story like this one, however, is just the most extreme tip, of a very large iceberg. The simple truth, is that not everyone who enters the teaching profession, does so for the most noble of reasons.  And even those who do have good reasons for entering sometimes wind up staying long after those reasons have ceased to be meaningful to them.

That's why I think it is time that we start to get realistic about addressing these problems, and require any potential teachers, to undergo psychological testing, and to be re-tested at regular intervals. This would help to weed out those who have no business having access to and influence over impressionable young minds, and would help to discover those who have suffered burn out and need either to move to a different profession, or to receive counseling. I know that there are some who will say that my ideas are extreme, but quite frankly given some of the situations we are seeing occur in our high schools these days I think it is time to start talking about some extreme solutions to our extreme problems.

Source linked to from this article:

The Dallas Morning News;
Dallas ISD records show school held 'cage fights'

The One About A Piece Of Good News That Got Lost In The Shuffle.

To most of us the IRS represents the ultimate in heartlessness. However this recent bit of news has me looking at the IRS in a different light.

The Internal Revenue Service is allowing tax relief and refunds for some investors who paid taxes on earnings from their investments with Bernard Madoff that turned out to be nonexistent.

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman is telling Congress Tuesday that the agency is issuing guidelines for taxpayers who are victims of losses from Ponzi investment schemes such as the massive Madoff swindle.

Madoff investors should have been reporting earnings from their investments with him through the years and thus paid taxes on those earnings.

Given that some of those were "phantom" profits, investors have said they should be entitled to refunds of the taxes they paid.

Quite honestly I was very surprised by this. A move by the IRS that is both logical and compassionate. And while it will not restore all the money that these people were swindled out of, at least it will return to them a portion of it. It is my hope that this is the beginning of a more sensible and compassionate IRS as compared to the almost mafia like tactics of the past.

Sources linked to from this article:

From CNews;
IRS to give relief to some Madoff investors

The One About I'll Tell You What "Quiverfull" Is Full Of!

Or The One About How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Octo-Mom.

It's truly amazing what difference a little perspective can make on one's outlook. For example until recently I considered Nadya Suleman one of the greatest disgraces the human race has ever known. A woman so desperate to feel special that she continued attempting to have kids, despite already having given birth to several. And the result of her quest was that she gave birth to octuplets. Now I won't lie to you. I still think that the woman is unwell. Seriously. I believe that she needs evaluation, medicinal and most likely psychological help. But after reading a recent article at Newsweek's website, I suddenly find Ms. Suleman rather the lesser of two evils.

The article talks about the radical conservative Christian philosophy known as "Quiverfull". In brief these people believe that any thing that bars conception, including just not having sex when it would be most likely to result in pregnancy, is contrary to "God's Plan" and is as bad as abortion. Add to that the view that females are meant to be "submissive" to their fathers and husbands. Frankly, it would not be over stating my views, to say that the group and their agenda disgust me beyond measure. However what I find even more disgusting is the way so called "Reality" television presents these people and their chosen lifestyle.

If there is a wholesome counterpoint to the gossip-rich travails of single-mom Nadya Suleman and her 14 children, it might be Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, who had their 18th child just weeks before the arrival of Suleman's octuplets in January. The Duggar birth was televised on the Arkansas couple's popular TLC reality show, "17 Kids and Counting" (now "18 Kids and Counting"). Unlike Suleman, who was vilified as the freakish, government-assistance-dependent "Octomom," the Duggars' abundant progeny often attract admiration. Their children play violin, their palatial home is immaculate and the family matriarch is a soft-spoken multitasker who gently keeps order in her immense household.

Watching Michelle Duggar manage her Herculean tasks is addictive. We like to marvel at the logistics of life in over sized reality-TV families like the Duggars or the participants of the series "Kids By the Dozen" (also on TLC), which features families with at least 12 children each. How do they do all that laundry every week? Afford all those gallons of milk or cope with a joint birthday party for 13?

At first the article seems to be approving. The author does take the show, and it's deceptive veneer to task at the end of the article, albeit only lightly.

Dreams of demographic dominion aside, what's problematic about Quiverfull for many is the position the movement relegates women to on its way there. Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, a former Quiverfull writer who left the movement, says that the lifestyle is frequently one of unrelenting duty and labor that leaves women little recourse if the demands of their lives prove too much to bear. "The Quiverfull movement holds up as examples men like the Duggars ... all men of means. But for every family like this, there are ten or fifty or one hundred Quiverfull families living in what most would consider to be poverty ... Mothers are in a constant cycle, often, of pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the care of toddlers." Women are expected to feed and care for a large family on what are frequently limited resources, and the strain leads some to suffer clinical levels of exhaustion and self-neglect. The work that mothers can't manage usually falls to their eldest daughters, who learn early that their role in life is domestic, as helpmeets to their parents and later their husbands, and as mothers to many children.

Quiverfull and what could be called the submissive lifestyle are ultimately convictions of faith, and many women choose to follow them regardless of potential hardships. This is, of course, their choice, but fans of TV's novel large families should not overlook their comprehensive ideology that argues that family planning and feminism are cultural scourges to be eradicated, and that women's highest calling is in becoming prolific mothers and submissive wives. A glimpse of this reality is sometimes visible beneath TV's glossy treatment of Quiverfull families, but more often it's difficult to see the hard edges of ideology underlying yet another large family adventure.

I am proud and respectful of Newsweek, for doing an excellent job of reportage. However they are constrained, in many ways that I am not. So with them having done their job, I shall now proudly do my job. And what they say moderately, I shall say with all the strength of my conviction.

The Quiverfull people are exemplary of everything that has caused untold numbers of people to leave Christianity, for other religions over the decades. And in some cases for no religion at all. Myself included. Their insistence on viewing the primary role of both men and women as brood animals for "The Lord" is anti woman, anti human, anti progress. And their insistence on framing things in terms of a war against those who would dare disagree with them, makes them potentially every bit as dangerous a group of religious extremists as any radical Islamic terrorist.

However the fault does not only lay with these people. But rather it lies with America's insistence on treating having children as something so special and magical that it elevates anyone who experiences it. Somehow makes them more worthy of shaping public policy and discourse than those who are for whatever reason childless. This unexamined worship of fertility has allowed the Quiverfull zealots to gain a foothold in this country that might otherwise be denied them and their rhetoric.

A rhetoric which, reduces the whole of human existence to that of a base beasts, and if we did follow their example, I have no doubt that we would see all art, all culture, all technology, and scientific inquiry die within less than fifty years. After all who has time to paint, or create computer code, or write, when there are so many mouths to be fed, and always more on the way? No! This must not be the lot of mankind.

If there is a creator, then I cannot, I will not believe that "He" created us merely to reproduce endlessly like mere animals. I choose instead to believe that we are partners in creation. That we were meant to explore, art, and science, and all the other myriad endeavors we humans have turned our minds and hands to over the centuries.

To paint The Mona Lisa. To write The Declaration Of Independence.To build The Empire State Building. To create The Internet, and The World Wide Web, are the true examples of what we are meant for.

Having children? That's just biology. And while it may be important, even special, I don't see other aspects of biology being elevated in the same way. For example I don't hear anyone proclaiming that the most important thing about the human race is that we eat and shit.

Resources linked to from this article:

From Wikipedia;

Nadya Suleman
Quiverfull
The Mona Lisa
The Declaration Of Independence
The Empire State Building
The Internet
The World Wide Web

From Newsweek;

Extreme Motherhood

The One About President Obama And The 48 Laws Of Power.

There are some, who, from the moment Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President, right up to this present moment have accused him of being a political light weight, lacking both experience and skill. However I'm starting to wonder if the exact opposite might be true. That perhaps Obama is one of the most deft political strategists we've seen in some time.

A few years ago I came across a book titled, The 48 Laws Of Power. It's written by Robert Greene and in it,

Greene uses anecdotes from historical figures such as Louis XIV, Talleyrand, Otto von Bismarck, Catherine the Great, Mao Zedong, Haile Selassie and various con artists in order to illustrate real-world application of the 48 rules. Greene's modern courtship theory was inspired by the writings of Baltasar Gracian and Niccolò Machiavelli.[citation needed] Greene also often uses an amoral approach, mimicking Machiavellian language, leaving the reader to weigh the ethical implications of the laws.

In my opinion it is singularly brilliant, and if one wishes to better understand the games people play, it is an excellent book to have to hand.

When I began this article I had only been intending to talk about President Obama, and one specific law, but as I was reviewing them, it quickly became apparent that he actually is in accordance with a great many of them.

So I've decided to go through them in the order they appear in the book, and briefly discuss the ways that I perceive Obama using each law. Or in a rare few cases ways he seems to have run afoul of a law.

Law 2: Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies

Be wary of friends-they will betray you more quickly, for they are easily aroused to envy. They also become spoiled and tyrannical. But hire a former enemy and he will be more loyal than a friend, because he has more to prove. In fact, you have more to fear from friends than from enemies. If you have no enemies, find a way to make them.

This is exactly what Obama did with his "team of rivals" most notably Hillary Clinton. It is also part of why he continues to reach out selectively to Republicans. And the Democrats within Congress have certainly proven the truth of this law given some of the ways that they have tried to slow or derail the agenda of a president from their own party.

Law 3: Conceal your Intentions

Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough down the wrong path, envelope them in enough smoke, and by the time they realize your intentions, it will be too late.

This one is for all the people who complain about Obama being too vague. Now while I do not believe he is using this law for sinister ends, I do believe that he is using it to help get his agenda off and running, and taking the time to explain the hows and whys of every piece would only slow things down considerably.

Law 4: Always Say Less than Necessary

When you are trying to impress people with words, the more you say, the more common you appear, and the less in control. Even if you are saying something banal, it will seem original if you make it vague, open-ended, and sphinxlike. Powerful people impress and intimidate by saying less. The more you say, the more likely you are to say something foolish.

This is one that quite frankly he could stand to work on a little. While he is a very engaging speaker, I cannot deny that he is a touch long winded at times.

Law 5: So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life

Reputation is the cornerstone of power. Through reputation alone you can intimidate and win; once you slip, however, you are vulnerable, and will be attacked on all sides. Make your reputation unassailable. Always be alert to potential attacks and thwart them before they happen. Meanwhile, learn to destroy your enemies by opening holes in their own reputations. Then stand aside and let public opinion hang them.

Obama, as we all did, witnessed his predecessor turned into not merely a laughing stock but an accused war criminal because of his failure to protect his reputation properly. This, I suspect is why he has been so vocal about "transparency and accountability", knowing that is one of the key things that the prior administration was lambasted for a lack of.

Law 6: Court Attention at all Cost

Everything is judged by its appearance; what is unseen counts for nothing. Never let yourself get lost in the crowd, then, or buried in oblivion. Stand out. Be conspicuous, at all cost. Make yourself a magnet of attention by appearing larger, more colorful, more mysterious, than the bland and timid masses.

There was a time when merely being President was enough. But that was in the days when the government had a monopoly on the media, that quite frankly they do not enjoy today. As a result it is necessary for Obama to maintain a higher profile than his predecessors. Hence his decision to appear on The Tonight Show, something that no sitting President before has done.

Law 7: Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit

Use the wisdom, knowledge, and legwork of other people to further your own cause. Not only will such assistance save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed. In the end your helpers will be forgotten and you will be remembered. Never do yourself what others can do for you.

This is exactly what Obama did when he told Congress to write up the stimulus bill, and then he went around trumpeting it as if he had hand crafted it himself.

Law 8: Make other People come to you – use Bait if Necessary

When you force the other person to act, you are the one in control. It is always better to make your opponent come to you, abandoning his own plans in the process. Lure him with fabulous gains – then attack. You hold the cards.

Obama was in complete accordance with this law when through his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel he called Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican party. It's kept the GOP in disarray ever since.

Law 9: Win through your Actions, Never through Argument

Any momentary triumph you think gained through argument is really a Pyrrhic victory: The resentment and ill will you stir up is stronger and lasts longer than any momentary change of opinion. It is much more powerful to get others to agree with you through your actions, without saying a word. Demonstrate, do not explicate.

This was the law I was originally intending to write about, in relation to the outrage over AIG and bonuses. I'm honestly wondering if after the resistance from both Republicans and Democrats to putting language in the stimulus bill that would have reduced bonuses greatly, if Obama, working through his secretary of the treasury Tim Geightner didn't have the provision removed, and then just sat back and waited for exactly this to happen. Resulting in public outcry that now empowers him to act with no fear of obstruction. Whereas if he had tried to keep the provision in, there would have been endless debate that would have only slowed down the entire process.

Law 10: Infection; Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

You can die from someone else’s misery – emotional states are as infectious as disease. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster. The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you. Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.

This is one frankly that Obama seems to still be struggling with. Frankly he is sometimes a bit to slow to cut loose people who have become toxic to his reputation and cause.

Law 13: When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest, Never to their Mercy or Gratitude

If you need to turn to an ally for help, do not bother to remind him of your past assistance and good deeds. He will find a way to ignore you. Instead, uncover something in your request, or in your alliance with him, that will benefit him, and emphasize it out of all proportion. He will respond enthusiastically when he sees something to be gained for himself.

Notice how almost all of the work to get populist support for the stimulus package and other parts of his agenda have been loudly stated in terms of what they will do for the people.

Law 16: Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor

Too much circulation makes the price go down: The more you are seen and heard from, the more common you appear. If you are already established in a group, temporary withdrawal from it will make you more talked about, even more admired. You must learn when to leave. Create value through scarcity.

This is one I'm hoping he starts practicing like right now. I mean I like the man and even I'm sick of seeing him everywhere seemingly at once.

Law 18: Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous

The world is dangerous and enemies are everywhere – everyone has to protect themselves. A fortress seems the safest. But isolation exposes you to more dangers than it protects you from – it cuts you off from valuable information, it makes you conspicuous and an easy target. Better to circulate among people find allies, mingle. You are shielded from your enemies by the crowd.

This law is another cornerstone of Obama's style as President. To counter the way that Bush hid behind his staff, Obama is making certain that he is, as much as any President can be, accessible to more than just Washington insiders.

Law 27: Play on People’s Need to Believe to Create a Cultlike Following

People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking. Give your new disciples rituals to perform, ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In the absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power.

And if there is ever a revised and updated version of The 48 Laws Of Power, Obama's presidential campaign will be the cited classic example of this law.

Law 28:Enter Action with Boldness

If you are unsure of a course of action, do not attempt it. Your doubts and hesitations will infect your execution. Timidity is dangerous: Better to enter with boldness. Any mistakes you commit through audacity are easily corrected with more audacity. Everyone admires the bold; no one honors the timid.

The way Obama has pursued most of agenda, has been in perfect harmony with this law.

Law 45:Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once

Everyone understands the need for change in the abstract, but on the day-to-day level people are creatures of habit. Too much innovation is traumatic, and will lead to revolt. If you are new to a position of power, or an outsider trying to build a power base, make a show of respecting the old way of doing things. If change is necessary, make it feel like a gentle improvement on the past.

This one has been the hardest on the true believers who thought that Obama was going to be the progressive savior. However, I think this may be for the best because frankly if he was too progressive he'd run the risk of spending so much time fighting that he'd get nothing lasting accomplished.

Well that's just a small sampling of the various Laws Of Power from the book. Quite frankly I could have written much more, but I think you get the point. Rather than being politically naive and unsophisticated, quite the opposite is true. Obama may perhaps be one of the most deft and canny politicians this country has seen in a long time. And if he's able to use the art of politics to help rescue this country from the actions of practically all the presidents going back as far as Lyndon Johnson then we may yet have cause to give thanks.

The One About Newspapers Not The Only Source Of Journalism.

Attention journalists! My patience is wearing thin with the lot of you. As I've said in the past, I am not unsympathetic to the collective freak out you all are having over how rapidly things are changing. I get that facing being without a job you spent years preparing for sucks beyond belief. Never the less, some of you are starting to hit Drama Queen territory, and frankly I've pretty much gotten completely sick of it.

It's time to drop the hand wringing and Pharisee like self flagellation over teaching journalism to the next generation. Likewise it's time to stop insisting that should the newspaper die, the enemies of decent honest folk will have nothing stopping them from running roughshod over the weak.

One journalism professor wrings his hands and says,

I feel like I'm teaching them something that will be as useful as Sanskrit when they graduate. I am trying to get them involved in learning the latest technology as well as teaching them important writing and life skills, so they will be employable. But every morning I read stories about how huge, venerable newspapers will likely be shuttered by the end of the year, and it absolutely freaks me out.

What the heck am I doing? I feel like I'm a participant in the theater of the absurd.

I feel horribly guilty, wondering what will become of them. I'm already hearing from former students how they've been laid off and are aimlessly trying to pursue anything to survive.

Meanwhile, a professional journalist seems to have bought into the myth that the only source of "true" journalism is the newspaper

In short, the day the last newspaper is published -- a day that seems to be rushing at us like a brick wall in an old Warner Bros. cartoon -- I will not be surprised if the nation's various crooks, crumbs and corruptors fail to shed a tear. But the unkindest cut of all, the ``Et tu, Brute?'' dagger in the back, is the fact that, according to a new survey from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, most other Americans won't, either. Pew found 63 percent of respondents saying that if their local paper went down, they would miss it very little or not at all.

The truth, which a lot of people seem to not want to acknowledge these days, is that journalism is really about a process.  That process has always been important and will remain so.  It is also a process that I think is alive and well, here in the twenty first century.  Newspapers on the other hand are a content delivery system.  The day that the last traditional newspaper ceases to be, will not spell the death of journalism, because while, without journalism there may be no newspapers, without newspapers there will still be journalism.  No matter how many Chicken Little's run around proclaiming that the sky is falling.  And  the degree of hysterical boo hooing, over the changes happening, quite frankly, is not going to change people's feelings about the downsizing of newspapers. In fact, it will most likely have the opposite effect.

Sources linked to from this article:

Why teach journalism if newspapers are dying?, by Cary Tennis for Salon.com

Don't expect sympathy cards from crooks, corrupt politicians, by Leonard Pitts Jr. for The Miami Herald