I'm a weather geek, so I read the technical discussions from the NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atomospheric Administration) pretty regularly. These discussions are usually pretty dry, and talk about troughs, ridges, low and high pressure areas, etc., in a rather objective scientific tone.
Today's discussion put out by the weather office in Monterey, California, used the words "very ominous" to describe the developing situation in the eastern Pacific Ocean. We've been getting hammered by storms the last 3 days, which have brought as much as 8 inches of rain to the San Francisco Bay Area, but these may be only the beginning. The weather service is predicting that this series of cold storms will bring snow down to lower elevations for the next five days, followed by a "pineapple connection" connection storm with origins in hawaii. This would dump enormous amounts of rain on the deep snowpack, causing nearly apocalyptic flooding as the rain melts the snow, and then all that water surges into the rivers in the lowlands.
Pray for those without shelter, and add prayers for the people affected by the recent tsunamis in the Indian Ocean basin.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Thursday, December 02, 2004
Some thoughts on Catholic Liturgy
While I agree that there are problems with the Liturgy as it is currently celebrated, I hesitate to throw the baby out with the bathwater. "I am the Bread of Life" is a beautiful hymn, guitars and all, and I think it serves the same purpose, in its folky way, that the music of, say, Palestrina did in his day -- listening to the "Agnus Dei" in Palestrina's "Missa Brevis", it is clear that his purpose is to lift the congregation's mind and heart to God, and to plaintivly ask for mercy in a way that makes it clear that God in His goodness stands a good chance of granting it. "I am the Bread of Life" attempts to do the same thing, in the sense that it is a reflection on the promises of Christ (though I grant there is quite a distance between the artistic merits of Toomey and Palestrina).
I think there ought to be a pluralism of music in the Mass, and in fact my home parish does this fairly well. In one of the morning masses, there is more traditional music and the Sanctus and Agnus Dei in latin (and often sung in chant). The youth Mass is the one where you're more likely to hear guitars and Marty Haugen. This seems to work well, and there have been few complaints.
There are certainly limits to this that have to do with taste -- I for one will avoid the "hip hop Mass" if it ever comes -- but it is worth remembering that Christ wasn't too concerned about form in worship, and in fact the Institution of the Eucharist happened in an intimate and informal (though solemn) setting.
I think there ought to be a pluralism of music in the Mass, and in fact my home parish does this fairly well. In one of the morning masses, there is more traditional music and the Sanctus and Agnus Dei in latin (and often sung in chant). The youth Mass is the one where you're more likely to hear guitars and Marty Haugen. This seems to work well, and there have been few complaints.
There are certainly limits to this that have to do with taste -- I for one will avoid the "hip hop Mass" if it ever comes -- but it is worth remembering that Christ wasn't too concerned about form in worship, and in fact the Institution of the Eucharist happened in an intimate and informal (though solemn) setting.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Recipe for Change
"I've seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and I've seen hate on the faces of too many white sheriffs, too many white citizens' councillors, and too many Klansmen of the south to want to hate, myself; and every time I see it, I say to myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must be able to stand up before our most bitter opponents and say: 'We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will still love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws and abide by the unjust system, because non-co-operation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is co-operation with good, and so throw us in jail and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities at the midnight hour and drag us out on some wayside road and leave us half-dead as you beat us, and we will still love you. Send your propaganda agents around the country, and make it appear that we are not fit, culturally and otherwise, for integration, but we'll still love you. But be assured that we'll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for ourselves, we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
From the Stations of the Cross
"These Fourteen Steps
That you are now about to walk
You do not take alone.
I walk with you.
Though you are you
And I am I
Yet we are truly one:
One Christ.
Therefore, my Way of the Cross,
Two thousand years ago
And your "way" now
Are also One.
But note this difference:
My Life was incomplete
Until I crowned it by my death;
Your Fourteen steps will only be complete
When you have crowned them
By your life.
-Clarence Enzler, "Everyone's Way of the Cross"
There are great possibilities for nobility and redemption in un-earned suffering. The only requirement is that the suffering is elevated by Love -- "Agape" love, love that is freely given and expects nothing in return. Am I saying, "Be a doormat"? No. I'm saying that standing in loving opposition, refusing to cooperate with evil but also refusing to hate the evil-doer, can be an occasion of reconciliation, which is better than some narrow definition of victory.
That you are now about to walk
You do not take alone.
I walk with you.
Though you are you
And I am I
Yet we are truly one:
One Christ.
Therefore, my Way of the Cross,
Two thousand years ago
And your "way" now
Are also One.
But note this difference:
My Life was incomplete
Until I crowned it by my death;
Your Fourteen steps will only be complete
When you have crowned them
By your life.
-Clarence Enzler, "Everyone's Way of the Cross"
There are great possibilities for nobility and redemption in un-earned suffering. The only requirement is that the suffering is elevated by Love -- "Agape" love, love that is freely given and expects nothing in return. Am I saying, "Be a doormat"? No. I'm saying that standing in loving opposition, refusing to cooperate with evil but also refusing to hate the evil-doer, can be an occasion of reconciliation, which is better than some narrow definition of victory.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
The Democrats' Future
There are several factions in the Democratic Party pushing different solutions to our evident electoral problems.
One faction is advocating that the party basically write off the deeply red states -- the South and Great Plains -- in favor of an exclusively urban strategy. I think this grows out of the bitterness many feel at our defeat; I think it is an over-reaction, and ultimately a betrayal of people that should be the solid core of the democratic party.
Put morer plainly, I think this is exactly the wrong approach.
I think the democrats have had their asses handed to them in most of the last 30 years because they (we) have forgotten just what it is that makes us Democrats.
What has the party traditionally stood for? The little guy. Small farmers. The working class. Minority rights. People who don't have enough power or money to have any influence.
The Democrats could, TOMORROW, put together a winning coalition based on these people. Take, say, the bottom sixty percent of the income scale, and talk to all of them. Better yet, LISTEN to them. What are their priorities? What are their values? Who are they? We won't learn by proposing solutions to them. We will learn by listening to them.
Here's an idea that may seem strange -- give up on the BLUE states! They've been costing the democrats elections for years, and more than elections, their souls. The Blue states are the richer states (mostly); STOP listening to rich people.
Only people who are very, very economically comfortable would make abortion or gay marriage their number one, big-deal, no-compromise issues. Those of us who are well down the income ladder look at the democrats' priorities and say "What the @#$% are you people thinking?? We're hurting, the pain is getting worse, and you're all bunched up about gay marriage?! What is wrong with you?"
One faction is advocating that the party basically write off the deeply red states -- the South and Great Plains -- in favor of an exclusively urban strategy. I think this grows out of the bitterness many feel at our defeat; I think it is an over-reaction, and ultimately a betrayal of people that should be the solid core of the democratic party.
Put morer plainly, I think this is exactly the wrong approach.
I think the democrats have had their asses handed to them in most of the last 30 years because they (we) have forgotten just what it is that makes us Democrats.
What has the party traditionally stood for? The little guy. Small farmers. The working class. Minority rights. People who don't have enough power or money to have any influence.
The Democrats could, TOMORROW, put together a winning coalition based on these people. Take, say, the bottom sixty percent of the income scale, and talk to all of them. Better yet, LISTEN to them. What are their priorities? What are their values? Who are they? We won't learn by proposing solutions to them. We will learn by listening to them.
Here's an idea that may seem strange -- give up on the BLUE states! They've been costing the democrats elections for years, and more than elections, their souls. The Blue states are the richer states (mostly); STOP listening to rich people.
Only people who are very, very economically comfortable would make abortion or gay marriage their number one, big-deal, no-compromise issues. Those of us who are well down the income ladder look at the democrats' priorities and say "What the @#$% are you people thinking?? We're hurting, the pain is getting worse, and you're all bunched up about gay marriage?! What is wrong with you?"
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Things that weigh on me
There is a sense I have that this country has been going down a wicked path for some time now, under both Democratic and Republican presidencies and Democratic and Republican congresses.
There was a time not too long ago (within the lifetime of my septuagenarian mother, for example) when people in this country didn't lock their doors on a regular basis. Not just in small towns or rural areas, but in places like Oakland, California and Brooklyn, New York.
I think it is worth asking why.
There was a time not that long ago when people in villages, towns and cities had no problem with "developement" per se; when most people were happy to see a new building go up on the main street of their town; when a new house being built meant someone new to greet and get to know.
What has happened to this country?
There was a time not too long ago (within the lifetime of my septuagenarian mother, for example) when people in this country didn't lock their doors on a regular basis. Not just in small towns or rural areas, but in places like Oakland, California and Brooklyn, New York.
I think it is worth asking why.
There was a time not that long ago when people in villages, towns and cities had no problem with "developement" per se; when most people were happy to see a new building go up on the main street of their town; when a new house being built meant someone new to greet and get to know.
What has happened to this country?
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Questions of Life
The Democrats and Republicans both have real problems with their positions on matters of life, considered in a moral framework.
Melinda Henneberger has a great column in which she discusses exactly the dilemma that lefty pro-lifers (and that is emphatically NOT a contradiction in terms) face.
I am for much more stringent regulation of the environment, against the Iraq war (in fact, almost any war) against the death penalty, for a massive effort to alleviate poverty through government activism, for the rights of indigenous peoples, very pro-union...
And against abortion. More explicitly, I do not believe that a woman should have a right to choose to get an abortion any time she wants one. I believe that abortion should only be a possibility where the loss of the fetus is an unintended but unavoidable effect of saving the mother's life (as in the case of ectopic pregnancy). I believe this because I consider a fetus to be a human being, worthy of protection by the law.
This position is all but forbidden in the institutional Democratic party. So, even though I agree with them on practically *everything* else, I hesitate to vote for them because of this ONE issue. And I am unable to be pursuaded by the argument that goes, "Hey, you agree with us on everything else, so why let this issue get in the way?"
Because this issue outweighs "everything else" for me, and does so because "everything else" does not kill as many people as abortion does. There are thousands of abortions per day; the iraq war has killed perhaps 16,000 since the beginning (US and Allied deaths plus Iraqi civilian and military deaths). Appalling as this is, that's less than a week's worth of abortions.
Considered merely as a matter of political strategy, the fact that the Democrats will not allow a range of opinion on abortion is losing them large parts of the country (the plains states, the south).
The Democrats have a natural constituency in the more socially conservative (and economically depressed) parts of the country, if they make issues of ECONOMIC justice their no-compromise issues, and allow for a range of opinions on the social issues. Thomas Frank touched on this in his recent book, "What's the Matter with Kansas," but I'm taking it a step further; while Frank argues that the Republicans have used the social issues to divide the working class in order to push an economic regime that is almost uniformly bad for those same socially conservative voters (a charge with a lot of merit, in my view), he probably wouldn't agree (because he is liberal on the abortion issue) with the obvious way to counter this: run democrats in the plains and south who are more conservative on the abortion issue, and who push hard for economic justice with the rest of the democrats. The national Democratic leadership won't let this happen, and their inflexibilty on this is against their practical interests (getting a majority in the house), and also makes it harder (becasue they are usually swept in the midwest) to push for the rest of their program.
Flame me if you want, but understand that I consider liberals my friends on every single issue but abortion.
Melinda Henneberger has a great column in which she discusses exactly the dilemma that lefty pro-lifers (and that is emphatically NOT a contradiction in terms) face.
I am for much more stringent regulation of the environment, against the Iraq war (in fact, almost any war) against the death penalty, for a massive effort to alleviate poverty through government activism, for the rights of indigenous peoples, very pro-union...
And against abortion. More explicitly, I do not believe that a woman should have a right to choose to get an abortion any time she wants one. I believe that abortion should only be a possibility where the loss of the fetus is an unintended but unavoidable effect of saving the mother's life (as in the case of ectopic pregnancy). I believe this because I consider a fetus to be a human being, worthy of protection by the law.
This position is all but forbidden in the institutional Democratic party. So, even though I agree with them on practically *everything* else, I hesitate to vote for them because of this ONE issue. And I am unable to be pursuaded by the argument that goes, "Hey, you agree with us on everything else, so why let this issue get in the way?"
Because this issue outweighs "everything else" for me, and does so because "everything else" does not kill as many people as abortion does. There are thousands of abortions per day; the iraq war has killed perhaps 16,000 since the beginning (US and Allied deaths plus Iraqi civilian and military deaths). Appalling as this is, that's less than a week's worth of abortions.
Considered merely as a matter of political strategy, the fact that the Democrats will not allow a range of opinion on abortion is losing them large parts of the country (the plains states, the south).
The Democrats have a natural constituency in the more socially conservative (and economically depressed) parts of the country, if they make issues of ECONOMIC justice their no-compromise issues, and allow for a range of opinions on the social issues. Thomas Frank touched on this in his recent book, "What's the Matter with Kansas," but I'm taking it a step further; while Frank argues that the Republicans have used the social issues to divide the working class in order to push an economic regime that is almost uniformly bad for those same socially conservative voters (a charge with a lot of merit, in my view), he probably wouldn't agree (because he is liberal on the abortion issue) with the obvious way to counter this: run democrats in the plains and south who are more conservative on the abortion issue, and who push hard for economic justice with the rest of the democrats. The national Democratic leadership won't let this happen, and their inflexibilty on this is against their practical interests (getting a majority in the house), and also makes it harder (becasue they are usually swept in the midwest) to push for the rest of their program.
Flame me if you want, but understand that I consider liberals my friends on every single issue but abortion.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Thoughts on the Debate, and going forward
The consensus is that Kerry won the Debate, and I agree. Actually, I'd say the President had his ass handed to him. He lost, and badly: worse, ingraciously. He seemed like a schoolyard bully who has finally been bested -- sulking, fuming, as he helplessly watches his world fall apart.
BUT.
Let's not get cocky. Not any of us, and especially not Kerry. The next debate will be a town-hall format, and the president will be able to use applause lines effectively. He will also be able to use his ability to connect with an audience to his advantage. Remember all the grimaces, head-shakes, etc, that Bush is taking heat for? They were bad (very) in last night's debate format. In a "town hall meeting" format, however, those same gestures could be used to signal his supporters to (for example) laugh when Kerry is speaking. Or to communicate a "can you believe this guy?" message, quickly followed up when it's his turn by something like "You know, I was shaking my head when he was speaking, because I wonder, with a lot of you, [some talking point]." In short, this will be more his turf, in terms of format and setting.
Kerry needs to be on his toes, and so do his supporters.
BUT.
Let's not get cocky. Not any of us, and especially not Kerry. The next debate will be a town-hall format, and the president will be able to use applause lines effectively. He will also be able to use his ability to connect with an audience to his advantage. Remember all the grimaces, head-shakes, etc, that Bush is taking heat for? They were bad (very) in last night's debate format. In a "town hall meeting" format, however, those same gestures could be used to signal his supporters to (for example) laugh when Kerry is speaking. Or to communicate a "can you believe this guy?" message, quickly followed up when it's his turn by something like "You know, I was shaking my head when he was speaking, because I wonder, with a lot of you, [some talking point]." In short, this will be more his turf, in terms of format and setting.
Kerry needs to be on his toes, and so do his supporters.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Memes, Themes, and the Democrats
I write as a guy who has worked in sales on and off over the years.
I perceive (I could be wrong here) that there is a meme on the left that is shooting us in the foot. It goes something like this:
"If we get the president to say something really stupid [the shortest wait in history] then, THEN John Q Public will finally wake up to his" (fraud, lies, hidden elitism, whatever). All we have to do is just be RIGHT enough, and everyone will see the light.
That's not the way it works.
You need a consistent message coming from everyone in the party, something like, "The president has consistently miscalculated on [insert issue here]."
"He miscalculated on Iraq, and just look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on the Budget, and look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on education, and just look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on medicare, and look at the mess he's made..."
"Miscalculated...miscalculated...miscalculated...yet another miscalculation...to correct his miscalculation, the truth is that..."
Or maybe use "faulty"...but make it a deafening roar, make it consistent, flood the airwaves...
Reporter: "Senator Kerry, the president has said he's been better on [any, ANY issue]"
Kerry: "Well, given his record of miscalculation, I would ask in return..."
Reporter: "Senator Kennedy, you have criticized the president on [whatever]..."
Kennedy: "Well, given the president's record of miscalculation..."
Reporter: " Governor [Democrat], what is your position on [some budget question, say]..."
Governor: "Well, given that we have to deal with the financial miscalculations of our current president..."
Local Reporter somewhere: "Congressman Peabody, looks like the rain may soon stop."
Rep. Peabody (D, Anyoldplace): "Hey, given the way the president miscalculates, I wouldn't count on the sun 'til I see it in the sky..."
Choose a [winning] theme, and then let every utterance of our side reflect that theme, loudly and constantly.
I perceive (I could be wrong here) that there is a meme on the left that is shooting us in the foot. It goes something like this:
"If we get the president to say something really stupid [the shortest wait in history] then, THEN John Q Public will finally wake up to his" (fraud, lies, hidden elitism, whatever). All we have to do is just be RIGHT enough, and everyone will see the light.
That's not the way it works.
You need a consistent message coming from everyone in the party, something like, "The president has consistently miscalculated on [insert issue here]."
"He miscalculated on Iraq, and just look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on the Budget, and look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on education, and just look at the mess he's made. He miscalculated on medicare, and look at the mess he's made..."
"Miscalculated...miscalculated...miscalculated...yet another miscalculation...to correct his miscalculation, the truth is that..."
Or maybe use "faulty"...but make it a deafening roar, make it consistent, flood the airwaves...
Reporter: "Senator Kerry, the president has said he's been better on [any, ANY issue]"
Kerry: "Well, given his record of miscalculation, I would ask in return..."
Reporter: "Senator Kennedy, you have criticized the president on [whatever]..."
Kennedy: "Well, given the president's record of miscalculation..."
Reporter: " Governor [Democrat], what is your position on [some budget question, say]..."
Governor: "Well, given that we have to deal with the financial miscalculations of our current president..."
Local Reporter somewhere: "Congressman Peabody, looks like the rain may soon stop."
Rep. Peabody (D, Anyoldplace): "Hey, given the way the president miscalculates, I wouldn't count on the sun 'til I see it in the sky..."
Choose a [winning] theme, and then let every utterance of our side reflect that theme, loudly and constantly.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Where Have You Gone, Howard Dean?
Howard Dean needs to save Kerry's behind, pronto. Stay with me on this.
Kerry goes up in the polls whenever he acts like Howard Dean (see his recent speech on the Iraq quagmire for an example). The problem: Kerry's not Dean, not by a long shot. He doesn't naturally speak from the heart - he likes to speak in an intellectually nuanced way about the issues of the day, but comes off sounding like that slightly pompous professor who regularly drops the fact that he's professor "Emmeritus" into his lectures.
Nuance is great when you're giving a major policy speech at a prestigious university *when you're president already*.
Campaigns are won by formulating your positions into easy to digest slogans organized around winning themes. They are won by keeping the rhetoric tight and focussed.
Consider this, which I just made up on the spot. "This president's mismanagement of the economy has cost a million jobs so far. If a million more of you want to lose your jobs, by all means vote for the incumbent. If you'd rather just one more guy lose his job, the guy in the white house who did this to you, well, you know how to vote then." See? Simple, memorable lines: "the guy who did this to you" is a line that speaks directly to the voter who either lost his job, or is afraid of losing his job (about 90% of the population?) and shows that you feel his pain, and are not afraid to name names in order to stick up for him. "The president's mismanagement..." assumes as fact what the cause of the listener's problem is, and then the solution is offered: "Send that jerk packing!"
Dean has a gift for this sort of thing: that's why the Republicans were running ads against him in the primaries (remember the "latte-sipping, birkenstocks-wearing" attack ad run in Iowa before the caucuses? That was financed by a Republican group.) They lived in terror that he would get the nomination and run against Bush in the General Election.
Kerry goes up in the polls whenever he acts like Howard Dean (see his recent speech on the Iraq quagmire for an example). The problem: Kerry's not Dean, not by a long shot. He doesn't naturally speak from the heart - he likes to speak in an intellectually nuanced way about the issues of the day, but comes off sounding like that slightly pompous professor who regularly drops the fact that he's professor "Emmeritus" into his lectures.
Nuance is great when you're giving a major policy speech at a prestigious university *when you're president already*.
Campaigns are won by formulating your positions into easy to digest slogans organized around winning themes. They are won by keeping the rhetoric tight and focussed.
Consider this, which I just made up on the spot. "This president's mismanagement of the economy has cost a million jobs so far. If a million more of you want to lose your jobs, by all means vote for the incumbent. If you'd rather just one more guy lose his job, the guy in the white house who did this to you, well, you know how to vote then." See? Simple, memorable lines: "the guy who did this to you" is a line that speaks directly to the voter who either lost his job, or is afraid of losing his job (about 90% of the population?) and shows that you feel his pain, and are not afraid to name names in order to stick up for him. "The president's mismanagement..." assumes as fact what the cause of the listener's problem is, and then the solution is offered: "Send that jerk packing!"
Dean has a gift for this sort of thing: that's why the Republicans were running ads against him in the primaries (remember the "latte-sipping, birkenstocks-wearing" attack ad run in Iowa before the caucuses? That was financed by a Republican group.) They lived in terror that he would get the nomination and run against Bush in the General Election.
"There Are No Words" Department
Read this. One of a universe of reasons I have opposed, and will continue to oppose, the United States' senseless and unjust war in Iraq.
Friday, September 17, 2004
The Phony Populists
There are phony populists out there, mostly operating in the Republican party these days. Ever notice that for all the self-righteous noise they make about abortion, gay marriage, etc., that no progress is ever made, in terms of realistic legislation that has any chance of passing?
Take the recent "partial-birth abortion" legislation. There was no life-of-the-mother exception written into the bill, and I believe this oversight was intentional. Even The Catholic church would disagree with the position that an exception can't be made to save the life of the mother (on the condition that the abortion is an unintended but unavoidable effect of saving the mothers life, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.)
Take the recent "partial-birth abortion" legislation. There was no life-of-the-mother exception written into the bill, and I believe this oversight was intentional. Even The Catholic church would disagree with the position that an exception can't be made to save the life of the mother (on the condition that the abortion is an unintended but unavoidable effect of saving the mothers life, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.)
Monday, September 13, 2004
Juan Cole on dual loyalties
Juan Cole makes some interesting points about the overly-close ties between the Pro-Israel faction in the Pentagon and Israel's Likud Party. Worth a read.
Monday, September 06, 2004
New labor blog
There is a new labor blog I checked out which has some great potential. The current climate is very hostile to union(ists), and we have to get together and ORGANIZE. If you love labor, read and post supportive comments.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Some More Preliminary Thoughts
This'll be probably long and rambling, but I think a lot of it needs to be said...
There's a lot of noise about cultural issues in this country. This noise is coming almost exclusively from the rich. What none of the culture warriors are talking about is *Class*. I think these two items are related.
The people who are agitating most loudly both for and against Gay marriage are people in a demographically more affluent group. The Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannities and Bill O'reillys of this world are rich - new money rich, but they are rolling in dough. Similarly, the people who are for Gay marriage are also, generally speaking, rich. The Castro District in SF, Greenwich Village in New York, The Gay parts of Seattle, are all richer than average neighborhoods.
Pro-Choicer agitators are typically the older money brahmins (or their children) from places like the Upper East Side in NY, Beacon Hill and he richer parts of Cambridge, MA, and the richer Suburbs around DC. The agitators on the other side represent, and are financed by, rich people in the south and midwest.
Ever notice how neither side gains any meaningful ground in this debate, in terms of actual legislation? I believe this is deliberate.
So, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say one side of the culture wars wins an absolute victory. I'll represent both sides for our purposes here.
So, abortion is outlawed nationally, except to save the life of the mother. Gay marriage is banned by constitutional amendment. Prayer in schools is authorized. Parole for prisoners becomes a thing of the past. Creationism is taught in public schools, on an equal footing with evolution. The whole cultural package is enacted, in a way that permanently changes things in such a way that overturning any of it is impossible.
What will Fox News advocate for then? What will the "conservatives" get all hot and bothered about?
Or, let's say the cultural "left" gets everything IT wants. Abortion is available to all women, and the Government will pay for it if women can't afford it. Gay marriage is enshrined in the constitution as utterly equal with hetero marriage, etc., and permanently. What will NPR be wringing its hands about then?
I think the "culture wars" are a way for rich people (whether they call themselves "liberal" or "Conservative") to make huge amounts of self-righteous noise in order to avoid addressing ECONOMICS. Namely, the huge and widening gap between the rich (whatever their politics) and the rest of us. The fact that the median wage buys a lot less for working people than in 1973. The fact that the minimum wage will buy less now than back in '73. The Democrats decided to abandon labor because the (socially leftish brahmin) rich can afford to give more, and getting labor organized and powerful isn't really a priority for them.
I say, start a party for the rest of us, and run candidates for CONGRESS as opposed to the presidency. This party would be for lower payroll taxes for most people, paid for by much, much higher taxes on the rich. The top tax rate during Eisenhower's presidency was 95%. That's not a misprint. Ninety-five percent.
This party would do everything possible to strengthen labor: No More "Right-to-work" shelters for autoplants in the south. Card-Check legislation. Support the unionization of Wal-Mart. Raise the minimum wage to, say, 10 dollars an hour.
This party would be more traditional than most Democrats on public policy questions like abortion and gay marriage: remember, working-class people, wherever they live, tend to be more socially conservative, generally speaking.
All this cultural stuff is rich people making noise to distract us from their fat, cushy, elite lives. SOMEBODY has to address the issues that are of ECONOMIC concern to the rest of us. Either that, or things will eventually (and pretty soon) start getting ugly.
There's a lot of noise about cultural issues in this country. This noise is coming almost exclusively from the rich. What none of the culture warriors are talking about is *Class*. I think these two items are related.
The people who are agitating most loudly both for and against Gay marriage are people in a demographically more affluent group. The Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannities and Bill O'reillys of this world are rich - new money rich, but they are rolling in dough. Similarly, the people who are for Gay marriage are also, generally speaking, rich. The Castro District in SF, Greenwich Village in New York, The Gay parts of Seattle, are all richer than average neighborhoods.
Pro-Choicer agitators are typically the older money brahmins (or their children) from places like the Upper East Side in NY, Beacon Hill and he richer parts of Cambridge, MA, and the richer Suburbs around DC. The agitators on the other side represent, and are financed by, rich people in the south and midwest.
Ever notice how neither side gains any meaningful ground in this debate, in terms of actual legislation? I believe this is deliberate.
So, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say one side of the culture wars wins an absolute victory. I'll represent both sides for our purposes here.
So, abortion is outlawed nationally, except to save the life of the mother. Gay marriage is banned by constitutional amendment. Prayer in schools is authorized. Parole for prisoners becomes a thing of the past. Creationism is taught in public schools, on an equal footing with evolution. The whole cultural package is enacted, in a way that permanently changes things in such a way that overturning any of it is impossible.
What will Fox News advocate for then? What will the "conservatives" get all hot and bothered about?
Or, let's say the cultural "left" gets everything IT wants. Abortion is available to all women, and the Government will pay for it if women can't afford it. Gay marriage is enshrined in the constitution as utterly equal with hetero marriage, etc., and permanently. What will NPR be wringing its hands about then?
I think the "culture wars" are a way for rich people (whether they call themselves "liberal" or "Conservative") to make huge amounts of self-righteous noise in order to avoid addressing ECONOMICS. Namely, the huge and widening gap between the rich (whatever their politics) and the rest of us. The fact that the median wage buys a lot less for working people than in 1973. The fact that the minimum wage will buy less now than back in '73. The Democrats decided to abandon labor because the (socially leftish brahmin) rich can afford to give more, and getting labor organized and powerful isn't really a priority for them.
I say, start a party for the rest of us, and run candidates for CONGRESS as opposed to the presidency. This party would be for lower payroll taxes for most people, paid for by much, much higher taxes on the rich. The top tax rate during Eisenhower's presidency was 95%. That's not a misprint. Ninety-five percent.
This party would do everything possible to strengthen labor: No More "Right-to-work" shelters for autoplants in the south. Card-Check legislation. Support the unionization of Wal-Mart. Raise the minimum wage to, say, 10 dollars an hour.
This party would be more traditional than most Democrats on public policy questions like abortion and gay marriage: remember, working-class people, wherever they live, tend to be more socially conservative, generally speaking.
All this cultural stuff is rich people making noise to distract us from their fat, cushy, elite lives. SOMEBODY has to address the issues that are of ECONOMIC concern to the rest of us. Either that, or things will eventually (and pretty soon) start getting ugly.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
And Now, the Populist Agenda
As a populist, I believe that:
The rich are too rich; the poor are too poor; the people who set the agenda in this country, on BOTH sides of the "cultural divide" (you know, red states v. blue states and all that nonsense) are two sides of the same, rich, coin; the people who get attention in visual media and mainstream press as representing the "left" in this coutry are usually pushing the agenda of genteel (and usually older money) rich people, in the form of cultural experimentation (gay marriage, etc.), while mostly ignoring the proper concerns of the historical American left (living wages, a voice for labor in the economy); the people in mainstream media on the "right" cynically push these same cultural issues, but from the opposing point of veiw -- on behalf of working class and rural people who share these values, but only as cover to pass their anti-labor legislation and rich-people-friendly tax cuts and other economic agenda items; one of the legitimate functions of government is to help balance society by keeping things fairly equal, and thus provide stability.
The rich are too rich; the poor are too poor; the people who set the agenda in this country, on BOTH sides of the "cultural divide" (you know, red states v. blue states and all that nonsense) are two sides of the same, rich, coin; the people who get attention in visual media and mainstream press as representing the "left" in this coutry are usually pushing the agenda of genteel (and usually older money) rich people, in the form of cultural experimentation (gay marriage, etc.), while mostly ignoring the proper concerns of the historical American left (living wages, a voice for labor in the economy); the people in mainstream media on the "right" cynically push these same cultural issues, but from the opposing point of veiw -- on behalf of working class and rural people who share these values, but only as cover to pass their anti-labor legislation and rich-people-friendly tax cuts and other economic agenda items; one of the legitimate functions of government is to help balance society by keeping things fairly equal, and thus provide stability.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Back to School
I have recently decided to return to school, at Diablo Valley Community College in Pleasant Hill, California. I made this decision because I want to use the talents God gave me to try and make the world a better place; my talents are along intellectual lines.
I find I am distressed by the lack of quality intellectual discourse, and a general coarsening of dialogue in our society. I believe this is partly due to the loss of knowledge of how our society traditionally communicates and persuades. So, I aim to get a broad liberal arts education, in sort of the 19th Century sense of the phrase; Latin, Greek, Philosophy and Rhetoric, plus the foundational literary works of Western civilization (Aristophanes, Homer, Virgil, Aeschylus, etc.)
I find I am distressed by the lack of quality intellectual discourse, and a general coarsening of dialogue in our society. I believe this is partly due to the loss of knowledge of how our society traditionally communicates and persuades. So, I aim to get a broad liberal arts education, in sort of the 19th Century sense of the phrase; Latin, Greek, Philosophy and Rhetoric, plus the foundational literary works of Western civilization (Aristophanes, Homer, Virgil, Aeschylus, etc.)
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
"Trailer Trash"
Several years ago, I had a friend who lived in a trailer park next to the freeway here in Benicia, California. She had just come through a divorce, and lived there with her daughter. One day I stopped by with her ex-husband to pick up his daughter for the weekend. His daughter wasn't ready when we got there -- she was middle-school-age then, and therefore took longer to get ready than probably Jessica Simpson does before a show -- so we had a little time to kill.
We sat near the driveway entrance into the trailer park, and there were a couple of little girls, maybe five or six years old, helping each other making mud pies near us. It was the kind of scene that melts your heart to see, and we watched them and remembered a little bit what it was like to be that young and care free.
Our nostalgia was interrupted by a couple of guys walking past the entrance, who looked in and made some joke about "trailer trash" and about how mom and dad were probably sister and brother.
The two girls flinched, but said nothing, and I could see shame descend like a shroud. The girls stood up and tried to wipe the mud from their hands, but that only made the two guys laugh as they walked away.
The way we treat poor people in this country is shameful. I've heard Jay Leno use the term "trailer trash." This is appalling to me.
I heard an interview with David Brooks, the commentator for the Atlantic Monthly and author of "Bobos in Paradise" and the interviewer asked him about the trend of parents over-scheduling their kids' lives. There has been a much-noted trend of parents in the middle and upper-middle classes keeping their kids busy with soccer, SAT prep, "play dates" and all the rest. The interviewer asked Brooks if he thought that fear (on the part of parents) could explain some of this. Brooks sounded startled by the question, and then dodged it.
I think fear is exactly what is motivating many of these parents, though I think many of them are unaware of the root of this fear. The fear is inspired by how our society treats poor people -- namely, a harsh, merciless judgement that they are lazy and deserve their lot. Think about it: "trailer trash". More about this as this blog matures.
We sat near the driveway entrance into the trailer park, and there were a couple of little girls, maybe five or six years old, helping each other making mud pies near us. It was the kind of scene that melts your heart to see, and we watched them and remembered a little bit what it was like to be that young and care free.
Our nostalgia was interrupted by a couple of guys walking past the entrance, who looked in and made some joke about "trailer trash" and about how mom and dad were probably sister and brother.
The two girls flinched, but said nothing, and I could see shame descend like a shroud. The girls stood up and tried to wipe the mud from their hands, but that only made the two guys laugh as they walked away.
The way we treat poor people in this country is shameful. I've heard Jay Leno use the term "trailer trash." This is appalling to me.
I heard an interview with David Brooks, the commentator for the Atlantic Monthly and author of "Bobos in Paradise" and the interviewer asked him about the trend of parents over-scheduling their kids' lives. There has been a much-noted trend of parents in the middle and upper-middle classes keeping their kids busy with soccer, SAT prep, "play dates" and all the rest. The interviewer asked Brooks if he thought that fear (on the part of parents) could explain some of this. Brooks sounded startled by the question, and then dodged it.
I think fear is exactly what is motivating many of these parents, though I think many of them are unaware of the root of this fear. The fear is inspired by how our society treats poor people -- namely, a harsh, merciless judgement that they are lazy and deserve their lot. Think about it: "trailer trash". More about this as this blog matures.
Monday, August 09, 2004
My Weariness Amazes Me
I am so, utterly tired of of the East Coast Liberal/ Heartland Conservative, Red State/Blue State garbage that our media is feeding to us. Did it ever occur to you that all the noise about gay marriage, abortion, the war, and all the rest, is just a big distraction from the real problems facing ordinary mortal Americans?
The average price of a house in America is about 175,000 dollars. The Median Household Income for Americans is around 40 grand, which will buy you about 123,000 dollars worth of house. Either incomes need to go up, or house prices need to fall for the average family to afford the average house. THAT is a real problem affecting average Americans, and neither party is talking about it.
The average price of a house in America is about 175,000 dollars. The Median Household Income for Americans is around 40 grand, which will buy you about 123,000 dollars worth of house. Either incomes need to go up, or house prices need to fall for the average family to afford the average house. THAT is a real problem affecting average Americans, and neither party is talking about it.
Oakland in 1948
Oakland, California, in 1948, had about the same population as it does today, with roughly the same racial makeup (a slightly smaller hispanic community, a slightly larger Asian community) and the same mix of incomes.
In that year, there were fewer than 15 homicides in that city. Last year, there were somewhat north of 100. One-hundred-plus murders. Any ideas as to why? I'll tell you what doesn't explain it: There was little gun control in those days, and there was considerably more poverty, and the poor were poorer in both relative and absolute terms than they are today (remember, this was long before the Great Society programs of the mid 1960s.)
Discuss.
In that year, there were fewer than 15 homicides in that city. Last year, there were somewhat north of 100. One-hundred-plus murders. Any ideas as to why? I'll tell you what doesn't explain it: There was little gun control in those days, and there was considerably more poverty, and the poor were poorer in both relative and absolute terms than they are today (remember, this was long before the Great Society programs of the mid 1960s.)
Discuss.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
The Purpose of this Blog
Hello, and welcome to the Hopeful Populist. My purpose in creating this blog is to give a voice (mine) to the concerns of ordinary mortals in the United States. Not a lot of people are saying the things I want to say. The issues I will be addressing are social and economic issues, from an old-fashioned populist's point of view. I will tackle some of the issues of the day (the war, the election, the economy), but also some things that aren't "issues" in the sense of being on the news, but are essential (in my opinion) to the survival of the United States as a place worth living in, and as a place that can honestly consider itself to be an example to the world. Issues like income distribution, the failures of both parties in the United States to do much of anything about the issues that affect most Americans (e.g. how the lack of union representation is lowering standards of living for the majority of Americans.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)