Member since: Fri Aug 27, 2004, 10:27 PM
Number of posts: 2,186
Number of posts: 2,186
I don't like what the Obama Administration appears to have done with the tools provided him by the Patriot Act, but I can't say I'm outraged.
I was outraged by its enactment, and by the Bush Administration.
I'm not thrilled with Obama, but my deepest anger is with the Republican Congress.
It is, at any rate that Congress that must be changed if the Patriot aCt is to be repealed--or even improved.
Ranting against the Obama Administration would only be an exercise in misdirected outrage that would improve nothing, and make it more difficult to improve things.
To that extent I agree with the original post here--but I'm still less than thrilled with Obama's actions with regard to domestic spying.
Of course then again, I'm less than thrilled with his failure to stand up to Republicans on numerous points--but if he is going to do that he needs support rather than outrage against him.
On many points I support him as strongly as I can, and I can't think of a single point on which I would prefer a Republican--any Republican--to be President.
Posted by existentialist | Fri Jun 7, 2013, 06:42 PM (0 replies)
I do think that the focus on precisely what NSA is snooping into at any given moment misses a larger point.
Phone records, internet messages (including everything posted here), who even knows how many records are constantly created on an ongoing basis.
The NSA (and numerous other agencies, companies, countries and individuals) have the capacity to access very large parts of those records at any time.
That is an even larger problem, of which we should, at a minimum, be constantly aware.
Posted by existentialist | Thu Jun 6, 2013, 01:01 PM (0 replies)
““The fiscal math has to work, more or less. It doesn’t for a flat tax. Nor does it for a balanced budget amendment that assumes an unrealistically low level of spending for an aging society that also wants a lethal, power-projecting military. At some point, simplicity edges over into falsehood or fantasy.”
I'm sorry--I can't remember where I lifted that quote from, but I remember that it was a GOP friendly article in a semi-respectable online publication that seemed aimed at bringing Republicans back to reality (good luck with that). The rest was my comment which I posted (on Huffington Post) in response to the original article:
Republican rhetoric edged over into falsity and fantasy on these points and others long ago.
In so far as voters perceive this, the game is up, and Republicans lose.
Therefore Republican rhetoric gets more and more outrageous and incendiary in an increasingly desperate attempt to prevent voters from rationally considering the issues and the politicians that they chose to represent them in dealing with those issues.”
Posted by existentialist | Tue Jun 4, 2013, 02:12 PM (0 replies)
I don't know much about details, but I do know that it was diabetes related, and that a month and a half ago she was at work and seemed fine. Then, suddenly she was hospitalized and in very dire straights. Then she had seemed to improve, and had gone home, and then in three days she is deceased.
I don't know exactly how old she was, but pretty sure that she was in her 30s--possibly even early 30s. I know that she leaves several children, the youngest less than 3 years old.
I know that she had had diabetes since she was a teenager, but you never would have known it if she hadn't told you. She always seemed bright and healthy and happy.
I suppose that this might be partly the fault of the free but inferior medical care available from the Indian Health Service. Certainly commodity based reservation diets are generally a contributing factor, but she seemed to always try to make an effort to eat healthy.
I know that I am sad for her and for her family.
Posted by existentialist | Wed Mar 27, 2013, 11:03 PM (6 replies)
For what it's worth, my prior posting here, ("a crunch cometh") has now (finally) been published in slightly edited form in the September 26, 2012 Native Sun News.
In the mean time.
1) Congress recessed until after the election without the House bringing the farm bill to a vote.
2) Kristi Noem stated that she does not believe in human caused climate change.
3) Kristi Noem attacked Matt Varilek for having advocated "cap and trade" carbon policies.
4) Matt Varilek replied that while human caused climate change is a fact he does not necessarily advocate "cap and trade" carbon taxes to address the problem.
(my paraphrases of statements by Noem and Varilek)
Posted by existentialist | Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:24 AM (0 replies)
A Crunch Cometh
Climate Change, Drought, Financial Crisis, “Conservative” Rhetoric and Politics, and the 2012 Farm Bill
A crunch cometh. “Conservatives” have long, and in some circles effectively, denied the existence of climate change. They have also set themselves forth as having the best grip on economic and political reality, and consequently the best answers. These assertions are now headed for a train wreck, and it appears that they have no answers at all.
Whether the powers that be choose to recognize it or not, the majority of the United States, including most of the important food producing areas, are experiencing severe drought—a drought that the (largely ignored) scientific consensus holds to result from greenhouse gas caused climate change.
Against this background, the most recent incarnation of the farm bill expires at the end of September, and so far there is no replacement enactment. The (Democratic majority) Senate passed a bill in July. The Republican controlled House of Representatives adjourned for the August recess without bringing a bill to the floor for a vote. This year’s farm bill brings Republican and “conservative” troubles to the surface. Rural Republican “conservatives” have for decades railed against all federal subsidies except the subsidies to farmers which they believed to be self-evidently entitled to special treatment. Democratic politicians supported farm subsidies because they kept food cheap.
Critics on the periphery of politics were not always shy about attacking the hypocrisies of rural “conservatives” who complained about everyone except themselves and their agricultural constituents receiving benefits derived from tax dollars, but they were largely unheeded. But suburban and urban “conservatives” including Tea Party politicians have taken up the fight against agricultural subsidies along with all others. The House has found it difficult to act and has so far failed to act.
Even before the drought it was known that the 2012 farm bill would differ from farm bills past. There may have been little agreement as to what needs done, but there was a fairly wide consensus that what had previously worked to the extent of keeping Americans fed, an agricultural industry running, and some farmers hanging on, would have to change dramatically.
It is not surprising that many members of Congress avoid this unpleasantness to the extent possible. I suspect that one of the reasons my own congressional representative declined a seat on the House Agriculture Committee when first elected is because she knew that it was going to be hard acrimonious work; perhaps she just didn’t think it was sexy enough despite her own agricultural background (and farm subsidy based income). After it was brought to her attention that our agriculturally dependant state needed her voice on the committee, she belatedly asked and received an Agriculture Committee appointment. She then proceeded to miss 16 of her first 20 committee and sub-committee meetings, and at the 4 meetings she did attend she made exactly one comment of record.
Long term ecological costs of American industrialized agricultural have been knowledgably discussed elsewhere and may be the greatest threat not addressed by Congress. If, as seems likely, Congress does not deal with such problems in the farm bill, then any temporary relief obtained will be just that, and not worthy of the acclamation of a true conservative.
Irrespective, the United States, and the world, rely on a reluctant, distracted, ideologically divided, uncivil, and substantially ignorant Congress to pass a farm bill during September. It won’t be easy. Differences are great, and good will is scarce. Yet if nothing is done the markets won’t like it, farmers will fail, food will become scarce. Starvation may become a threat not only in Africa and India and Latin America, but in the United States.
Republican “conservatives” can justly criticize Democrats and liberals for failing to deal with these problems. However it is the Republicans and “conservatives” who have driven these problems on. The primary fault of the Democrats and liberals on this complex of issues—as on several issues—is that they have failed to take the Republican “conservatives” to task. So far they are still failing.
Oh yes, and then there is an election on November 6, and Congress will try to explain its action or inaction on the farm bill to voters before then. May Congress have the best of luck in explaining that which congressmen do not understand themselves, about which they have purposely deceived themselves and their constituents, and about which they and their colleagues cannot agree.
Posted by existentialist | Sun Aug 12, 2012, 09:41 PM (9 replies)
A poll now shows Matt Varilek is within one point of Kristi Noem in South Dakota's sole Congressional district. This is the first poll I am aware of, and the conventional wisdom had considered the seat a GOP lock, although I had questioned that conclusion here before.
It looks like this is going to be a fight, and if this seat is a fight that bodes well for Democrats generally.
(a right wing rag)
Posted by existentialist | Sat Aug 4, 2012, 04:10 PM (1 replies)
I have had some more thoughts about it.
It was published by Rolling Stone.
40 years ago Hunter S. Thompson was political affairs editor for Rolling Stone, and was publishing, chapter by chapter what was later to be compiled and published as Fear and Loathing on theCampaign Trail '72
Soon after I became a Hunter Thompson fan, and to some extent I still am.
However, I have come to realize, that although Hunter Thompson had a kind of genious, and ability to explain things to a receptive audience, that his "Gonzo journalism" had to seem, to all not already largely accepting of his counterculture views, to be "obscene, horrid, repellent" and not at a persuasive or even responsible work from the standpoint of trying to persuade a scepticle or hostile audience. His works was and remains a disaster from the standpoint of political rhetoric.
I am very grateful that the present Taibbi article maintains the tradition of Hunter Thompson's strengths, and has gotten past his counterproductive weaknesses. One can present Matt Taibbi's article to those of contrary persuasion, and while it may not convert, it is unlikely to alienate in counterproductive ways.
Thank you Matt Taibbi for your article.
Posted by existentialist | Sun Feb 26, 2012, 04:42 PM (0 replies)
The sate Democratic Party has asked my neighbor to run for the State legislature.
She's thinking about it. She may have a reasonable chance. The districts have been redrawn, and there is no incumbent running.
She's been pretty apolitical so far as I could tell until now. She got drawn into a fight over the governor's education bill which she strongly opposed, and wrote an article that was published in several newspapers, and then she testified before the legislature.
The present Senate has 30 Republicans and 5 Democrats.
The present House has 50 Republicans, 19 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
The district she would be running is a relatively Democratic district--more so than our present district (used for the 2002 through 2010 elections), and that's good because our present Senator and both Reps are Republicans.
I don't know what to tell her, but if she decides to run my wife and I will do our best to support her. (I spoke with my wife about this--I'm NOT speaking without authorization!)
Posted by existentialist | Tue Feb 14, 2012, 10:56 PM (4 replies)
Go to Page: 1