Right-wing stupidity, thy name is Goode!
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) felt it necessary to announce that he will not be sworn into office using the Koran.
The guy is a fifth-term Representative, so you would think that he would know that the oath of office is not taken on any holy book at all. But, just maybe, his constituents were afraid that he was a closet Muslim and he felt the need to dispel their fears with this announcement.
Nah, not bloody likely.
We should all look forward to future announcements by this half-wit telling us that Rep. Goode will NOT be celebrating Ramadan this year, nor will he complete the Haj or attend mosque.
Was there one single person is his district that was seriously worried Rep. Goode would be forced into taking his oath of office on the Koran? Did anyone really imagine that Rep. Goode was secretly a Muslim?
If not, then just what purpose does this kind of announcement serve? Rep. Goode says it has nothing to with bigotry, so what is the reason, then?
We keep hearing from Republicans about how they respect people's right to practice their religion, and that they really only oppose the jihadists. The reality seems to be that they have a deep problem with Islam in any form. Just like all other religions beside Christianity, they are fine as long you don't practise them or make your belief in them public. If you hide your belief in Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. and acknowledge your deep shame in rejecting Jesus, then Republicans will good-naturedly let you slide as merely 'inferior', rather than 'dangerous'. At least until now, that is.
Republicans are now so far out of the "Big Tent" that it's sad. Even moderate or nominal Muslims are now a 'threat', a sign of how our immigration policies have failed us. Except that letting in Christian Hipanics is also bad in their minds. Only white Christian evangelicals should be allowed in, or else those weird people who believe in other religions will be elected to office... but no fearmongering, no bigotry, no hatred here in the party of Lincoln. No, sir. It's just time that we "wake up", whatever that means. We keep hearing Republicans telling us to wake up or face some nebulous consequences. Anyone ever a gotten a straight answer as to what "waking up" really entails to these people? It sounds to me like "wake up" is Republican code for "start hating vehemently".
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Rank hypocrisy on Venezuela
Across the board in American media (news, opinion, talk radio, etc.) the term "dictator" is used in reference to Chavez, and suddenly we have become very concerned about those people in Venezuela.
For 40 years, Venezuela has had American-approved presidents who do nothing for the poor, help the wealthy immensely, and clamp down on domestic opposition. But most importantly, these presidents have been in thrall to the oil companies and have guaranteed that Venezuela will let these companies extract oil for a pittance. And nobody cared about Venezuela, or South America at all, really (except for the Colombian civil war). Then Chavez gets elected. Now Venezuela is one of our "vital interests" and we deeply care about democracy there.
Prior to Chavez, we had a political system in Venezuela that was ruled by the Punto Fijo accords. America liked this arrangement, because it guaranteed stablilty (and cheap oil), but little else. The Punto Fijo accord let two parties essentially take turns running the government and everyone else was deemed "unworthy". Elections were not clean, but America didn't care. These two parties did nothing to help the poor, which make up the majority of the population. Rather than demand a larger share of the revenue from their own oil, these parties instead launched on a huge borrowing spree from the World Bank for projects that went to benefit the elite and make the oil industry more profitable for the oil companies, while leaving Venezuelans to pay the bill. And this allowed the U.S. to control the economy of Venezuela even more tightly.
Not surprisingly, U.S. control did nothing for the poor and made the rich richer.
When Chavez gets elected, he faces a political system designed for little else but to accommodate U.S. interests and make sure that nothing changes. The opposition screams fraud, but has no proof, even though they control the voting system. The system has been designed to accommodate fraud and to make it difficult to detect it, so as to make the fraud engaged in by the two "legitimate" parties for decades okay. It's funny that nobody questioned this before, isn't it?
When we talk about the "opposition" we are talking about a wealthy elite of white or light-skinned people who are profoundly racist and refer to the poor (dark-skinned) as "monkeys" and "marginals" It's as if we have taken the worst of the American South and the feudal European aristocracy and combined them into one. Everything has been handed to these people; "connections" make sure they have high-paying jobs, not merit. The legal system is overwhelmingly designed to make sure that the lower classes don't trouble them. Police make sure these people do not have to actually encounter or even see the poor. The media is geared toward them and constantly puts forward the notion that this class is "better" and that they achieved their status due to merit. The government taxes the poor to pay for these wealthy peoples' college education in the U.S. and upon graduation they slide into oil industry executive roles. And this minority has controlled the government for decades. We are not dealing with idealistic people struggling against oppression. Instead, it's a class of spoiled, stuck-up, racist brats who no longer have everything stacked in their favour. Boo-hoo.
These are the people we are sticking up for in Venezuela.
As I said, when the opposition lost to Chavez, they went into full denial mode. In spite of closely monitored elections in a newly cleaned-up system, they claimed that Chavez's repeated electoral victories were fraud. Instead of a 70/30 split in favour of Chavez, they saw a 70/30 split in their favour. The polls showed otherwise, but people were too 'afraid' to speak freely under Chavez, or so their reasoning went. Yeah, the majority of poor people really wanted this wealthy elite to continue to rule, but were just too scared to say so.
In this "repressive dictatorship", the wealthy elite still controls the television, radio, and newspapers. The television news is strongly biased against Chavez, and allows the elite to live in fantasy world where they really are still on top. Near-treason is common, with opposition leaders pleading for a U.S. backed coup to restore them to power.
Can you imagine if the Democrats here in the U.S. had taken the same approach after Kerry lost? If they claimed that Bush was not really the President and openly asked for foreign countries to invade us to set things right? Now consider the oil industry lockout in Venezuela, which was the opposition's greatest undoing. The largest union, long in the pocket of the two parties formerly in control, from the industry that generates most of the country' income, combines with the oil industry executives goes on "strike", demanding not wage and benefit increases, but that the government step down in favour of the old parties. What they can't win at the ballot box, they attempt to win by extortion. They shut down the oil industry, which is in no one's benefit. Long story short, they are replaced and lose their cushy jobs, Chavez stays in power, and the flow of oil is restored in about a year. These bitter people, once wealthy with everything stacked in their favour, now have to compete in a fair system, and they don't do well. Of course, this is all proof of Chavez's "dictatorship", not their own failed bid to usurp power.
So now we have invade Venezuela to put Muffy and Thurston back into their old jobs and restore their way of life. In return, they will restore the old arrangement whereby we are guaranteed cheap oil. And if democracy has to go by the wayside for a couple of decades, so be it. Yes, we're deeply concerned.
For 40 years, Venezuela has had American-approved presidents who do nothing for the poor, help the wealthy immensely, and clamp down on domestic opposition. But most importantly, these presidents have been in thrall to the oil companies and have guaranteed that Venezuela will let these companies extract oil for a pittance. And nobody cared about Venezuela, or South America at all, really (except for the Colombian civil war). Then Chavez gets elected. Now Venezuela is one of our "vital interests" and we deeply care about democracy there.
Prior to Chavez, we had a political system in Venezuela that was ruled by the Punto Fijo accords. America liked this arrangement, because it guaranteed stablilty (and cheap oil), but little else. The Punto Fijo accord let two parties essentially take turns running the government and everyone else was deemed "unworthy". Elections were not clean, but America didn't care. These two parties did nothing to help the poor, which make up the majority of the population. Rather than demand a larger share of the revenue from their own oil, these parties instead launched on a huge borrowing spree from the World Bank for projects that went to benefit the elite and make the oil industry more profitable for the oil companies, while leaving Venezuelans to pay the bill. And this allowed the U.S. to control the economy of Venezuela even more tightly.
Not surprisingly, U.S. control did nothing for the poor and made the rich richer.
When Chavez gets elected, he faces a political system designed for little else but to accommodate U.S. interests and make sure that nothing changes. The opposition screams fraud, but has no proof, even though they control the voting system. The system has been designed to accommodate fraud and to make it difficult to detect it, so as to make the fraud engaged in by the two "legitimate" parties for decades okay. It's funny that nobody questioned this before, isn't it?
When we talk about the "opposition" we are talking about a wealthy elite of white or light-skinned people who are profoundly racist and refer to the poor (dark-skinned) as "monkeys" and "marginals" It's as if we have taken the worst of the American South and the feudal European aristocracy and combined them into one. Everything has been handed to these people; "connections" make sure they have high-paying jobs, not merit. The legal system is overwhelmingly designed to make sure that the lower classes don't trouble them. Police make sure these people do not have to actually encounter or even see the poor. The media is geared toward them and constantly puts forward the notion that this class is "better" and that they achieved their status due to merit. The government taxes the poor to pay for these wealthy peoples' college education in the U.S. and upon graduation they slide into oil industry executive roles. And this minority has controlled the government for decades. We are not dealing with idealistic people struggling against oppression. Instead, it's a class of spoiled, stuck-up, racist brats who no longer have everything stacked in their favour. Boo-hoo.
These are the people we are sticking up for in Venezuela.
As I said, when the opposition lost to Chavez, they went into full denial mode. In spite of closely monitored elections in a newly cleaned-up system, they claimed that Chavez's repeated electoral victories were fraud. Instead of a 70/30 split in favour of Chavez, they saw a 70/30 split in their favour. The polls showed otherwise, but people were too 'afraid' to speak freely under Chavez, or so their reasoning went. Yeah, the majority of poor people really wanted this wealthy elite to continue to rule, but were just too scared to say so.
In this "repressive dictatorship", the wealthy elite still controls the television, radio, and newspapers. The television news is strongly biased against Chavez, and allows the elite to live in fantasy world where they really are still on top. Near-treason is common, with opposition leaders pleading for a U.S. backed coup to restore them to power.
Can you imagine if the Democrats here in the U.S. had taken the same approach after Kerry lost? If they claimed that Bush was not really the President and openly asked for foreign countries to invade us to set things right? Now consider the oil industry lockout in Venezuela, which was the opposition's greatest undoing. The largest union, long in the pocket of the two parties formerly in control, from the industry that generates most of the country' income, combines with the oil industry executives goes on "strike", demanding not wage and benefit increases, but that the government step down in favour of the old parties. What they can't win at the ballot box, they attempt to win by extortion. They shut down the oil industry, which is in no one's benefit. Long story short, they are replaced and lose their cushy jobs, Chavez stays in power, and the flow of oil is restored in about a year. These bitter people, once wealthy with everything stacked in their favour, now have to compete in a fair system, and they don't do well. Of course, this is all proof of Chavez's "dictatorship", not their own failed bid to usurp power.
So now we have invade Venezuela to put Muffy and Thurston back into their old jobs and restore their way of life. In return, they will restore the old arrangement whereby we are guaranteed cheap oil. And if democracy has to go by the wayside for a couple of decades, so be it. Yes, we're deeply concerned.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Death of Bush
The Bush presidency has now gone into a coma. For the last year, we've seen him drop in the polls to the high 30's with only 60-70% support from his "base". Then we saw most Republicans up for election treat him like a leper. At the elections , I think most people just voted against him and the politicians associated with him rather than voting for the Democrats. But when the maps turned blue and the tallies were added up, I think the real sense of abandonment of Bush set in. Bush has set up a mindset of loving the winner, and he's not the winner anymore.
The Republican message has been that you're either "all in" or "all out". Congressdroids who may have been fiscal and defence hawks had to become part of the evangelical army or risk being marginalised in their own party. You had to unquestioningly support the war, the tax cuts, the Katrina response, and most of all, whatever dumb thing Dubya or Rummy said. This approach creates unity, but when you're way back in the polls it also creates a "circle the wagons" mentality. Much of the Bush "security" agenda relied on trust of Bush. Bush would never abuse his surveillance powers, he would never torture innocents, would never use his vast fiat powers to his own benefit...and so on. Now his credibility is gone, and people are waking up to how much power they have given a guy who, until a few weeks ago, was all thumbs up and smiley about the "progress" in Iraq.
The Christian Right has mostly sat back on their heels throughout the Bush presidency, satisfied with a few bones while waiting for real progress on their agenda after the mid-terms. Now it's over, and they are hosed. The Democrats will not support that agenda over the next few years, and as the door of the Bush crypt opens and an ugly assortment of truths begin to rise into the light of day, watch for that agenda to wither and die. The Christian Right is only about 25% of the population, but has wielded a disproportionate influence for far too long. There's no longer any compelling reason to cater to their wacky whim and they no longer hold a stick. Of course, Bush can claim he tried to advance the agenda over the next two years but was foiled by the Democrats. Still, the "what have you done for us lately" mood will hurt the Republicans in '08 as their "base" grows increasingly disillusioned. And you're either all in or all out, remember.
We haven't seen a massive leftward shift with this election, only an abrupt move to the centre. But the Democrats don't have to make America love them, they just have to let it become disgusted with Bush so that anytime a Republican harps on the old standard tunes they will be seen as ou-of-touch and "Bushy". By default they win. That's not a ringing endorsement by any means, but it does drive a stake into the heart of your adversary.
So in '08 we will probably be starting to pull out of Iraq, and it will not look anything like "victory". Revelations of corruption, abuses of power, staggering stupidity, and atrocities by the troops will have come to light. Former insiders will be spilling their guts and people will slowly realise that being patriotic deosn't neccesarily mean supporting the President or even war. Bush will probably be beating the drums for another invasion, perhaps Iran or Venezuela, based on "evidence" that most people will suspect as fixed. The staggering costs of the Iraq war will begin to sink in, and people will begin to wonder out loud what "vital interests" were exactly at stake there . The Bush definition of "victory" will have taken a few more sinuous twists, as Iraq begins to shape up as anything but an "ally". Soldiers coming home will find out just exactly how the Administration "supports the troops", as they face benefit cuts in the VA and find out their jobs are gone and their kids have grown up without them. The Supreme Court will have made some wacky rulings and people will wonder what the hell they've done giving these conservatives the store. And most importantly, people will no longer see dissent as unpatriotic or treasonous, and will resent the "security apparatus" spying on domestic political opposition rather than "terrorists". The trust will have evaporated, and it will all be about naked power, scapegoating, and fearmongering. The Republicans will be the party of Fear, Big Brother, and Big Business, or more exactly, will now be SEEN as that. This is their true nature, previously concealed by the flags and crucifixes they wrapped themselves in.
So who will the Republicans run in '08 to carry on the agenda? Most everyone with any stature has been deeply associated with Bush, and the Democrats can easily show voting records, sound bites, and pictures to make anyone in that Party look like a "Bush man", a craven toady who suckled from the Bush teat when he rode high and bit the hand that fed him when he took his tumble. The GOP candidate will have to become the "Anti-Bush", while still stealthily supporting the agenda that brought Bush to power. For a party of droids more used to parroting the party line than thinking for themselves, it will be a challenge to find anyone bright enough to pull that one off. Meanwhile, another crop of Congresspeople will be up for election. These will be the droids who got voted in by an electorate who went for someone who was part of the "TEAM", rather than someone who had merit on their own. Norm Coleman is one of those. And finally, redistricting will be taking place, and the ironclad districts in which the Republicans could run any idiot and win will be dissolved.
As this last remnant of the Bush regime gets swept out of Congress, and the Christian Right's support drops markedly, the Party will be in a post-Nixon state. Perhaps it will finally return to it's roots, which is not a pro-police state or religious tradition.
The Republican message has been that you're either "all in" or "all out". Congressdroids who may have been fiscal and defence hawks had to become part of the evangelical army or risk being marginalised in their own party. You had to unquestioningly support the war, the tax cuts, the Katrina response, and most of all, whatever dumb thing Dubya or Rummy said. This approach creates unity, but when you're way back in the polls it also creates a "circle the wagons" mentality. Much of the Bush "security" agenda relied on trust of Bush. Bush would never abuse his surveillance powers, he would never torture innocents, would never use his vast fiat powers to his own benefit...and so on. Now his credibility is gone, and people are waking up to how much power they have given a guy who, until a few weeks ago, was all thumbs up and smiley about the "progress" in Iraq.
The Christian Right has mostly sat back on their heels throughout the Bush presidency, satisfied with a few bones while waiting for real progress on their agenda after the mid-terms. Now it's over, and they are hosed. The Democrats will not support that agenda over the next few years, and as the door of the Bush crypt opens and an ugly assortment of truths begin to rise into the light of day, watch for that agenda to wither and die. The Christian Right is only about 25% of the population, but has wielded a disproportionate influence for far too long. There's no longer any compelling reason to cater to their wacky whim and they no longer hold a stick. Of course, Bush can claim he tried to advance the agenda over the next two years but was foiled by the Democrats. Still, the "what have you done for us lately" mood will hurt the Republicans in '08 as their "base" grows increasingly disillusioned. And you're either all in or all out, remember.
We haven't seen a massive leftward shift with this election, only an abrupt move to the centre. But the Democrats don't have to make America love them, they just have to let it become disgusted with Bush so that anytime a Republican harps on the old standard tunes they will be seen as ou-of-touch and "Bushy". By default they win. That's not a ringing endorsement by any means, but it does drive a stake into the heart of your adversary.
So in '08 we will probably be starting to pull out of Iraq, and it will not look anything like "victory". Revelations of corruption, abuses of power, staggering stupidity, and atrocities by the troops will have come to light. Former insiders will be spilling their guts and people will slowly realise that being patriotic deosn't neccesarily mean supporting the President or even war. Bush will probably be beating the drums for another invasion, perhaps Iran or Venezuela, based on "evidence" that most people will suspect as fixed. The staggering costs of the Iraq war will begin to sink in, and people will begin to wonder out loud what "vital interests" were exactly at stake there . The Bush definition of "victory" will have taken a few more sinuous twists, as Iraq begins to shape up as anything but an "ally". Soldiers coming home will find out just exactly how the Administration "supports the troops", as they face benefit cuts in the VA and find out their jobs are gone and their kids have grown up without them. The Supreme Court will have made some wacky rulings and people will wonder what the hell they've done giving these conservatives the store. And most importantly, people will no longer see dissent as unpatriotic or treasonous, and will resent the "security apparatus" spying on domestic political opposition rather than "terrorists". The trust will have evaporated, and it will all be about naked power, scapegoating, and fearmongering. The Republicans will be the party of Fear, Big Brother, and Big Business, or more exactly, will now be SEEN as that. This is their true nature, previously concealed by the flags and crucifixes they wrapped themselves in.
So who will the Republicans run in '08 to carry on the agenda? Most everyone with any stature has been deeply associated with Bush, and the Democrats can easily show voting records, sound bites, and pictures to make anyone in that Party look like a "Bush man", a craven toady who suckled from the Bush teat when he rode high and bit the hand that fed him when he took his tumble. The GOP candidate will have to become the "Anti-Bush", while still stealthily supporting the agenda that brought Bush to power. For a party of droids more used to parroting the party line than thinking for themselves, it will be a challenge to find anyone bright enough to pull that one off. Meanwhile, another crop of Congresspeople will be up for election. These will be the droids who got voted in by an electorate who went for someone who was part of the "TEAM", rather than someone who had merit on their own. Norm Coleman is one of those. And finally, redistricting will be taking place, and the ironclad districts in which the Republicans could run any idiot and win will be dissolved.
As this last remnant of the Bush regime gets swept out of Congress, and the Christian Right's support drops markedly, the Party will be in a post-Nixon state. Perhaps it will finally return to it's roots, which is not a pro-police state or religious tradition.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
wi-fi phone options for Mpls in late '07
Minneapolis is set to start up a city wide wi-fi service November '07..
While the phone and cable companies here have already whined about the unfair competition for internet provider service, there's a few ramifications that haven't been covered by the local media.
It seemed obvious to me when I first heard about the contract that the wi-fi network would allow people to drop their phone service.
Wi-fi should cost $20/mo. for 1MB/sec
Gizmo/SIP offers service for $35/yr, plus 1 cent/min. on calls in the U.S.
For 1000 minutes/mo. that breaks down to $13/mo. and that's only if you use all 1000 minutes. You don't pay for any minutes you don't use. No peak periods, no overage charges, no charge per minute to receive calls. And if you call another SIP phone, it's free. So we have $33/mo. for phone and internet anywhere in the city. $23/mo if you don't place calls and just receive them or if you place calls to SIP phones.
F3000 clamshell phone looks like a mobile phone, but works on wi-fi and allegedly has a web browser. Okay, it's $200, but that's a one-time cost. It handles roaming between APs, so it could be used as a virtual cell phone anywhere in the city. Still, it looks hard to configure for SIP. Hopefully someone will come up with a Plug-n-Dial phone by the time the wi-fi network is ready.
Either way, the Nokia 770 Internet tablet is able to work with Gizmo, and I'd be surprised if Nokia didn't have a new model out by 11/07.
Now if you can roam on the AP network, you have internet radio in your car. Maybe I'm dreaming on this one.
While the phone and cable companies here have already whined about the unfair competition for internet provider service, there's a few ramifications that haven't been covered by the local media.
It seemed obvious to me when I first heard about the contract that the wi-fi network would allow people to drop their phone service.
Wi-fi should cost $20/mo. for 1MB/sec
Gizmo/SIP offers service for $35/yr, plus 1 cent/min. on calls in the U.S.
For 1000 minutes/mo. that breaks down to $13/mo. and that's only if you use all 1000 minutes. You don't pay for any minutes you don't use. No peak periods, no overage charges, no charge per minute to receive calls. And if you call another SIP phone, it's free. So we have $33/mo. for phone and internet anywhere in the city. $23/mo if you don't place calls and just receive them or if you place calls to SIP phones.
F3000 clamshell phone looks like a mobile phone, but works on wi-fi and allegedly has a web browser. Okay, it's $200, but that's a one-time cost. It handles roaming between APs, so it could be used as a virtual cell phone anywhere in the city. Still, it looks hard to configure for SIP. Hopefully someone will come up with a Plug-n-Dial phone by the time the wi-fi network is ready.
Either way, the Nokia 770 Internet tablet is able to work with Gizmo, and I'd be surprised if Nokia didn't have a new model out by 11/07.
Now if you can roam on the AP network, you have internet radio in your car. Maybe I'm dreaming on this one.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)