Michael Phelps and Michael Steele

I'm sitting here watching some CNN before bedtime and I originally intended to write solely on Michael Steele and the Republican philosophy toward the stimulus bill, but first a few words on Michael Phelps.

So the kind of the swimming world, whatever importance that holds, smoked a little dope from a bong. Get over it. More of an uproar is being cooked up over this rather than, I don't know, say the fact that we are pulling business out of debt while our own personal debts will never see the same kind of treatment. Smoking a little marijuana doesn't make someone a bad man. Redistributing wealth toward the top and being the citizen to continue to condone such practices does make one a bad person. Well certainly ignorant, maybe not bad, unless you're the one pulling the proverbial wool over the eyes of the populace.

So a hopefully quick note on Michael Steele. As I watched him defend his position toward the proposed stimulus bill, I could not help but feel a little perturbed. He says that more and more tax cuts will stimulate the economy as if it is self evidently true; like it's axiomatic. I have a hard time understanding and swallowing this position. First, these tax cuts Republicans propose usually don't benefit those at the bottom. Understandably so, since I do understand their whole theory, cut taxes for the business class so that they'll expand business, open up credit, altruistically create jobs, yada yada. But I do not accept this position since many people I feel are duped into supporting this nonsense because they think those tax cuts are going to apply to them. Second, what tax cuts do, versus the alternative of spending, is essentially redistribute wealth upward. What a little spending on infrastructure, green transitioning, and social programs will do is put people back to work, preserve their dignity, and redistribute some of the wealth downward. And though I take issue with the our super-consumer based economy, how much can a government fleece from the people before there is no many left at the bottom to buy all of their silly items; But if you want them to spend, they need money, and for money to be had they need jobs.

Governments should work for their people. I find it awfully disheartening that so many people are willing to support programs that work to the direct opposition of their interests, as individuals and communities. No, a bill full of nothing but spending will not solve our problems, but I believe more in the Democrats' proposed plan to create jobs than the Republicans'. Smart tax cuts can work, but I don't think tax cuts unequivocally work better than spending on programs to put people back to work directly. What government spending does is guarantee is that money would be put directly toward putting people back to work, keeping people in their homes, and giving them a little boost until the economy recovers. Tax cuts assume that rich people sprinkle fairy dust on the country creating jobs out of the kindness of their heart so that butterflies and good cheer fill citizens' hearts. Can you say chimera? 

However much the Republicans irk me, both parties still support many disheartening programs like bailouts. Bailout is the word of the year and is on the tongue of every informed citizen. I think bailouts do more harm than good, and display the pure ignorance and enmity that this country displays toward socialism for the people. I wish the government would do what is right; if these banks and businesses are that important to THE PEOPLE, then in the name of the people you take them over and steward them instead of some fat cat. 

I'm getting tired and thus ambiguous, I'm supporting sleep for recovery at this point.

Why I Don't Support the Troops.

I've been thinking about this for quite some time, and just now being inspired to write, I'll try to elaborate on my thought here about why I don't support the troops. First, it seems to be the "cool" thing to do, like popped collars and fleece jackets, support the troops is everywhere, only with far more severe repercussions. Supporting the troops is an easy way for someone who is not normally civically engaged to feel like they are making a difference, after all, the troops see your bumper sticker transmitted to the front lines from thousands of miles away. I'm almost inclined to create a bumper sticker that says, "Don't Support the Troops", just to see what some local jingo does about it. It could be like that guy at the Dunkin' Donuts drive through at 4am who knocked on my window almost warranting a left cross, who noted my bumper sticker that said "Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Disagree" he thought I was a staunch conservative (I don't get that), but anyway I digress.

On a more serious note, I don't support the troops because of the sense in which most people wave the flag and write, type, and paste "support the troops".   What does supporting the troops really mean? Does it mean supporting their mission? Does it mean supporting them unquestionably no matter what the individual character of the soldier is? And does "support the troops" sometimes mean that if you disagree with the missions in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the myriad other places our troops are, that you are Anti-American, and that you want them to fail, in essence die? 

I don't support the troops because I want them out of most of the places they are in. To me that is supporting the troops. It's taking them out of harms way when they don't need to be. It's supporting the ones who have done their job when they come back home, instead of letting them fall into physical and psychological despair. It's prosecuting the ones who savagely murder innocent civilians, or who defile and debase their remains. Supporting the troops is not just pasting a bumper on your car, and instead voting, canvassing, and lobbying for more support for veteran's hospitals and health care. It's supporting just causes and judicious use of the military, not as a tool for imperialistic expansion, and world hegemony. It's not supporting crazy gun toters who get a thrill off of shooting innocent civilians like they are white tailed deer.

Support the Troops has become a mantra for the right and the propaganda that they have spread. We are in the midst of a new era ( I hope) in America, it will take years to overturn the civic regression this country has been experience lately, but there is just something about "Support the Troops" that really really bothers me. This country is obsessed with guns, the military, and beating up the rest of the world. Call me a pacifist, but I find every war debatable from a "just cause" standpoint, and I think this mantra only fuels the fire.

What is it about the soldier that they have always been glorified. The American worker does just as much, if not more, than the American soldier to help build this country (Though they are essentially in the same category; Soldiers are workers) Why not a "Support the Worker" bumper sticker. I must say I greatly respect the World War II generation, even the Vietnam vets, because most of those soldiers had no choice. The one's who were drafted just put their heads down and went to war as a duty, there is something that a person has to respect about that. Though the world politics that surround these events are disgraceful, and wrongful on both sides, you have to respect a man or woman that does something they may not want to because they are called up.

So maybe I do support the troops, I just don't "support the troops". I support the troops like I support my mom or dad going to work, nobody wants to do it really, but they have to in order to survive.  And who doesn't want those men and women to come back safely? And leaving a quagmire isn't disgraceful for the troops. That prospect is nonsense, but what isn't is the fact that it is dishonorable that they have been used like pawns for all of history, especially in recent American history. Rich men and women make war, and the poor generally fight them, and then they are cast aside like the dispensable worker in civilian society. You want to support the troops? Stop saying it with a bumper sticker, and start questioning the pretense for any war, question authority, and just think about the power "support the troops" had for our incompetent former president. It squelched dissent and honest debate, it was used as a weapon, and that's why I don't "support the troops".

Socialism and Supporting the Hangman

Ok, on a trivial note, I had to go through this convoluted, overly difficult process just to retrieve my blog password. It's a blog, this isn't a password to access files which will lead one to the burial plot of Jimmy Hoffa. Google, Blogger, make it more simple for crying out loud. Or, I could take personal responsibility and remember it, eh, I'll take the former.

So, I'm going to try hard to make this short and sweet. The latest rant from the McCain camp is that Obama is a Socialist. My first response to that is, and the problem with that is???? Socialism gets a bad reputation from countries that have practiced Socialism in name only, much like the United States preaches Capitalism, yet is far from a pure capitalist state. What I love, is how the Republican base at these rallies are swallowing this nonsense and licking their lips afterwards. They love it!!! I've heard Palin and McCain deride and chide the "redistribution of wealth" to their supporters with not a single cry of opposition. Let me lay this out very simply. The majority of America would benefit from a tax plan that wants to cut taxes for those making less than two hundred and fifty thousand  dollars. Plain and simple. What's wrong with giving more people a shot at simply living. You fat cats out there will still have your private jets, palatial estates, and high end call girls, don't worry about it!!! The important point here though, is not the obviousness of the wealthy's opposition, but the sheer abandonment of self interest by those who are supporting McCain and Plain. When they're cheering for the McCain campaign's tax plan, they're celebrating the destruction of their own well being. 

I would say I can't believe it, but I can, because the Republican formula has worked before and we have seen perceptible failure from their brand, yet folks continue to support it. There is nothing wrong with helping those below you out when you have extra resources to do so. There is nothing wrong with the altruism, community, and humanity that is represented in socialist doctrine and Obama should not have defend himself if he so chooses to call it socialism.  I find this self evident, but unfortunately in America it is not always such. American's love their ideology, and they blindly adhere to it much like Communists, Fascists, Socialists, etc. The important maxim should be what does the most good for the most people. Call it whatever you want, as long as it improves the well being of everyone. I suggest that American's look inward, and think more deeply about their ideas and what they support. It's appalling, that with nooses around their necks, American's still support the hangman.