In my mind, it started last July when Jim Adkisson entered a Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee and murdered two people. His four page suicide note is the rant of the archetypical angry and dispossessed man who feels his plight is the fault of "liberalism." He spent much of the final page urging other, equally dispossessed Americans not to go down alone, but to take out as many liberals as they could.
On the 4th of this month Richard Poplawski shot and killed three policemen in Pittsburgh after they were called to his home. Poplawski was a conspiracy nut by most reports. He feared new measures from the Obama administration that would take away his guns; he also spoke on various websites of how Jews were controlling the country and how we would soon descend into a race war.
There was an increase in right-wing violence and militia groups during Clinton's term as president. The Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 killed 168. Eric Rudolph bombed a gay nightclub and the 1996 Summer Olympics. But there were other crimes as well, like an increase in abortion clinic bombings and shootings. I emphasize that I'm not speaking of mainstream conservatives here, this militia activity only applies to the most extreme fringe of that movement.
Most people can watch Glenn Beck cry for his country and walk away unscathed, but there's some unstable individuals who are being pushed to the edge by this "Obama backlash." And I think it's somewhat attributable to right-wing hyperventilating and hyperbole. Both Jim Adkisson and Richard Poplawski were big fans of the most extreme talking heads for conservatism today, which also happen to have a huge megaphone. Adkisson was found to have books by Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly. Poplawski posted Glenn Beck videos on various web sites. I am not for censorship, and my real concern is that the fuse has already been lit for a number of people who just needed a spark.
The bigger problem is, more inevitable and powerful forces are at work here. Homeland Security sent out a warning just today[1] that the recession, Obama's election, rumors of gun restrictions and the inability of returning military to reintegrate into society create a perfect environment for the rise of right-wing violence. HS, however, in no way links violence with the media. The media itself however, slow-witted as it is, has finally began to link the recent barrage of shooting sprees we have seen across the nation with our economic recession. And the killings committed for political reasons have been far outnumbered by those of the average desperate individual who just wishes to spread his pain around before he off's himself.
I'm not calling for censorship, but I have a bad feeling that a "big one" is coming down the pike. These people aren't afraid to use force and they're only pacified when we prove to be a country open-minded enough to "elect" a borderline retard to the White House.
Conservatives Love to "Tea Bag," Who Knew?
Anyone paying attention to politics right now knows of these "tea parties." Literally they Republicans are THRUSTING these sweaty, frenzied bags down the throat of the public. But seriously. First of all, it has been exposed that these aren't grassroots movements at all, but are in fact manufactured from above with the appearance of coming from below, exactly like the culture war itself.[2]
But more important to me is the tone at these rallies isn't anti-tax. There are people holding up signs at these rallies against socialism, gay marriage, immigration, evolution and questions as to whether Obama is an American citizen. These are just the worst, left over elements we saw from the McCain-Palin rallies who have co-opted a legitimate libertarian message which was largely created by Ron Paul supporters months ago. These people have no coherent message; these are sore losers plain and simple. I hope they come across much like the 9/11 truth movement.
============================
Footnotes
1. http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
2. http://www.prwatch.org/node/8334
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Remind Me: Why Did I Vote For Obama Again?
OK, I admit, the title of this blog is a little disingenuous; I don’t (yet) regret my vote for Obama. I like the man Obama. I think his concern for people is genuine. But something is going on; something feels very “amiss,” for lack of a better word.
First some relatively minor criticisms to get out of the way. The main reason I voted for Obama was McCain appeared all too eager to start another war. But Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan and essentially keeping us in Iraq another two years isn’t change.[1] I believe he’s going to be bogged down in Afghanistan for years to come. Meanwhile we’re hemorrhaging, this isn’t the time for another adventure. As Mos Def said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” last week, “I don’t care about Bin Laden, how about we fix New Orleans?” On top of this, although he closed Gitmo, Obama is allowing the CIA to continue the policy of rendition; abducting people and taking them to foreign countries where they can be held and possibly tortured.[2] Obama has kept the PATRIOT Act.[3] The Obama administration has even “threatened to halt intelligence co-operation with Britain” if they allow evidence of torture committed under the Bush administration to become public there.[4] But no one in the media wants to talk about this, they would rather discuss Michelle Obama’s arms.
But these are mere disappointments compared to these huge bailouts and the way we are throwing money around. First, lets have no illusions, Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street-types and lobbyists, top to bottom. Take William Lynn, Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist. Obama made him Deputy Secretary of Defense.[5] As for Wall Street types, take Lawrence Summers and his “protégé” Timothy Geithner. Summers is a man who helped to get rid of the Glass-Steagall Act which was put into place after the depression, which could have helped prevent the situation we find ourselves in today through stricter regulation.
There is a blatant double standard with how this money is being used. We are literally throwing money at the banks to the point that they are trying to give it back in some cases. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile the auto industry is asking for a mere pittance by comparison; $22B. And what are they told? They’re told that bankruptcy might be an option for them. The wizard behind the curtain tells them to go away and come back with another restructuring plan, and it better be suitable this time. And asking for concessions from the auto industry unions is common while they would have allowed $165B in bonus payouts for AIG if there hadn’t been outrage among the public.
And then Obama essentially “fires” the CEO of GM. Sure, maybe he deserved it, but it shows the different manner with which the auto industry and the banks and are being handled. Gloves off for one, kid gloves for the other. Remember the “outrage” at the CEO’s of the “Big Three” for arriving in Washington in private jets? I wonder how those bank CEO’s arrived at the White House for the cushy meeting they had with the President himself? I agree with the Republicans on this one, I don’t like the government “firing” a CEO at a private corporation, but if we are going to do it, fire some of these bankers as well. Or at least cap their pay, Obama has made it _appear_ that he’s done that, in fact what he has done in this regard is very weak.[6]
To the Republicans I say shut up about socialism. If this was socialism would do a better job of keeping up with where the money is going and how it’s being used. If this was socialism the Treasury Secretary wouldn’t give provisions allowing tax payers to give bonuses to employees at failed corporations. If this was socialism we would fire the people currently in place and take over the corporations for the benefit of everyone. What we are doing is giving money away to rich people who spent their days essentially making money out of thin air and taking stupid gambles.
The paranoid conspiracy theorist in me makes connections and sees this entire crisis as just “too convenient.” Here’s how it goes for the fun of it. First of all, we have learned that all of the “wealth” we thought we had in the Bush years was essentially based on inflated housing prices and people living on debt. Meanwhile we have become an almost entirely “service-based” economy. We make nothing tangible anymore. There are two types of economies in America, the real one which includes manufacturing and the auto industry, and the “money wizards” like the banks who sit around making money out of thin air and come up with great ideas like credit default swaps. We are gradually getting rid of all our “real economy” while giving tons of money to this “fake economy” to prevent the entire house of cards from collapsing (much of the money is going overseas too, don’t forget). And since property values in the country have hit rock bottom and we are broke these banks can essentially move in and grab up the “real world.” So it’s not only a wealth transfer, it’s a property transfer and a transfer of the real and tangible for the imaginary. We are paying for our own coffin and digging our own grave.
But then that’s just the paranoid, conspiracy theorist in me, surely the world isn’t that controlled? It always comes back to the question of evil intent or incompetence, and we can only hope it’s the latter.
I think the government has to spend, and spend a lot, and that’s never pretty, but the way it’s being done really just feels wrong in almost every aspect. I find myself agreeing with Republicans when they want to slow down these huge bailouts, but the problem is whenever we oppose the same thing, they do it for all the wrong reasons. Republicans just oppose spending period, and want to give more tax cuts to the rich and hope that will magically solve our problems. That option is thoroughly discredited. In the future I don’t want to hear anything about the glories of the free market from anyone who has supported these bailouts. The free market only exists for the poor who don’t get bailouts.
-------------------------------
1. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXhIn6Dsn59np7LYG6eYS5GubXUAD977ODC00
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#USA_PATRIOT_Act
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4513620/US-accused-of-threatening-Britain-over-terrorism-torture-evidence.html
5. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html
6. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008703273_apbailoutexecutivepay.html
First some relatively minor criticisms to get out of the way. The main reason I voted for Obama was McCain appeared all too eager to start another war. But Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan and essentially keeping us in Iraq another two years isn’t change.[1] I believe he’s going to be bogged down in Afghanistan for years to come. Meanwhile we’re hemorrhaging, this isn’t the time for another adventure. As Mos Def said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” last week, “I don’t care about Bin Laden, how about we fix New Orleans?” On top of this, although he closed Gitmo, Obama is allowing the CIA to continue the policy of rendition; abducting people and taking them to foreign countries where they can be held and possibly tortured.[2] Obama has kept the PATRIOT Act.[3] The Obama administration has even “threatened to halt intelligence co-operation with Britain” if they allow evidence of torture committed under the Bush administration to become public there.[4] But no one in the media wants to talk about this, they would rather discuss Michelle Obama’s arms.
But these are mere disappointments compared to these huge bailouts and the way we are throwing money around. First, lets have no illusions, Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street-types and lobbyists, top to bottom. Take William Lynn, Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist. Obama made him Deputy Secretary of Defense.[5] As for Wall Street types, take Lawrence Summers and his “protégé” Timothy Geithner. Summers is a man who helped to get rid of the Glass-Steagall Act which was put into place after the depression, which could have helped prevent the situation we find ourselves in today through stricter regulation.
There is a blatant double standard with how this money is being used. We are literally throwing money at the banks to the point that they are trying to give it back in some cases. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile the auto industry is asking for a mere pittance by comparison; $22B. And what are they told? They’re told that bankruptcy might be an option for them. The wizard behind the curtain tells them to go away and come back with another restructuring plan, and it better be suitable this time. And asking for concessions from the auto industry unions is common while they would have allowed $165B in bonus payouts for AIG if there hadn’t been outrage among the public.
And then Obama essentially “fires” the CEO of GM. Sure, maybe he deserved it, but it shows the different manner with which the auto industry and the banks and are being handled. Gloves off for one, kid gloves for the other. Remember the “outrage” at the CEO’s of the “Big Three” for arriving in Washington in private jets? I wonder how those bank CEO’s arrived at the White House for the cushy meeting they had with the President himself? I agree with the Republicans on this one, I don’t like the government “firing” a CEO at a private corporation, but if we are going to do it, fire some of these bankers as well. Or at least cap their pay, Obama has made it _appear_ that he’s done that, in fact what he has done in this regard is very weak.[6]
To the Republicans I say shut up about socialism. If this was socialism would do a better job of keeping up with where the money is going and how it’s being used. If this was socialism the Treasury Secretary wouldn’t give provisions allowing tax payers to give bonuses to employees at failed corporations. If this was socialism we would fire the people currently in place and take over the corporations for the benefit of everyone. What we are doing is giving money away to rich people who spent their days essentially making money out of thin air and taking stupid gambles.
The paranoid conspiracy theorist in me makes connections and sees this entire crisis as just “too convenient.” Here’s how it goes for the fun of it. First of all, we have learned that all of the “wealth” we thought we had in the Bush years was essentially based on inflated housing prices and people living on debt. Meanwhile we have become an almost entirely “service-based” economy. We make nothing tangible anymore. There are two types of economies in America, the real one which includes manufacturing and the auto industry, and the “money wizards” like the banks who sit around making money out of thin air and come up with great ideas like credit default swaps. We are gradually getting rid of all our “real economy” while giving tons of money to this “fake economy” to prevent the entire house of cards from collapsing (much of the money is going overseas too, don’t forget). And since property values in the country have hit rock bottom and we are broke these banks can essentially move in and grab up the “real world.” So it’s not only a wealth transfer, it’s a property transfer and a transfer of the real and tangible for the imaginary. We are paying for our own coffin and digging our own grave.
But then that’s just the paranoid, conspiracy theorist in me, surely the world isn’t that controlled? It always comes back to the question of evil intent or incompetence, and we can only hope it’s the latter.
I think the government has to spend, and spend a lot, and that’s never pretty, but the way it’s being done really just feels wrong in almost every aspect. I find myself agreeing with Republicans when they want to slow down these huge bailouts, but the problem is whenever we oppose the same thing, they do it for all the wrong reasons. Republicans just oppose spending period, and want to give more tax cuts to the rich and hope that will magically solve our problems. That option is thoroughly discredited. In the future I don’t want to hear anything about the glories of the free market from anyone who has supported these bailouts. The free market only exists for the poor who don’t get bailouts.
-------------------------------
1. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXhIn6Dsn59np7LYG6eYS5GubXUAD977ODC00
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#USA_PATRIOT_Act
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4513620/US-accused-of-threatening-Britain-over-terrorism-torture-evidence.html
5. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html
6. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008703273_apbailoutexecutivepay.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)