Boomer Narcissism My Ass!

Some sort of cultural pundit on NPR mentioned that generations subsequent to the baby boomers weren't burdened with the narcissism the boomers willingly bear. Narcissim is looking at yourself in the mirror, not taking pride in your accomplishments.
I recall she referenced that, for instance, the boomers delusionally believed the Beatles were the best rock and roll band of all time. Well, I don't know if that's true, but a list of the best 100 rock and roll bands since 1950 would have a paucity of groups post 1980 (unless they were also trying to sell something to people of later generations). 
And while there have been some powerful writers over the decades, show me seminal works like Catcher in the Rye or Catch 22 published in the last twenty five years. 
 I'm sure we don't need to mention that baby boomers did manage to accomplish a few things politically. We're waiting.
Perhaps this article about Time magazine's international edition covers explains it better than anything I've just said. Time magazine has to dumb down the American edition cover because the next generations are clueless about anything that doesn't happen to them, for them, or about them. Talk about narcissism!



Each week, TIME Magazine designs covers for four markets: the U.S., Europe, Asia and the South Pacific. Often, America's cover is quite, well – different. This week offers a stark example.
Witness:

Yes, what you see is TIME devoting its cover in international markets to a critical moment in Egypt's revolution – perhaps the most important global story this week – while offering Americans the chance to contemplate their collective navels (with a rather banal topic and supposition, to boot).
This is not an isolated incident, for perusing TIME's covers reveals countless examples of the publication tempting the world with critical events, ideas or figures, while dangling before Americans the chance to indulge in trite self-absorption.
Witness these stunning dichotomies:

Viewing these covers, a question must be asked: do these moments of marketing (through a choice in covers) reveal more about Americans, or about the state of American journalism?
I fear the answer.

Article appears here.

Dear One Term Rick: Fuhgetaboutit

If Missouri is the “Show Me” state, Michigan must be the “We'll Believe Anything” state. I mean, we actually elected a man as governor who laid out absolutely no specifics on his vision of governing our state. Although he loved to proclaim himself a non-politician, he rolled out every vague platitude and aphorism about “strengthening the state” and “increasing employment” that every first time candidate hopes will satisfy disinterested voters, but in his case they actually did.

And while there are a number of articles to follow about how his unrevealed plans were to strap the poor and middle class with the bill for enacting his vision, for now let's discuss how his new “Fix the Roads” refrain is one more stab at a chance to punish the innocent to pay for his inequitable budget balancing strategy.

It's not that the roads don't need the work. Lord knows that if you drive across this great country you'll notice that Michigan has just about the crappiest roads around. I haven't visited all 50 states and I suppose Alaska may be worse, but for the 28 or so states that I have traversed we're the worst. I definitely agree that the roads need fixing.

But...

My car didn't ruin the roads. Neither did yours. This article claims that it would take 10,000 cars to do the damage one 18 wheeler inflicts on the roads. USA Today believes the correct number is 9,600 cars required to do the same damage, but points out that their assumption is based on the legal weight limit posted for most states at 40 tons. But, as of 2008, over 500,000 trucks with permits allowing them to carry more than 40 tons pounded the nations roads and bridges. If you really want to read an analysis, the University of Kansas did an exhaustive study on a stretch of Kansas highway that concluded the damage from large trucks amounted to roughly $.02 per truck per mile. (see page 122).

So wait a minute. One-term Rick wants me to pick-up the tab? He wants me to pay $1.2 billion to fix roads that I didn't ruin? (By the way, isn't $1.2 billion roughly the amount One Term Rick told businesses they didn't need to pay in taxes henceforth? What a guy, eh?) He wants to raise gas taxes by $.14 per gallon but wait! According to MarketWatch (page 2 of 8) Michigan already has the 7^th highest gas taxes in the country.

It seems pretty clear who busted the roads but One Term Rick prefers groveling to businesses since he'll need a lot more cash this next election when the good citizens of Michigan know exactly what a Tough Nerd means...tough on the middle class.

At this point I'd rather One Term Rick let let the roads devolve to gravel than kick in one more cent for his plan to reinvent the State of Michigan on the backs of the poor and middle class. If the people that broke the roads refuse to fix them, don't come asking me for the money.

I Need to Buy a Gun to Protect Myself From You?

Some things in life are really complicated. There are no absolutes, no black or whites, just myriad shades of gray. Fortunately there are many things that are either yes or no, black or white, ying or yang. The more of these types of things in your life, the less complicated your life is.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre last week, the debate over guns moved from myriad shades of gray to black and white for me.

Adam Lanza

There are two types of people in America: those who own guns and those who don't. It's that simple.
The group known as the National Rifle Association claims to speak for all gun owners and I guess they can if they want to. You can tell they're a conservative group from the quote at the top of this page defining conservatives: "Distrust of the people tempered by fear".
Today the NRA has called for armed guards in every school in America. Why? So those of us non-gun owners can be protected..
Protected from whom? Gun owners.
So if I get this right, the only way for non-gun owners to be protected from gun owners is to join the gun owners clique? Are you sure that's the only possible solution?
Since Adam Lanza lived in a house with guns, whose mother was a gun "rights" advocate, you'd figure she was a gun owner protected from gun owners, but you'd be wrong. She was the first victim killed, ironically by her own gun.

James Holmes

So the NRA goes on the offensive again. They point out that people like Adam don't belong to their little club and they don't support people like Adam but of course they do. They protected Adam and his mother, James Holmes, the Aurora mass murderer (12 dead, 58 injured) and Jared Laughner the Arizona mass murderer (6 dead 12 injured). They represent those people because saying that none of thse people should have had a gun is a true statement that the NRA won't comment on. They want to debate whether or not they had the right to own a gun. But that's a different argument entirely.

Jared Laughner

None of those jerks should have had a gun. Period. But just the threat of trying to regulate who could be trusted to have firearms sets the NRA off in a paroxysm of rage. Individual rights appear to trump society's right to protect itself.
So like I said, there are two classes of people in America. Those who own guns (each with the unqualified support of the NRA) and those who don't own guns.
When gun owners say the only way to be protected from them is to join their club, that's bullshit, although it sounds like they're conceding that a lot of whack jobs own guns
Those children and teachers in Connecticut had every reason to believe they were safe. The fact that a gun owner chose to kill them doesn't mean more guns are needed for safety in our society.
If the argument is that the only way to protect yourself and your loved ones from gun owners is to become a gun owner, there must be a ton of paranoid, ignorant, unbalanced, hateful, psychotic people out there with guns since the NRA says every school in America to arm itself to be safe from unstable, undesirable, irresponsible gun owners.
And those gun owners are the problem.
Those children were not the problem. Those teachers were not the problem. Ms. Lanza was a problem. Adam Lanza was the problem.
Let's fix the problem.

MI Legislators Too Ignorant to Write Their Own Legislation

Non-ALEC Faithful

Just when you thought that the curtain had been pulled back and the extremely right-wing advisory group called ALEC had been revealed to be nothing but a front for anti-science, anti-environment, anti-worker billionaires (ie the Koch brothers) it turns out that the dumb-ass Republican legislators who submitted and passed Right to Work laws in Michigan didn't have enough intellectual fire power to even write the damn bills themselves.

Our Gov. - One Term Rick

These dimwits brought ALEC written cheat sheets into their chambers and copied from the word for word. I should be appalled but I consider the Livingston County gang in Lansing and figure they're doing all they can just signing their names to the bills without crayons.
And so Michigan's Race To the Bottom continues.
Look out Mississippi...here we come!

Republican Pussies Don't Want to Hear About Democratic Vaginas

  Freedom of speech has it limits – at least in the state House of Representatives.

State Reps. Lisa Brown, D-West Bloomfield, and Barb Byrum, D-Onondaga, were told today that they wouldn’t be recognized to publicly speak on any matters before the House because of comments they made Wednesday during an emotional debate on a bill that puts new restrictions on abortion providers.
Brown, who voted against the legislation, told supporters of the bill, “I’m flattered you’re all so concerned about my vagina. But no means no.” And Byrum was gaveled out of order after she protested when she wasn’t allowed to speak on her amendment to the bill that would have required proof of a medical emergency or that a man’s life was in danger before a doctor could perform a vasectomy.
Today was the last day of session for the House before it takes a long summer break.
In Opinion:
• Proposed abortion restrictions in Michigan put women's health at risk
• Abortion legislation helps protect women and the unborn
The House bill, passed on a 70-39 vote, provides for sweeping new regulations and insurance requirements for abortion providers, makes it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion and regulates the disposal of fetal remains. It won’t be taken up in the state Senate until at least September. A companion bill that would have outlawed abortions past 20 weeks, with only an exception to save the life of the mother, was tabled by the House.
Ari Adler, spokesman for Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, said it was the prerogative of Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas, R-Midland, to maintain order and decorum during session of the House.
They “will not be recognized to speak on the House floor today after being gaveled down for their comments and actions yesterday that failed to maintain the decorum of the House of Representatives,” Adler said.
“House Republicans often go beyond simply allowing debate by welcoming open and passionate discussion of the issues before this chamber,” he added. “The only way we can continue doing so, however, is to ensure that the proper level of maturity and civility are maintained on the House floor.”
Brown and Byrum weren’t immediately available for comment.
"Both Representative Byrum and I were gaveled down without cause yesterday while voicing our opposition to the Republican's war on women here in Michigan," Brown said. "Regardless of their reasoning, this is a violation of my First Amendment rights and directly impedes my ability to serve the people who elected me into office.”
Brown wondered whether she was being silenced because of her comments that bill was forcing others' religious beliefs on her or that she used the word “vagina, which is an anatomically medically correct term. If they are going to legislate my anatomy, I see no reason why I cannot mention it.”
Byrum added, “I was ignored by the majority floor leader and not allowed to speak on my amendment which would have held the same standards for men and women when it comes to legal, voluntary procedures in reproductive health and now I am being silenced for standing up for women. This is yet another example of this Republican majority's misogynistic and cowardly tactics."

For the full story and to read the comments, click here. 
Check this story's accuracy at PolitiFact.

Can We Stop the Future? Oops, Too Late!

Here we are, jovially ensconced in the 21^st century, wondering what the hell the future will look like. And, if you're like me, the older you get the more you contemplate but the less you care. I look at the young, future leaders of our great country and figure that people will always get the government they deserve...in a democracy, which after the Citizens United decision we may not be.

I was thinking about Ray Bradbury's book Fahrenheit 451 the other day because it is in fact a book about the future a few hundred years hence. Bradbury, a known conservative, has written some of the most challenging yet accessible fiction of the twentieth century and if you've not read him at all I recommend starting with Fahrenheit 451, which can be found in PDF format here. I don't mean to screw Ray's offspring out of any royalties, but it would be painfully ironic if you read the book and never bought a paper and ink edition.

Bradbury considers life in 24^th century America. The lead character, Montag, is a fireman. But in the future that doesn't mean he puts out fires; technology has provided burn proof dwellings. Montag's job is to ride the fire truck to homes harboring books, removing the books and throwing them in a big pile and turning his flame-thrower of a hose on them to incinerate them. Books are believed to bring confusion and sadness into a culture that demands nearly nothing of its citizens except their unthinking loyalty.

While Montag is off burning books that have been safely hidden for decades, maybe centuries, his wife Mildred spends her days happily in their home, which has walls that are actually enormous video screens. And as she watches her little soap-opera-ish dramas, the characters occasionally turn to her and ask her opinion. She gets flustered; so much riding on her opinion! She believes her answers are critical to the other characters and hopes her responses promote harmony and a sense of well being to her friends on screen. And if only Montag could make more money, she could afford another “wall”. There would be more characters for her to spend time with, increasing the possibilities of her “meaningful” interactions with each wall!

And then I thought of American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, The Biggest Loser yadda, yadda, yadda. and the shear drama created by asking all of the viewers for their vote, to voice their opinion. Everyone watching the show is eligible to fully participate in these very important matters, such as which celebrity and amateur waltzes or cha-chas better than the others, with all the relevance that carries to our 21^st century culture.

And I was reminded of an announcement that Panasonic has introduced a 152” 3D flat screen TV. That's over ten feet of wall space, folks. In 3D.

And my friend Val talks to her Apple iPhone which has her personal assistant, Siri available 24/7. She can ask Siri anything and Siri will respond, generally with relevance. And it will call her by name.

Ray Bradbury said his story isn't about censorship and I believe him. It's something more pervasive and much less controversial. As Wikipedia summarizes it, it's a “a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature, which leads to a perception of knowledge as being composed of factoids, partial information devoid of context.”

I'd like to take a cheap shot at Fox News right now, but they didn't invent this style of reporting and god knows they're not the only one belching out news without context. Today's news is us vs. them, black vs. white, right vs wrong, God vs god. No background, no sense of history or research, just visceral statements to push your into whichever corner the media's provider represents.

Are the Occupy New York people smelly, out of work cry-babies who want to take all of your money? Or are they the voice of disenchanted America, still bruised from the beating inflicted by the financial movers and shakers? I know that you already have an opinion about which description fits the Occupy folks based on the facts as you understand them, given to you by the only media source you believe is credible, without any burdensome thought or research.

With the availability of tablet (e.g. iPad) computers and infinite information in the palm of our hands, will our understanding of the world begin to improve, allowing us to form intelligent opinions based on our own reading and understanding? Probably not. While the media from Vogue to Truthout scramble to provide content for your tablet, research shows 74% of tablet usage is playing games or engaging in social media. Mildred would understand. Even a fiction writer like Bradbury couldn't envision the vacuousness the digital age would deliver just years after his fable was published.

“If you don't want a man unhappy politically, don't give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none.” Captain Beatty, Fahrenheit 451

We're leaving fiction behind and to knowingly choose the ugliness it portrayed for our destiny. Bradbury's nightmare has become our dream and we embrace it greedily, happily and without any sense of regret.

Choosing Sides for the Culture War

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of the people, tempered by fear.
William Gladstone, Prime Minister of England, 1868 – 1874

I can't think of any generalization that is always true. The world just doesn't work with that kind of absolute certainty. And as one who tends to see shades of gray instead of black or white, generalizations don't always come easy to me.

Having said that, this shows how far apart the two sides in our culture war have become. There are no shades of gray, just black and white certainty on either side.

And, unlike the alarmist emails I get from my friends on the right, which could have easily been checked by Snopes or FactCheck.org, I've included links so you can check the generalizations as you read them.

In general:

Republicans yearn for the safety of yesterday.

Democrats look forward to a better tomorrow.

Republicans think that God gave stewardship of the earth to mankind so we can eradicate entire species and pollute it as much as we want.

Democrats think stewardship means that God expects us to maintain and treasure His creation.

Republicans believe in the Pentateuch (Torah, The Books of Law, including the10 Commandments) and the Epistles of Paul.

Democrats believe in the Gospels with the story of the Good Samaritan and the Beatitudes.

Republicans think most English colonists came to America to establish a church based government like England.

Democrats think most of our Founding Fathers had no desire to establish the United States as a Christian country, having left England to escape church based government

Republicans think the Boston Tea Party was a revolt against any and all taxation.

JPG

Democrats think the Boston Tea Party was about challenging the right of England to tax the American colonies.

Republicans think the “Dust Bowl” of the 1930's was an act of God.

Democrats think killing off all the buffalo, plowing the prairie grass under and abandoning the wheat crop when prices fell caused the “Dust Bowl”.

Republicans remember the Franklin D. Roosevelt era with disdain for the government programs that were started.

Democrats remember the Franklin D. Roosevelt era as the first time the federal government created institutions to assist the least wealthy in America.

Republicans remember the McCarthy hearings as a bright spot in American history.

Democrats remember the McCarthy hearings as a paranoid witch-hunt that discredited American East Asian experts just years before their Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia expertise was needed.

Republicans think Fulgencia Batista was a legitimate leader working toward a democratic Cuba when overthrown in 1959.

Democrats think Batista was a military dictator enriching himself and his friends at the expense of the poor.

Republicans think Nixon should have stepped up our efforts in the Vietnam war.

Democrats think the war would not have been fought if the 1956 Vietnam reunification election (as agreed to in the Geneva Accords)

Republicans believe that a lower voter turnout favors them and they work very hard to suppress the vote.

Democrats believe everyone should vote and work to ensure that end.

Republicans think the Bush III tax cuts for the wealthy were fair and equitable.

Democrats agree with Ronald Reagan:

Republicans believe the Defense Department budget should never be cut.

Democrats believe matching the rest of the entire world's defense expenditure nearly dollar for dollar is a sign of inefficiency and waste.

src="http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/ve-military-spending.jpg" alt="ve-military-spending"/>

Republicans believe that Social Security should be funded through private investment.

Democrats know that the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted in the stock market crash of 1929 and didn't recover to the same levels for 25 years.

Republicans believe that health care is adequately doled out by the health insurance industry.

Democrats believe that the advances in medical knowledge, funded with tax dollars, and the assistance given to medical schools and hospitals, also financed by tax dollars, should be shared by all.

Republicans believe people need semi-automatic weapons to protect themselves.

Democrats believe they need protection from people with semi-automatic weapons.

Republicans think Tort law and the ability of individuals to sue for damages is a nuisance and waste of time and money.

Democrats believe that Tort lawyers defend the individual against abusive corporate behavior and misdeeds.

Republicans think the Food Stamp program is costly and unnecessary.

Democrats think that we all pay for federal farm subsidies (over $80 billion per year), that benefit the richest 10% of farms with 76% of the subsidies, so no American should ever go hungry.

Republicans despise unions and believe big business is good for America; feeding the sparrows by giving the horse more oats.

Democrats don't trust big business and believe unions represent “the rising tide that lifts all boats”.

Republicans trust the “science” done by big corporations.

Democrats trust publicly funded science.

Republicans trust the theory of gravity, but reject the theory of evolution because it's only a theory.

Democrats wonder about the theory of “intelligent falling”.

(Most) Republicans believe the 3% of American scientists skeptical about man-made climate change.

Democrats think that big time contributors like the oil billionaire Koch brothers and the Exxon Corp. support the Heartland Institute, whose purpose is to discredit, not disprove, man-made climate change, that is protecting their dirty industries.

Most Republicans are white..

Most non-whites are Democratic.

Republicans are born afraid, so they believe things like Girl Scouts are Communist Lesbians.

Democrats need a good laugh now and then.