Friday, January 19, 2007
Fuck Congeniality
What does it mean that we "can disagree without being disagreeable". I think that quote can be attributed to Barak Obama. Its a bunch of hooey. In a world where the U.S can drop 84,000 tons of bombs on Iraq in 42 days, in 1991, (more than all the bombs dropped on Europe by the allies in WWII) and follow that with sanctions that killed an estimated 1.5 million additional people including 500,000 children, and then top it off with our ability to somehow say that the Iraqi people deserved it because of their dickhead dictator, I think its time to start to disagree and be disagreeable about it. That does not even consider the current fiasco we are embroiled in, the second Iraq war. Estimates of this quagmire's dollar costs are as high as 2.1 trillion dollars check this out. That is in addition to the countless lives torn apart here and abroad. These are things worth being disagreeable about. Who doesn't want us to be disagreeable anyway? Who has a stake in us all being sheep plugged in to our cable T.V and latest video games? Who has a stake in us eating food so full of crap that we can't even pronounce the ingredients much less decipher what they are? Who wants our kids to learn only things that are on tests that they design and not any critical learning skills? Who wants to watch our world melt away in front of our very eyes? Who doesn't give a rats ass what kind of a world our children are left with? Its people like Dick Cheney, George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, All millionaires. All part of the ruling class. All thinking of their own short term gains instead of long term prosperity for all. All part of the problem. Its time to THROW THE BUMS OUT!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I respectfully disagree. I do not need to agree with you you or with your argument but I should treat with you with a level of civility. Just because the war in Iraq is wrong does not mean that you can throw thousands of years of evolution out the window. The problem that we have on the net today and with politics, no society in general, is that we do not disagree with each other enough, we do not challenge each other enough. The solution is not to be not congenial. We do that enough already. We need to be civil but disagree, strongly if we need to. I do not believe that you need to respect anyones arguments but you should respect the person, most of the time. We all deserve a basic level of respect as human beings.
I cannot help to see that your classism overshadows your main issue about the war here. Just because one has money or is a millionaire does not meant they are BUMS. Barak Obama grew up in a middle class home and went on to get a Law degree from Harvard. He was the first black man to head the Harvard Law review and is the only black man in the US Senate today, only the fifth in history. His millions you speak of came from royalties of books he has written about his life, his father from Kenya, and his hope for the country in which we live. He earned his money.
Hillary Rodham Clinton grew uop in Chicago to an executive in the textile industry and went on to get her law degree from Yale. She was the first student at Wellesley to give the commencement speech (valedictorian), to a standing ovation of seven minutes. The first woman to be made partner at Rose Law firm, she was on the Yale Law Review board and the first first lady to have a post graduate degree. She was also only one of two women ever to be faculty at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law.
Her money also came from books she has written. I would like to remind you that the US Government has spent over $40 million to show that the Clintons money came from ill means and could not. Again, she earned her money.
Nancy Pelosi was the first woman (and first Italian American) ever to be Speaker of the House. She is first in line to the president after the VP. This is the highest position in government any woman in the US has ever held. Before this she was the first woman ever to be house minority whip. Her father was a congressman from MA and she has been in politics all her life. She worked her way up in the Democratic party after her fifth child entered high school. She married into wealth with a man who invested heavily into Microsoft and At&T. They then reinvested that money into vineyards and other land in CA. They currently do not own any vineyards. Investing in the stock market has afforded many people I know personally the ability to buy a house and land, even myself.
I will not speak to Cheney and Bush on these points as I agree that they are BUMS and have gotten there money by using less that legal means and are corrupt individuals. They are the only people you mentioned that may not "give a rats ass" about our children.
The others are not BUMS but heroes who have broken down barriers that are still in they way of most of Our Fellow Americans. They are deserving of our respect, even if you disagree with them.
What is "classism"? Is it to point out that in the last 25 years wages for middle class people have stagnated or declined while the top 10% of wage earners saw there wealth increase by more than 88%? Or is it to point out that that the top 13,400 families in income make slightly more than the bottom 100 million? These are things that have gotten much worse in the last 25 or 30 years. In 1970 the top 13,400 families made about 100 times the national average. Today those 13,400 family make about 560 times the national average. Who was in control of the congress during this massive redistribution of wealth. My point is that the democrats have as much to do with these problems as the republicans. Who was Hillarys biggest campaign supporter during her recent senate campaign? It was Walt Disney. One of the major media outlets in this country. With the likes of a.b.c news and the washington post they helped sell this country a bill of goods that got us into this disaster in Iraq. And Hillary voted for it. Major corporations don't give their money away just for the hell of it ,they expect something in return. Goldman Sachs is her second biggest financial supporter? Between 2000 and 2006 the real annual income of American workers rose by 15.4 billion dollars. That rise is less than half the combined bonuses awarded by five wall street firms for just one year. Why is it ok to raise the minimum wage? Does that not fuck with the "free market". If we can mess with the market at all why not set some sort of maximum wage. Nancy Pelosi made a big deal about raising the minimum wage when it effects something like .6% of workers. They don't propose real changes because they are handcuffed by their financial backers. Its time for real public financing of elections so you don't have to be millionaire to get elected. As for Obama its hard to say where he stands when he seems unwilling to take a stand on anything.
one more thing. Nancy Pelosi "worked her way up through congress" exactly the way Tom Delay did. By raising extraordinary large sums of money for her party.
According to Wikipedia: Classism (a term formed by analogy with racism) is any form of prejudice or oppression against people who are in, or who are perceived as being like those who are in, a lower social class (especially in the form of lower socioeconomic status) within a class society. I like to think that, like racism, the lower class can also be classist. I understand that some would say that it is not possible for the minority to be racist but I respectfully disagree. Given this, I say that classism works both ways and that the lower class can be equally classist as the upper classes.
I do not know where your statistics come from because you still do not give references in your posts or comments on where you find your facts. This again, like your post on the baiting of animals, leaves me feel your comments are less credible because they are statements not facts. None the less I will assume they are true although I plead with you to give reference in the future.
So to answer your question no, classism is not to point these things out. Classism, in my opinion, is to use these 'facts' to group all people of wealth together in a group that you call BUMS.
For the rest of your comments I would agree that money has corrupted the political process and reform of current campaign finance rules are in order. The fact that the people were in office while the things you mentioned is coincidence. It is like giving credit to Reagan for the fall of the USSR or Clinton credit for the internet boom. They were just there at the right time, or wrong time depending on the issue.
I do not disagree with your comments for the most part. I was only trying to say that the people in office are there because they wanted to change the world. They have done some wonderful things and deserve respect for them. They have been caught up in a corrupt system and are changing it. I would prefer that they change it a little faster and with more authority instead of playing the game but....
I would also remind you that corporations do not vote and that parties do not elect politicians we do. We and our fellow americans.
fact: Most people in this country of plenty don't have affordable health care, day care, housing, food, transportation and therefore, daily life is stressful and the future is uncertain. What is the difference? Many working families don't make enough money to make it. I think we need to continue talking about money in this country and not get hung up on who calls who a name. The terms of debate are nil if we loose sight of the issue. Ohyeah, I'm officially in ;)
I think you may be confusing acquiescese with congeniality. To offer basic respect is to honor our shared human experience and in no way condones reprehensible behavior. Respect, civility, and congeniality are in fact the vital social tools we have left when the power elite strips the masses of health care, quality food, shelter, and education. To bring the debate back to the domestic, as all good anarchists must, try to “fuck congeniality” in your own home environment and witness the results. All to often the political debate fails to find solutions in the common sense of everyday living.
Do people who drop bombs on innocent children deserve civility? Does a man in his "home environment" who beats his wife and children deserve "respect, civility, and congeniality" or is there a time to say fuck congeniality? Iraq is a perfect example of this. In the 1980's we helped prop up an insane Iraqi dictator. We looked the other way as he gassed his own people. We as a matter of fact helped him with money and arms. Then as our interests changed we decided he was the one who had to go. In the ensuing years after war and sanctions that according to UNICEF killed an estimated 500,000 childern Madeline Albright said something like "it was worth it". These are crimes against humanity. And in my opinion "war crimes". I agree that in every day discourse we should and need to treat everyone with respect and civility. I think that goes out the window, when we drop 500 lbs bombs through those windows.
It seems to me that there's very little that's true about respect in the personal sphere that isn't also true about respect in the political sphere.
Ultimately, I think that anytime you witness an act of disrespect, you are also witnessing an act of fear, albeit fear turned inside out.
As Saddam Hussein was hung, his executioners chanted "Moqtada! Moqtada!" (al Sadr.) Saddam was surely one of history's Big Bads, but does anyone truly feel that his end was appropriate? No, and that's because his end said more about the people doing the executing than it did about him, and deep down we sense that there is no excuse for this as a policy of state, or of states.
To maintain our own humanity, we have to acknowledge the humanity of others, and to agree that under no circumstances can that essential humanity be denied. And I think as soon as the wifebeating guy in sporty nortwood's example has been physically restrained, yes, indeed, he does deserve respect, if only because his wife and kids, for their healing, need to see what respect and humanity look like if the cycle's ever going to end. It's not a question of treating others as they deserve to be treated. Ultimately, nobody can survive that kind of judgment when it's finally turned on us.
The big hope for our species is that at times, we've shown the ability to treat each other better than our most recent actions warrant - to forgive, to begin to establish trust, to act as if there is love even when none is felt. Think of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. I don't think there is any greater security for the future than each of us training ourselves to move past fear and anger to the point where we can look at ANY other person on the face of the earth and say "Welcome. You may be a dangerous looneytunes scarydude, and I may need to keep you locked up for everyone's protection, but you still get a cup of my metaphorical tea. That's your birthright for being human." To treat fellow humans in any other way ultimately deforms us, and we run the risk of becoming what we hated in others.
I agree. I concede your point as it is a good one. The point I would like to make is that in this country and especially this administration the "wife beaters" or "bomb droppers" are not being physically restrained. As a matter of fact they are rewarded with money and the presidential medal of freedom. To come to some sort of conciliation I believe that the violence has to be stopped first or the cycle of violence continues. How much respect, "essential humanity", and civility is a very interesting question when it comes to mass murderers. I do not believe in capital punishment, but as a new parent I'm not sure where my mind would go if a 500lbs bomb came through my sons window.
three things to do
1.do no harm
2.do good
3. help others
that is all
all enemys are a good persons teacher
Post a Comment