Are You Sure About That?

Senator Blowhard Wants The Truth!

Today (04/27/2011) President Obama handed out copies of his birth certificate and the original has been on display, and yet it still does not satisfy these whack jobs. I figure that once they finally give up on the whole birth certificate thing, they'll find something else to obsess over. Senator Blowhard being a foreward thinking sort is merely ahead of his time.

And for anyone who has any doubts yes I am both a sci-fi and Star Trek geek.

Posted via email from The One About...

Are You Sure About That?

It Depends On How You Define It.

This strip was inspired by seeing a very garish truck and trailer (camper type) that was done up as if it were a rolling billboard for jingoism. On it was some blather about "supporting" the troops. A phrase that I am past tired of. I'd love to hear one of these war mongers explain to me how wanting more soldiers to kill and die for nothing is "supporting" them.

Posted via email from The One About...

Are You Sure About That?

Senator Blowhard Tells The Ugly Truth.

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About A New Feature!

Thanks to Stripgenerator.com even someone like myself who cannot draw a straight line can do a web comic. It's called Are You Sure About That? and will focus mostly on politics but will also branch out into pop culture and other weirdness. I will post the strip itself here and a link to it's presence on Strip Generator.

So without further ado...

Are You Sure About That?

It's A Real Rush.

 

To see the strip in its original location check here.

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About The Hidden Victims Of Sexual Violence.

Sexual violence. It's not usually the sort of thing that makes the lead of the nightly network news shows. But for those of us who cast our news gathering nets just a bit wider it's been on the radar quite a bit lately. There's been talk of the culture of sexual violence in the military against female soldiers, and of increasing incidents of rape on college campuses to name just two of the most recent.

Such news, is to any compassionate person, always disturbing. And the natural and understandable impulse when faced with such news is to place most, if not all of our focus on the very obvious and visible victims of sexual violence. To find ways to keep them "safe". But all too often we do not take the time to step back and consider the larger systemic problems that need addressed if we are ever to have any real hope of creating a meaningful and lasting diminishment in the incidents of sexual violence.

While there are a great many factors that go into creating a person who engages in sexual violence against another, I believe there is one factor that is primary, and in fact facilitates any others.

Extreme objectification. (Click here to read more)

The One About Reagan's Anti-Union Chickens Coming Home To Roost.

There has recently been a tidal wave of Air Traffic Controllers falling asleep on the job, during late night shifts, when often staying awake presents the single most daunting challenge they'll face all shift.

This has happened in places as diverse as Seattle, Washington; Reno, Nevada; Lubbock, Texas; Knoxville, Tennessee; Washington, D.C. and Miami, Florida.

Needless to say every one is VERY CONCERNED. They are busily harumphing, talking about responsibility, and accountability, and their "watch", and all the usual things that they talk about whenever something big enough, and bad enough happens long enough to enter into the little bit of the American people's brainspace not taken over by obsession with what celebrity has a sex tape "leaked" this week, or who is going to win on American Idol.

Some are even actually talking about the underlying cause. Namely that the over night shifts are understaffed (all too often by only one person), and that there are not nearly enough air traffic controllers to go around.

But it seems that almost no one, (and certainly not the main stream media) has the guts to stand up and speak the truth about where the real root of many of these problems lay.

To put it simply, it's Ronald Reagan's fault.

In August of 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization declared a strike, seeking things like better working conditions, and a shorter work week.

That's right the air traffic controllers wanted to work LESS. Because they knew even back then that there was entirely too much risk of an overly tired controller falling asleep.

So Reagan simply ordered the controllers back to work and those that did not comply were fired and blacklisted from Federal jobs in the future.

PATCO was destroyed, and a new, neutered union was born, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

I would imagine that the situation for NATCA is a bit like being Henry the Eighths second wife. I'm sure they have done the best they can to look after their members best interests, but when almost all of the power and leverage is on the side of the FAA, and the airlines and airports such as the ability to summarily implement changes regardless of whether there is any challenge from the union, it means that they are really there more for the illusion of advocating for the Controllers than for the reality of it.

Meanwhile, you have the entire aviation industry being guided by profit motivation above any other, including or perhaps especially safety.

And what happens when these misguided motivations result in mishaps like the recent spate of sleeping controllers? Why spin doctoring and blame placing of course. The head of the FAA going on Fox news and offering no defense while the shows host insinuates that the problem is the Union.

There will be fevered hunts for the cause of the problem for a bit. Until a new problem comes along. All the while the facts will not have changed.

Ronald Reagan destroyed Unions in this country. It's just that simple.

And today, the Wrong Wing is proudly trying to finish what he started, making it so that there is simply no such thing as a Union, in any meaningful sense. Making it impossible to form or join one.

If they have their way, there will come a day when there is no one speaking up for the workers. A day when no matter what the job, no matter how important it might be, we will be presented with the only choice our self-appointed Corporate Masters wish us to have. Namely, Like It, or Lump It.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

The following resources were used in the creation of this article:

From DickMeister.com: Ronald Reagan's War on Labor

From PoliticusUSA: Fox News Twists Sleeping Air Traffic Controllers Into An Attack On Unions

From NATCA.com: NATCA Statement on Safe Staffing for Air Traffic Control Shifts

From Wikipedia: Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization: August 1981 strike

                        National Air Traffic Controllers Association

From Politicol News: FAA Air Traffic-Roy LaHood Asleep on the Job

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About Why We Need More Federal Regulation Not Less.

Let me ask you a question. What are you an expert on? Seriously what is it that you know forwards and backwards? Personal finance? Personal computing? Picking out the right wine to go with a meal? Fixing a car, rewiring a house, training a dog? Almost everyone is at least good, often very very good, at something. Some are even good, sometimes very very good, at many somethings. But if you are like most people, I'd be willing to bet that you aren't good at everything.

The simple fact is that no one is. Every day, most of us make decisions about things that we know very little about. Many of us try to research these things as best we are able, but even with the internet to help, some of the topics with which we may have to deal are so complex that only someone with years of training and experience can really steer us in the right direction. Sadly all too often such a person is not available to us, for reasons ranging from said person simply not existing near us, to said person existing but charging fees that, while not unreasonable, are still far higher than what we can afford to pay.

This is just one of the many reasons why we need strong government regulations.

There is another reason, one that is perhaps even more important than the first. American business, as it has been framed for at least the last hundred plus years is designed to be completely amoral. There is quite literally, all things being equal, no incentive for businesses to care about doing the right thing, any more than they feel they absolutely have to. All too often their default position is to do what they like, and on the far too few occasions that a person or group of people manage to sue them, they then will often tie things up in litigation hoping that the ability of the aggrieved party will falter before the cost of defending themselves outstrips what it would have taken to simply have made things right, or even better yet to have prevented the problem in the first place.

Once again the redress for this is regulation.

Regulation has been demonized, by the Right, and by Big Business, for as long as the idea has been around. Sadly, it has become all too common today, for average people to have bought into the web of bullshit that those two spin, about how onerous even the lightest and most reasonable of regulation is. Even sadder still is the fact that Democrats who are supposed to be the voice for regulation have either jumped on the "Deregulation" band wagon as Clinton did, or failed to fight effectively against it as was the case with Carter.

But regulation is good, and decent, and noble and right.

When you buy milk at the grocery, stamped with its use by date, you can trust that the milk in that container will not be spoiled, and if it is, then you can trust that you can return it and get your money back thanks to regulation.

When you go to buy a house, or a used car, the reason why the seller must state up front anything they know of that is wrong with either, in some cases having to put it in writing is because of regulation.

When a business is kept from making claims that they either, do not know for certain to be true, or even worse know for certain to be untrue, the reason for that is regulation.

When you have to deal with the final disposition of the remains of a loved one, a time when people are often at their most vulnerable and least clear-headed, the funeral home MUST list everything they are charging you for before you sign anything, because of regulation.

It is regulation that assures that people get fair treatment, and quality products and services.

There are always those who want to whine and cry about how awful it is that "No one trusts anyone any more!" insinuating that we should just go on faith unless someone does something bad. These are usually the same people who interestingly enough want to limit a persons right to sue if they are defrauded in a business transaction. Personally they've nothing to say that I've any interest in hearing since I'd be willing to lay good money down on the table to bet that they are all hypocrites. Unless they don't own or use locks on their doors, then I'd say their "trust" is pretty much a one way street.

Then there are the ones (usually the same ones as mentioned above) who complain about how Regulation only increases the cost of doing business. Sometimes this is true. Often the increase is, over the long-term, fairly miniscule. Sometimes admittedly the cost is fairly high, but this is most often in those businesses that have managed to go unregulated for far too long. The irony that many businesses do not wish to acknowledge is that sometimes regulation will SAVE them money, because in forbidding them from engaging in one type of potentially risky behavior or another, they are saved from taking a chance, having it go badly, and being successfully sued for far more than the cost of following the regulations.

However there is a problem abroad in the land.

During the 80's Ronald Reagan brought the spirit of deregulation with him and passed that spirit on to Bill Clinton. Over time though the support for massive deregulation seemed to start to wane. And so a program, active to this day of back door deregulation was stepped up. The best example of this can be seen with regards to the Food and Drug Administration. It is just one of many government agencies that is so horribly underfunded on top of laws being passed that all but strip it of the power to take action that it cannot effectively enforce the regulations that do exist. It is thanks to situations like this, that the salmonella tainted peanut epidemic of a couple of years ago was allowed to happen.

Back door deregulation is what allowed the horrible disaster caused by BP last year to happen.

But writing regulation, and funding its enforcement is not by themselves enough. There is an important third component, that even the most strident Progressives all too often fail to acknowledge, let alone articulate. For regulation to be effective much of it Must be at the Federal not the state level.

Once upon a time when it was possible for a person to be born, live and die without leaving their home town, never mind their home state, nor really have their lives directly impacted by what happened in other areas, it made a certain amount of sense to have Federal regulations be fairly minimal, almost like an outline and let the states have more control. That time is passed. If you need a clear proof of what a disaster weak Federal regulation and deference to the will of the states is I have just three words for you... Credit Card Companies.

Despite doing business all over the country these companies set up their "official" headquarters in states that have little to no regulation of their practices, meaning that unless a card holder is lucky enough to live in a state with laws that have been written in such a way as to regulate the transaction at the cardholders end, regardless of the laws where the card provider is based they have little to no protection.

Recently there has been some attempts to change some of this as regards credit cards thanks in no small part to the tireless efforts of Elizabeth Warren. But like almost all regulation of any kind it has been fought tooth and nail by the Right and Big Business. A huge shock I know.

The bottom line is that no matter what free market fantasies the Right might spin, businesses are loath to put what is right above what is profitable. And in this day and age thanks to the Interstate and the Internet, we are no longer a loosely affiliated collection of somewhat united states. We are one country and it's high time that our regulation and enforcement of that regulation accepted and reflected these facts.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

The following resources were consulted in the creation of this article:

From AlcatrazHistory.com: Al Capone At Alcatraz

From ConsumerAffairs.com: Life Alert Emergency Response

Special thanks to @Shoq

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About A Follow Up To France's Law Banning The Burqa Is Anti-Woman.

The other day I offered my thoughts  on France's recently implemented law making certain kinds of facial covering garments including those commonly associated with some of the more extreme practitioners of the Muslim religion.

There were a great many comments, but the most cogent came to me from a person named Casey.

I asked and received their permission to repost their remarks. Following that I'll offer up a few thoughts on what they had to say.

So without further mildew, I'll turn the floor over to Casey...

"You're condeming this legislation for all the wrong reasons.

The primary impetus for the prohibition of wearing the burqa in public is not a woman's rights issue, but a question of national identity and secularity. You can't think of French systems, laws, and definitions of freedom within a North American framework because the deep history of France and the philosophies that underpin the French brand of freedom are completely foreign and unrelated to the United States, despite that France is a "western" culture. American rules simply don't apply.

France employed a policy of <<la laïcité>>, or secularity, in the early 20th century. This means you can practice whatever you want privately, but as far as education and the public sector go, all is secular. The French state is far more influential in the daily lives of French citizens than the American government is- and it isn't necessarily a negative thing. The secularity laws provide a protection to the nonreligious and those practicing minority religions, a system that the United States should surely emulate in some fashion. In the early 20th century any ostentatious religious garments were prohibited from being worn in schools. This includes crucifixes, stars of david, and the like. The burqa is as ostentatious as a religious garment gets. To show such strong religious affiliation in the public sector is inconsistent with the French value of secularity and is seen to compromise French national identity. North Americans can't really relate to this issue of "national identity" that so plagues French society - what does it mean to be French? It is kind of rooted in the discrepancy between those who are ethnically French and those who live as French citizens in the modern French state. According to Sarkozy and many others, the burqa defies French ideals - that being secularity, principally, and equality between the sexes, also, yes. Sarkozy asserts that the French state should stop asking how they can accommodate the customs of immigrants, but rather how the immigrants can express loyalty to the French state that will be providing them with the life they will live.

Note also that the legislation prohibits not a hijab or headscarf, but only the full, face covering burqa. The legislation also prohibits any other face covering mask, not only religious garments. This brings up the security issue. Burqas are a security threat, plain and simple. There was a suicide bombing executed by a someone in a full burqa just recently in Pakistan. It is also an identity issue. How can someone picking their child up from school in a full burqa assert their identity, or withdrawal from a bank, etc. etc.

It is also true that many experts on Islam have said that there is no basis for the burqa in the Quran, and that most factions of Islam do not require women to wear the burqa. Forced burqa application occurs in the most radical sects of the religion. To force a woman to wear a burqa, covering her face, is stripping a woman of her identity, her sense of self, her individualism, and all because women are the "embodiment of temptation" and, of course, men shouldn't be bothered to control their impulses.

For a woman wearing a burqa in public, the fine is minimal and they may require some patriotism classes or something. If a man is found out to be forcing a woman to wear a burqa, the consequences include hefty fines and a prison sentence. This seems appropriate, to me. If a woman is choosing to wear a burqa, fine, you choose Allah over the French state or whatever. If the latter situation, a man is infringing upon a woman's civil rights. You call it "unenforceable", but keep in mind that the French have a different type of judicial system that is "inquisitorial", not "accusatory" like the American system. This allows for more, freer investigation by judges, even, if they are so inclined.

I am not completely defending the legislation, but you can see from where it arose in French culture. The law affects maybe 2,000 people, not that many. It is moreso to prove a point and perhaps further ostracize Muslims, maybe. It is my opinion that perhaps Sarkozy is stirring up this secularity/national identity conversation in order to garner votes from the far-right anti-immigration radical voters, away from the FN party.

I understand where one may think the legislation oppressive, but quite frankly, infringing on rights when it comes to religion in favor of the common good is extremely progressive- and in a good way. Why should such fairy tales as these huge, oppressive religions dictate how societies live, instead of equality and the truth of science and the tolerance and objectivity of secularity? A significant factor in the subordinate status of women worldwide is due to religion. Also, I highly doubt that the vast majority of these women want to wear a full burqa. They would never be allowed to say so- how can you ask the VEILED if they are oppressed? The veil is the embodiment of oppression! It would be frightening because it is probably all they have ever known, and many may want to wear a hijab for religious purposes, as hair often represents sexuality, but to cover the face and surrender identity for men? Oppressive. I don't know that some French legislation will cure all of these ills, of course, but an attempt is being made here. The legislation has been emulated in some other parts of Europe, like Germany, but not on such a large scale.

You don't have to worry about the US emulating this legislation, that would never happen. The United States systemizes freedom in a completely different way, and, as we know, the US has absolutely no commitment to secularity. The burqa ban is flawed, certainly, but I feel like people are failing to see a lot of the benefits. We could all do with a little more secularity in government."

First of all I'd like to thank Casey for their very thoughtful and well articulated points. Many of which I agree with, and others while I may not exactly agree I can understand the logic of.

One of my objections is that to a certain extent French Nationalism merely seems like religion by other means. So to an extent it almost seems like a kind of forced conversion to require an individual to surrender so much of what they may view as the core of their identity.

Beyond that however is the issue of whether or not one can be liberated from an opressive religion or practice at what amounts to the point of a sword.

I can more than understand how distasteful people find the opression of women that is part and parcel of Islamic extremism. But I do not see how a law that is likely to result in more opression not less is going to do anything meaningful to address the problem.

As to the security arguments, those I find much more compelling although only up to a point. Since I would imagine that in Pakistan veiled women are a much more common sight, they are not an illogical agent for terroristic actions. Whereas since such a woman (law or no law) would stand out like the proverbial sore thumb, in France, she would not make an effective terrorist agent because there'd be too much scrutiny.

Ultimately the world in many ways always has been a very small place and it continues to grow smaller. Whether Secularists like it or not religions like Islam and Christianity are not going away any time soon. And I'm not certain that crafting laws that seem to be aimed largely at supressing a particular group is in any nations best interests.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About Doublethinking About Education.

[[posterous-content:pid___2]]"Forty-five percent of people who go to college, four-year colleges, don't get a bachelor's degree within six years. Those people often have met with disappointment and their investment isn't particularly good, necessarily. Another group of people graduate from college and then have trouble getting jobs and end up taking jobs for which a college education is not really a prerequisite. Twelve percent of the mail carriers in the United States today have college degrees. And I have nothing against mail carriers with college degrees, but I don't think it's an absolute necessity to have a college degree to deliver the mail. "
 

Professor RICHARD VEDDER (Ohio University)

Once upon a time there was a much clearer divide between "Education" and "Training".

The former was about gaining a set of skills to help one gather information about the world in which one lived and then filter, understand, and act upon that information. The latter about gaining very specific skills necessary to do a particular task or set of tasks.

While the two were considered in many ways equally important, they were not confused for each other.

There was a time when an education was something you took. It was a right. A human right. Whereas training was something you were given. It was bestowed upon you.

The purpose of training was to help you get or keep a job.

The purpose of education was so that you could be a fully participating citizen, of the world, not just the little piece of it where you happened to have been born, happened to be living.

There was also a time when Universities while considered Foci of education, were not thought of as the sole repositories of same. There were many who had no formal schooling at all. Yet they took great pride in being educated, even if it was self-education. They read voraciously, engaged in lively intellectual debate with others. And while this was greatly satisfying to them, they conceived of something more for their children.

So they worked and fought to see a formal education transformed from something only for the scions of the privileged, to a basic human right available to all.

But as happens all to often the seductive serpent of Radical Capitalism slithered into what should have been the grounds of Eden and turned it into a kind of hell.

Bit by bit a poison has spread in the veins of our ambitions. We have been encouraged to view everything through a horribly distorted lens. A lens called, "But how does this get me paid."

Everything has been reduced to the lowest common denominator of cold hard cash.

If an "education" does not result in one getting a job, securing one's economic future, then clearly it must be a waste of time has become the conventional wisdom.

Those who go to school without a clear plan of how what they are studying will result in a big payday at some point are viewed as frivolous.

We have been taught that the subtler, intangible values of what was once called a "classic" education, are meaningless if they can not result in a bigger house, a better car, in short if they do not result in having more things.

This is why they have tried so hard to make everything about passing standardized tests and we treat teachers as if they were doing a job no more complicated than collecting the trash, and infinitely less valuable.

Modern life has become much like being on a long conveyor belt, the end of which dumps us into a charnel pit. No matter how much we might struggle there seems to be no getting off, no avoiding the terrible fate we've seen all the ones before us consigned to. Or at least this is what we've been told by the ones operating the conveyor. At one point along they way there is a door marked "EXIT". However when we inquire about what lies behind that door, we are told, "Oh you don't want to go through that door. You'll never get to the end of the conveyor if you do."

But here's the secret they are keeping from you. That conveyor belt? It only seems like it's moving. In truth you only get to the pit if you choose to walk forward all the way to the end. And that door, the one marked "EXIT"? It's not closed, in fact it's wide open, and a lot easier to reach then they would have you believe.  You only need to find the courage to walk through it. Once you do you'll be in a whole new place. It has its own challenges and dangers but the rewards are far greater than anything that conveyor belt you left behind has to offer.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

The following resources were used in the creation of this article:

From TechCrunch: We’re in a Bubble and It’s Not the Internet. It’s Higher Education.

From Chris Hedges at Truthout: Why the United States Is Destroying Its Education System

From Tell Me More on NPR: Is A College Education Worth The Debt?

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About "Bad Idea" Doesn't Even Begin To Cover It.

There are a lot of people who are sorely disappointed in Barack Obama. I'm one of them.

The person who seemed like the second coming of FDR has turned out to be more like the second coming of Clinton instead. Excelling at talking a good game, but far to eager to appease the corporations and the Republican extremists who have taken control of the GOP.

Obama is constantly seeking the "Center" from the beginning of any political action, which pretty much guarantees that he'll end up on the "Right" every time.

On issues ranging from financial reform, to healthcare for all, he has time and time again let the Progressive Left down.

As a result, there are a lot of people calling for Obama to face a Primary Challenge. I am Not one of them.

The kind of thinking that leads Progressives to believe that a Primary Challenge to Obama is a good idea is a classic example of the many ways that all to often we are unwilling, or unable to accept and grapple with some of the simple, brutal truths of politics in America, in this day and age.

1: No president will ever be Progressive enough.

This has been a fact of political life going back at least as far as Franklin Roosevelt. (I limit myself thusly because I'm honestly not sure if Progressivism as the distinct entity we know it as today really existed prior to the twentieth century) The amount of politicking, and compromise required to be elected President usually saps even the best persons purity. Even if someone were to mount a successful Primary Challenge to Obama, win the Democratic nomination and win the Presidency, there is no guarantee that once in office that person wouldn't turn out to be as bad a compromiser as we fault Obama for being.

2: It's far easier to lose momentum than to build it.

One of the things that Obama at this stage in the game has going for him is that he's a known commodity. This helps to get past some of the natural suspicions people have of the unknown. This increases his chances of winning. A successful challenger while perhaps well-known to Progressives, would be a virtual stranger to most Americans. Besides that, most Americans would not even be "seeing" the candidate but rather the infighting and divisiveness that he would symbolize. Leaving the Republicans free to do what they do best, present the appearance of a united front, which can be very reassuring to voters.

3: Anything that might allow a Republican to get back into the White House is an unacceptable risk.

And I do mean ANYTHING! The Republicans have always largely been pro military, pro corporation, anti regulation, and anti reform. But once upon a time they did have some self-imposed limits. Lines that at least in public they assured us they would not cross. Those days are OVER. At this point I have no faith at all in the Republicans to be even remotely sane. Destroy Medicare? End Social Security? Kill the Post Office? Repeal the minimum wage laws? If the headlines tomorrow said the GOP was going to do all those things and more it would not surprise me one bit. The majority of Democrats may be fairly weak, and very beholden to corporations, but at least they still have a shred of compassion and common sense. The Republicans not only have none, but they have made a point of proclaiming that lack as a virtue.

4: You cannot build the roof before you build the foundation.

A big part of the problem in politics in America is that far too many people are fixated on the office of the President as the be all and end all of political power. In some ways it is. But in many other ways it really isn't. Power for real change often lies in the lower levels. State, even often cities and towns. If Progressives really do want to someday have a President that reflects our values we need to start by building a solid Progressive infrastructure. We need to remember that no position is too small, to not be worth seeking to put a Progressive there. Town dog catcher, city auditor, and on up. Once we have the lowest most humble levels of government filled with Progressives, then we can seek to build on that. Working up to Progressive mayors, and governors, and senators. Until finally there will come a day when a true Progressive is sitting in the oval office.

This however is the work of years, decades really. It is not going to happen over night. And the way to start is not by trying to field a Hail Mary Pass of a candidate to challenge Obama in the Democratic Primary.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

The following resources were used in the creation of this article:

From Newsweek: War on the Weak

From Truthout: Government by People Who Hate You

From The Wall Street Journal: Obama Puts Taxes on Table

From The Progressive: Why a Primary Challenge to Obama Is a Bad Idea

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About Even The Strongest Have A Breaking Point.

"It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps."
— Martin Luther King Jr.

There was a time in this country when the dream of America was so strongly felt, so powerfully dreamt, and so completely believed that there were many who could not even begin to imagine that it might be a false dream. It was the dream that anyone could be a material success if only they worked hard enough. The dream that, that same material success indicated spiritual success. It was the dream that nothing separated the common man from the Rockefellers except a little luck to go with the aforementioned hard work. That at any moment one might rise above even the humblest of circumstances and "make something of oneself".

But then came the horrible awakening known as The Great Depression. A time that saw unbelievable numbers of people go from prosperity, to poverty, in one fell swoop.

The nation was gripped by a spirit of hopelessness, and helplessness.

The timid, tepid answer advanced by those in government was to stay the course. To trust in the Masters of commerce and let them have their head in all things.

The callous, cold answer from those Masters of business and finance was to not look to them for your well-being. They were in business to do business, not to take care of those who couldn't take care of themselves.

All the while, people starved, and froze, and sickened, and died.

Finally, there came some people who understood, even if often imperfectly, what people were going through. They understood how angry, and mournful, and horribly, horribly frightened people were.

These people conceived of a plan. Not just one plan in fact but a plan of plans.

Regulation for the banks that had helped cause the crisis. Help for the farmers that were among the first and hardest hit by the problems of outmoded methods of food production. Laws that would force businesses of all kinds to give workers safe conditions, an honest wage, and a measure of real security. On top of that they realized that people needed to be able to live their lives relatively free from fear. Both fear of the here and now, and fear of the future.

So a safety net was created.

That net was designed to ensure that those who lost jobs would still be able to live decent dignified lives while looking for work. To make certain that even those who could not work for whatever reason would not be destitute. And to guarantee that when people were simply too old to do for themselves that they would still be able to have some kind of quality of life.

These were promises made to the American people.  And we put our faith in them.

Today we stand at the brink of seeing the last of those promises betrayed.

Today this country, the United States Of America exists in a state of perpetual war.

No sooner does one war slow down then we find another one to take its place.

We send men and women to distant regions, to kill and die. There's always a good excuse. It's always in the name of freedom and liberty, but all too often the truth is that it is merely to facilitate the agenda of one corporation or another. But even if the wars we are embroiled in were truly for the reasons we've been told, it would not change a fundamental truth.

Everything that exists has a breaking point. Be it a bridge, a building, a person or a country.

One recent example of this is Clay Hunt. A twenty-eight year old Marine from Houston Texas. Clay was a spokesperson for the military's suicide prevention program. Unlike far too many soldiers he did not keep his pain and confusion to himself. He sought and received help. Sadly just like far far too many soldiers in the end there just wasn't enough help to outweigh the pain and Clay took his own life.

But one doesn't have to be a soldier to know pain, confusion and despair.

There are people who have been out of work for so long now that they have stopped even bothering to look. No matter how much they might wish they could, they simply don't have the strength any more to face the endless rejection.

There are others, who thanks to tactics ranging from legal trickery to outright fraud have been forced from their homes. The lucky ones manage to find friends or family to live with. The unlucky ones end up out on the street.

But even having a job these days for far too many people offers scant protection from a life of unending pain. Whether it is someone who is working themselves to exhaustion in a subsistence level job, hoping and praying every day that they don't get too sick to work. Or that they aren't simply the next to be fired while the company searches for greater and greater profits. Or someone who works, and sacrifices, knowing full well that the likelihood of their children having a better life than theirs is growing increasingly slim.

People are tired. They are scared. They are angry. Most of them don't want to be kept like animals in a cage. Rather what they want is to know that if hard times find them they will have the help they need to be able to continue to live like human beings. To live lives of decency and dignity.

But that's not what's being offered to them.

Instead they watch as the rich grow even richer. They see these millionaires and billionaires feasting, and enjoying the best that life has to offer.

And when any of us dare to ask for even the merest crumb from our presumptive "betters"? We are told that we are lazy, and selfish. How dare we ask them to give up even so much as an iota of their wealth? Who are we to suggest even obliquely that they don't have a god given right to every last cent they can lay their hands on?

So the rich get richer. The poor get poorer. But there's something else we get as we get poorer. We get angrier, and more desperate.

There will come a day, and I think that it is not too far off, where enough people will be desperate enough to stop fearing the consequences of standing up to the hoarders who fancy themselves the Masters of the earth.

If we are lucky, the revolution will be a peaceful one.

But I'm not holding my breath.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Last Supper Of A Desperate Man:

Gun in my hand.
So heavy and cool.
So real.
More real than the job i lost six months ago.
More real than the home i had stolen from me by the bank.
More real than the wife who left me because she just couldn't take it any more.

Gun in my heart.
So much anger. Rage. Self loathing. And fear.
Did "they" do this to me?
i played the game by the rules.
Got an education. Got job. Got a wife. A car. A house. A couple of kids. Did everything right and still lost.
Did i do this to me?
Too much spending. Too much credit. Not enough savings. I couldn't believe that it would ever, could ever turn out like this.

Gun in my mouth.
The taste is bitter but inviting.
To a mouth that's been more empty than full these last few weeks, any meal's a treat.
Even a meal of metal and gun oil.
Take a deep breath.
Gather the last of my courage.
Be a man just one last time.
Pull the trigger.

CLICK!

Maybe tomorrow i can scrounge enough money for a bullet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

The following sources were used in the creation of this article:

From The Houston Chronicle: War casualty on the home front

From The Washington Independent: Death and Joblessness

From Newsweek: War on the Weak

From Truthout: Government by People Who Hate You

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About France's Law Banning The Burqa Is Anti-Woman.

Say, did you hear the one about France caring so much about the freedom of women that they passed a law that is almost certain to result in some of them not being able to leave their homes?

If you say that the joke isn't very funny you're right. But sadly with the recently enacted law against women wearing the traditional head and face covering garments associated with members of the Muslim religion it is likely to have exactly that effect.

The proponents want to carry on about how it is out of respect for women, but the simple truth of the matter is that the law is not only anti-Muslim as others have pointed out, but it is also anti-woman.

Regardless of how many of us in what is broadly termed "The West" may think of many Muslim practices, the simple fact is that passing incredibly restrictive laws like this one is not going to cause Muslim women to suddenly throw off their cloth shackles and embrace liberation.  Instead it is going to result in women who despite believing they have to go about with their head and face covered, at least are still able to be out and about amongst other people. Being exposed to other ideas, and other ways of thinking about things. But now women who wear the banned garments will be forced to choose between staying indoors, or breaking the law.

Meanwhile, I can't help but notice that there does not seem to be any law on the books criminalizing Muslim men who wear the dress and facial hair traditional for their religion.

While I am certain that proponents of the law would try to defend it as non sexist by pointing out the much stiffer penalty for men found to be "forcing a woman to wear the burqa", personally I call bullshit, as that part of the law is highly unlikely to be enforced. In fact it is nearly unenforceable. If a woman is veiled in public that is pretty cut and dried. Easy to spot, easy to prove. How pray tell does one spot, let alone prove that she was being "forced" to?

The simple truth of the matter is that one of the prices of living in a free and open society is accepting that some people are going to have ways of acting and dressing that at best make no sense, and at worst are mildly distasteful. Such things are often deeply bound up in the persons culture and traditions and change only slowly, if at all. Attempting to change them at the point of sword, gun, or legislation usually backfires and results in those so threatened digging in their heels and making a point of resisting change. Resulting in a change, that had it been allowed to happen naturally, may have took place in a matter of years, instead taking decades, or even longer.

Bottom line the law is stupid, and will prove I think to cause much more harm than good. I sincerely hope that America will not seek to emulate it, and by doing so add to the already lengthy list of extremely poor ideas we have been guilty of in our attempts to interact with Muslims both at home and abroad.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

The following resource was consulted in creating this article:

Via Newser: 2 Arrested Under France's Burka Ban

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About The Price Of Being A Progressive.

There are times when I wonder if political orientation isn't, for some of us at least, like race or sexual orientation. Some may choose, to be Republican, or Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal. But I am beginning to suspect that for others we are quite literally born a certain way and are not likely to change.

For me, as I indicated back in an article about my journey in growing politically aware, my ideology was pretty much set in my early teens, when I articulated the belief that "Everyone should be free to go as far as their talent and willingness to work will take them, but no one should be allowed to fall below the level of human dignity."

It took me several more years of searching before I was able to figure out that holding such a belief pretty much puts me right smack in the middle of the Progressive camp.

I would not change being a Progressive for anything. It's quite simply the only political ideology that makes any sense to me. Sometimes I do wonder if I did feel it was a matter of choice how likely I would be to "choose" Progressivism. It seems to me that of all the four best known (to Americans anyway) ideologies it is the one that exacts the highest price from its adherents.  All too often though that price goes unarticulated. I think that sometimes this results in people getting into Progressivism having no idea what they are in for, and then once they learn, if it is for them a choice rather than a compulsion, they head for the nearest exit.

So it is in the interest of full disclosure that I am going to attempt to sum up the costs as I've learned of them, that one may have to bear in the course of being a Progressive.

1: Get used to thinking for yourself. Even when you don't want to.

There are times when it would be so much simpler to simply be able to turn to a single trusted source, and be told what the truth is, and what we should do about it. But despite the insistence to the contrary of Rush Limbaugh and FOX News, there is no central authority from which Progressives get their marching orders. While there are some sources that are almost universally trusted by Progressives such as Democracy NOW!, even they are not going to provide you with easy answers. You are still going to have to decide for yourself what you believe and how to act upon those beliefs.  Which brings us to...

2: Get used to constantly being told how wrong, foolish, naive, etc you are. By other Progressives.

There may be no more contentious group in America. Far too quick to condemn each other for failing to hew to some unspoken party line, yet refusing to hew to that same line themselves if they feel it's contrary to what they view as Progressive values. While this does give each Progressive a great deal of autonomy it makes getting any kind of real mass movement going more than just a bit challenging.

3: Get used to pretty much ALWAYS having only evil to choose from lesser evil though it may be.

Oh sure there are exceptions. Al Franken is one that springs to mind. But over all, generally none of the candidates for office are going to come even close to being in line with Progressive values except, maybe, if you're lucky, on one or two issues. Often not even then. All too often you will be forced to look at things in terms of what candidate would potentially do the most damage if elected and then try to make sure they don't.

4: Get used to people accusing you of judging them. Even when you really aren't.

Vegan? I can guarantee you that the second you discuss how much healthier you feel since making the switch someone will claim that you are judging their choice to eat meat. Anti-war? Trust me you'll be accused sooner or later of hating soldiers. The list goes on and on. Bottom line anytime you take a stand that is outside of the very narrow confines of what many people understand and can accept, no matter how non-judgementally you try to articulate that stand, some people will insist that you are judging them.

5: Get used to always being outgunned.

One of the biggest challenges that Progressives face is mounting effective campaigns against opponents, both Republican and Democrat who are usually getting a lot of corporate cash. The simple truth is that corporations despise Progressives, and they always will. This leaves us forced to depend on grassroots movements, which while certainly can be effective, require a lot more work, and all too often can easily be robbed of momentum at a moments notice. Meanwhile we will constantly be forced to survive situations that feel like the equivelant of a guy with a bb gun going up against someone in a tank.

6: Get used to there being no end in sight.

I think this one above all the others is what finally hits people hard enough that they just give up on Progressivism. Because there will never come a day (at least not until after first contact) when we get to sit back, put our feet up and bask in the glory of a job well done. If we needed proof of that fact the last few years has given it to us in spades. Nearly everything that Progressives accomplished back in the first half of the twentieth century has been undone, or drastically weakened, in either the last half or the first part of the twenty first.

Frankly I think the rewards of Progressivism far outweigh any price. But at the same time I think that people should know what they are getting into so they can make an informed choice. That to me is one of the most fundamental aspects of what it means to be a Progressive.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About How Bad Does The Abuse Have To Get?

 

In the past I've spoken about the fact that I am a survivor of partner abuse. I know from the inside what it is like to be with someone who claims to care about you and yet is abusing you mentally, physically and emotionally. I understand how it is possible to defend that person even truly believe that they really do care, despite all evidence to the contrary. I also know with a certainty that borders on faith that if  a person living in such a situation does not eventually wake up and realize the true nature of the reality in which they are living, they will either wind up dead, or so destroyed mentally and emotionally that they may as well be dead.

My question is what exactly is it going to take for the majority of American's to realize this about the Republican party?

Setting aside the history of the Republicans (the fact that they have largely been pro big business and anti worker for most of the twentieth century) and just focusing on what they are up to in the last year is enough to make it abundantly clear that they have anything but the best interests of the whole of the American people driving their agenda.

They are seeking to wholly destroy the social safety net that generations of Americans worked so hard to build in dismantling unemployment benefits, nutrition assistance, Medicaid, and disability benefits.

They are seeking to remove any late life security from people by destroying Social Security, and Medicare.

They are seeking to destroy one of the most secure means by which people might advance from the Working Class into the Middle Class, namely educational opportunity.  And they are working to gut the efficacy of Unions, by either simply denying the right to Unionization to public sector workers, or making it next to impossible for private sector workers to form one.

They are lately even seeking to destroy things once thought of as unassailable bastions of life in America, such as the minimum wage, child labor laws, and public police, and fire departments.

Add to this their ongoing attempts to undo protections against discrimination based on race, gender, religion etc. and what you have is a very ugly picture of where they would seek to take this country.  Namely back to the '80's and with all due respect to David Sirota I mean the 1880's not the 1980's.

All of this would be bad enough but then there is the psychological warfare that they are engaged in. A relentless assault on people's minds to convince them that any government is bad government. To convince them that the kind of people who programs like welfare, Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and such are meant to help aren't people like them.  Oh no it all goes to cheats and chislers and shiftless layabouts.

And taxing the super rich? Well we don't want that now do we? After all this is America where anyone can become anything they want if only they work long enough and hard enough. And some day when you're super rich do YOU want to pay those burdensome taxes? Of course not!

It goes on and on and on. The most mind-boggling part is that people fall for it time and time again. They have been so thoroughly brainwashed against the Progressive agenda that most of them can't even begin to think straight long enough to realize that everything that Government is not doing now, some corporation is doing instead, or it just isn't getting done.

Once upon a time this wasn't too awful. The basic idea was that government secured the basics (the so-called social safety net) and everything above that was left up to businesses.

But American business is about growth, and many seemed to view what government was doing as an ideal growth area. So through lobbying they convinced many in government to give more and more of the things it was running over to business. Like prisons, and power distribution to name just a couple. This would not have been such a terrible thing necessarily if there had been strong regulation and oversight. But of course the instant that businesses came up against even the weakest of regulation they began to lobby to have them removed.

This is a bit like letting the town rapist guard your virgin daughter and then agreeing that those pesky locks on her door will only get in the way of his ability to do his job effectively.

Now we come to the point where the Republicans are preparing to through a thrilling game of chicken with Democrats see the government shut down. All because the Democrats have not capitulated to their Corporatist anti people agenda fast enough and completely enough. The Republicans are zealotous political terrorists willing to hold the country hostage until they get their own way. Compromise is a dirty word and if they can't have it all they'll make sure no one has anything. Kind of a modern-day scorched earth policy.

And as I'm seeing all this take place I have to wonder will there be a final straw? Will people continue to slumber in apathy? Or will there be a final blow that snaps people out of their fatal revery? More importantly perhaps is the question of whether or not after that blow our country will be even remotely salvageable.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

Posted via email from The One About...

The One About Terry Jones Being A Distasteful Ass Clown Doesn't Automatically Make Those Opposed To Him Right.

 

Not quite a year ago a preacher down in Florida by the name of Terry Jones made headlines by threatening to burn a Qur’an, well-known by now as the holy book of the Muslim faith.  Well recently he's been back in the news thanks to his publicly putting said holy book "On Trial", finding it guilty, and as it's "punishment" burning it up in a fire.

In a move that surprised no one with an age or IQ over about ten, a small group of Muslim extremists used the action as an excuse to commit violence and murder.

Sadly the response to the whole situation from a great many pseudo Progressives is equally unsurprising.  Said response pretty much boiling down to "It's all Terry Jones' fault."

The response not only emboldens terrorist organizations, but also serves to completely delegitimize the Progressive movement in the eyes of most Americans.

Is there any question that Jones' is a publicity seeking asshole, with no respect for any view other than his own? Of course not. Nor is there any doubt that burning any groups "Holy Book" is in execrable taste. Personally to me book burning always has, and always will be a disgusting reminder of the kind of narrow-minded thinking that comes out of places like Nazi Germany. There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of any rational person that Jones' would be the first to rail against anyone deciding to burn a copy of the book that he considers sacred.

The problem is that something being in poor taste, or ill-considered, or just plain stupid doesn't automatically make it "wrong".  And further more even if it were in either the legal or moral sense wrong, that does not make the decision by a group of radical religious nuts to use his actions as an excuse to commit murder, in any way shape or form, rational, right, or even remotely defensible.

Rather, what the Afghani mob, incited by Mullah Mohammed Shah Adeli did, is text-book terrorism. They used violence against people who were not even remotely related to the person who committed an act they did not like, to attempt to send a message.

That message has been heard loud and clear. The message is a fairly simple and disgusting one.  "Say or do anything that we do not like and we will murder as many people as we can get our hands on in retaliation."

And do Progressives stand tall and proud and reply with a message of our own, saying that there is never any justification for the murder of innocents, least of all the fact that someone made a statement or committed a symbolic act that you happen to disagree with?

We do not.

Instead we simper about how awful Terry Jones is, and how he shouldn't have done that, and how he's endangering our troops, and a trillion and one other hoary old clichés.

Well here's the simple brutal truth of the matter.  Terry Jones Did Not Kill Any ONE.  Those Afghans did. Period.

To lose sight of that fact, to suggest even indirectly that we should capitulate to those who seek to use terroristic violence to achieve their goals is in fact to abandon true Progressive principles.  To carry on about the wrongs done to someone like Liu Xiaobo because of his governments denial of his right to free speech (a right that most Progressives believe should be held as universal) while insisting that Terry Jones was in the wrong for exercising his, is quite simply two-faced.

And to make matters worse it further distances Progressivism from making any kind of real common cause with the very people we most need to reach out to.  Mainstream, working class Americans.  It gives us the appearance of caring more about not upsetting a bunch of Muslim extremists than we care about true freedom for all.  Freedom to speak one's mind, and freedom to live, free from the fear of the kind of violence those extremists perpetrated.

The extremists have sent their message.  And now we must send ours.  That even though we may disagree with Jones actions we defend his right to commit them. That we do not view the actions of the Afghans who murdered those people as legitimate in any way, shape, or form.  And that there is never any justification of any kind for mass murder.  To do any less is to give aid and comfort to the enemies of true freedom abroad, and the enemies of Progressivism here at home.

Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

Posted via email from The One About...

Obama The "Secret Muslim"

The One About Seven Reasons Some Republicans Keep Insisting Obama Is A "Secret Muslim"

Say did you know that Obama is actually a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood?  Groomed, so as to be able to pass in American society... and become a United States Senator... and become President.  Damn those towelheaded motherfuckers Plan AHEAD.  You've got to admire that.



Seriously though this is a line of bullshit that many Republicans (especially those who have allied themselves with the tea party) seem to spout at the drop of a hat.  What's truly pathetic is that so many people fall for it without even thinking twice.



And what about the Republiecans?  Surely they aren't just saying that in an attempt to undermine Obama's effectiveness as President.  Surely they must have solid, logical reasons for claiming that he's a "Secret Muslim".  Since most Republinuts decline to enumerate their reasons for holding such an odd belief I've taken the liberty of trying to think like a Republican (It was easy after breathing into a plastic bag until I passed out from lack of oxygen, but boy is it hard to type with a plastic bag over your head) and come up with a list of possible explanations.  And without further ado, here they are.



7: It's to keep him from realizing they know he's a Secret Jew.



6: They actually meant it as a compliment because he talks so much more intelligently and dresses so much nicer than those obvious Muslims.



5: Obama? They were talking about another black leader of a major superpower. They do kind of all look alike you know.



4: They just can't find any other rational explanation for why he's not going after the white women.



3: They get all tingly in their special places when they say, "Secret Muslim".



2: The ones who insist he is, are in fact themselves, "Secret Muslims" and they are just trying to keep the suspicion off, so they can continue to subvert the citizens of the Great Satan, America.



1: They know he's not. They're only saying that to keep people from realizing that he's a fucking corporate shill just like they are.



Keep The Faith My Brothers And Sisters!

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/bxelb