Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Things to see, people to do . . . (Swim out past the breakers, and watch the world die, part 1) [Mar. 27th, 2008|08:31 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , , ]

a.k.a. so much to post about, far too little time . . .

The Continuing Death of Journalism and Its Contribution to the Continuing Death of the World -- In the obviously huge news that I hope most of you have already heard, the effects of global warming on ice sheets continue to happen at a much faster rate than predicted. Like, the things we thought we could count on happening later? Happening now. Meantime, the LA Times runs a front page story yesterday highlighting the newest tactics by the "business as usual" crowd, who are now -- at last!-- admitting that yes, global warming is real, but calling themselves "the radical middle" and positing that it will be much cheaper and more cost effective to "adapt" to the effects of global warming than do anything to stop it.

In ultra-brief, things deeply wrong with this view -- (1) it takes good ideas that are part of what we really should do, such as not building more houses in hurricane-prone wetlands areas, for examples, and treats this as an either/or alternative to actually doing things about global warming; (2) it evinces a complete lack of concern, caring or even comprehension that someone might be concerned or caring about any view other than a purely human-centric one, i.e. as long as we survive I don't think it even occurs to them that other species matter; (3) it bases things purely on a monetary cost treatment, i.e. as long as it saves people/business money, that we will live in what most of us will view as a shittier world doesn't seem to be relevant to them; (4) as the article actually managed to point out, because we can predict a few effects of global warming (for example some particular disease increases in certain regions, drought areas, and where the hurricanes are most likely to destroy houses) doesn't mean we can predict them all; and (5) it completely ignores some predicted possible effects of global warming that very much affect humans and even large corporate interests, such as the possible permanent heat death of the entire planet (this idea is controversial and its main proponent is a shill for the the nuclear power industry who rubs me the wrong way in a host of ways, but he makes a very credible, logical sounding case on this issue that there's at least a strong chance of this happening, to my layman's analysis; I'll leave it to the climatologists among you to say for reasonably sure he's wrong)

There's also something deeply wrong with this article -- This is in some ways more disturbing to me. Seriously. Because it's what's wrong with journalism, and if we don't know what is going wrong with our world, we can't fix it. And journalism simply isn't adequately or accurately informing us anymore, and to the extent it does inform of events, it frequently does so innacurately and far too incompletely, and to the extent it provides analysis, as several recent blogs on both sides of the Hillary/Obama divide have pointed out, it provides deliberately misleading and/or incredibly stupid analysis--sometimes it is hard to tell which. It not only fails to point out most of the flaws I just mentioned in the above article, or gives them extremely brief discussion, it treats this view as if it is not part of the scientific fringe but as if it *actually* might be the reasonable middle ground between deniers and "alarmists". What makes this worse is that the *one* area of LA Times news reporting where they are normally sane and where they haven't become essentially a conservative mouthpiece the majority of the time is on environmental issues --they've done magnificent, groundbeaking work on how the combination of excess pollution and global warming are destroying the oceans, and mentioned the implications of these things for our future survival. They shocked the hell out of me with a recent editorial pointing out the flaws in nuclear power as a solution to global warming and at least mentioning (albeit it was a short editorial and didn't have time to say "why") that a solar/wind combo makes more sense as the way to go (solar can do it all alone, if needed, and I direct everyone to Scientific American a couple of months ago as a recent semi-in depth example of an article discussing this). And then they put *this* right next to the story about "giant ice sheet melting 15 years ahead of earliest predictions; might cause sea level to rise" (that wasn't the actual headline, btw, that was me being sarcastic)

I'm all for providing fringe views, when they are presented as such, and when they are reasonably analyzed. But this is part of a drumbeat that keeps trying to minimize the problem, and it's part of our news as tools for corporate behemoth money interests rather than as actual information, and it really dismays/pisses me off.
link4 comments|post comment

Politics. [Jan. 18th, 2008|09:09 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]

Some Democrats in Congress want to isolate Dodd for not being a good little fascist lapdog like so many of them:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/15/dodd-facing-fight-within-his-caucus-on-fisa/


(hat-tip to http://sideshow.me.uk/ for the link -- this site consistently has great political links, and I recommend it most highly. Thanks to [info]donfitch for tipping me off to this site about a year ago)

***************

Very weird that my sample ballot listed "Polling Place: None / By mail". I don't remember having previously voted by mail. Has there been a major election I just couldn't miss but have now forgotten since November 2006, when I have a sure memory of voting at a local precinct? The last election here was for school boards, and I didn't vote because I knew nothing about any of the candidates, and none of them had a public statement or platform that was much more specific than "I want to give our children the best education possible in a fiscally responsible manner", so I sat that one out.

*******************

Still unsure on the Hillary/Edwards thing. So much of all this is just making a semi-educated guess what they're going to do when they're in office . . . Leaning her way a bit because I feel she'll be the best on environmental issues (compare her record to Edwards on nuclear power in particular; and this is where Obama loses any chance of me voting for him except against a Republican), and because I expect her to be at least as good as Bill was on reproductive freedom, and he was great there, even vetoing the anti D&E bill that had broad public support, for all that he supposedly was overly poll driven (he was, but on this, and stopping the rape camps in Bosnia, and on intervening to help end dictatorship in Haiti, a mess we were certainly partially responsible for, he did the right thing in the face of very strong poll numbers against him)(note that these were interventions in the affairs of other nations that actually made things there *better*, and without bankrupting the US, and that were not done for financial gain of the administration and their buddies), and because despite her stupidity on Iraq her overall Congressional record has been the best of anyone still in the race other than Kucinich, I think, and because the rest of her stated agenda basically is as good as or nearly as good as Edwards' and I have more faith in her to successfully enact it, even though her rhetoric isn't nearly as in line with my way of thinking as Edwards (and even though I do have to give him credit for greatly improving the overall tone of the debate, which I do, and even though I've known, gone to school with, and worked with quite a few trial lawyers and quite a few corporate lawyers, and I tend to very much like genuinely crusading trial lawyers, which I believe Edwards is). And honestly, if the whole thing comes down to a wash, which might be how I feel on election day, there are four things working against Edwards:

(1) "I like her better" isn't a reason for anyone *else* to vote for her, or under most circumstances even for me to -- I endorsed Dodd previously w/out any sense of him as a person at all -- but in a toss-up, this suddenly matters, plus, more imporatantly,

(2) I think she's the toughest, mentally strongest candidate out there, and that *does* matter; and

(3) the same reason I initially dismissed *all* the white guys candidacy -- unless they are noticably better, of course I'd rather vote for the candidate representing a historically (and still today, if a bit less so) oppressed group, if for no other reason than so she can prove the bigots (see Chris Mathews, among others) wrong once she gets in office, and

(4) both Hillary's most vocal critics and the kind of attacks they throw at her tend to really, really, *really* annoy me, and I shall take pleasure in their dismay.

Again, none of these are decisive unless it is otherwise a toss-up, but I think it might be. Both of them realize that dogged, determined partisanship is what won the environmental and civil rights battles of the 60's and 70's, (in case anyone missed it, this isn't just a dig at Obama's repeated call for bipartisianship, which is only going to be possible if one side caves and that's usually the dems on such things as the Patriot Act and Iraq and the drug war and tax cuts for the rich combined with service cuts for the poor and the Reagan/Bush decimation of environmental regulation, so please NO to bipartisanship; but also at Obama's expressed admiration for not just Reagan's rhetoric, but his expressed admiration for Reagan's reaction to the big government "excesses" of the 60's and 70's), both of them were both stupid and political cowards on the Iraq war vote (Obama would get credit for voting otherwise here if he'd done *anything* since coming to national prominence to convince me he would have been less of a political coward in their spot--he might have been less stupid, because he certainly has a brilliant political mind, but then a *lot* of people were wrong about how that would play out, and the pressures on him would have been very different on the national scene)(to the at least two and I think more still-Kucinich supporters out there--yes, you're right, he was there and he voted the right way and he's honest and his agenda is indeed better than anyone else's all round, no argument, and I don't blame you a bit for favoring him), and otherwise their positive/negative ratio tends to balance out about the same, if with minor differences here and there.

It would be nice if one of them would join really solidly with Dodd, though, swearing to stick by him to the better end on the telecomm immunity issue and even pledging to try and whip up support for this cause, and an appeal for turning back the tide on the rising police state, among the general populace.
link5 comments|post comment

In hopes of derailing the juggernaut, "Why I can't get excited about Obama . . ." [Jan. 6th, 2008|03:13 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]

When I saw him at the 2004 convention, I said "this guy is our great Democratic hope for the future! He speaks as well as (Bill) Clinton except better because he knows when to stop! He's got all the energy and dynamism that most of the other possible future candidates lack, and he didn't vote for the Iraq invasion!"


Since then, while I still think he's the best and most charismatic speechmaker of the lot and second only to (Hillary) Clinton in debating skills, he's lost me, and has been near the bottom among my Democrat choices for months. Here's why:

(1) His support for nuclear power (see the book "Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" by Helen Caldicott, I think, for a better & lengthier and more detailed argument than I could possibly give if you don't think this is a big deal) and liquid coal. Both of these are environmental disasters to a greater degree than oil and gas have been, and horrible ideas all round. To me, saying you support investment in more nuclear power plants is like saying you support more judges like Scalia/Thomas/Alito, and think Iraq worked out so well you want to invade a couple of more countries as soon as possible.

(2) His repeated overtures to the right wing fundamentalists. Now, the other leading democratic candidates are guilty of this to some degree as well, but his overtures to them make me more nervous, especially backed by his refusal to get rid of the homophobic fundie "gayness can be cured" guy from his South Carolina support concert.

(3) Having skimmed his book "The Audacity of Hope", the following things from there:
where he keeps talking about the "undeniably vexing issue of abortion" and you have to read to the end to figure out that he is pro-choice--probably--but clearly has a lot of sympathy for anti-choicers,
where he seems to blame the democrats as much as the republicans for the rancor in washington despite the dems having moved steadily rightwards for years and compromised themselves to death, practically, (aside from your own observations over the years, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" for more details on this) and (related)
his level of sympathy for red-state democrats who vote conservatively and/or don't speak their conscience in order to get elected/re-elected.

(4) He didn't even support the filibuster of Alito . . . . Yes, he voted against him, but he knew the vote wasn't going to be enough without the filibuster, and if ever there was a time for a filibuster, this was it. Almost as bad and a lot more recent than the Iraq votes of Hillary & Edwards, plus far worse coming from someone who claims to be the most outspoken for progressive change.

(5) He *is* the most outspoken for progressive change, but there's absolutely zero indication that he's going to try to accomplish any more than the others -- he's almost never specific except when forced to be, and when he does offer specific policy plans, as with health care, they seem very similar to something one or more of the other candidates has already put forward. When you actually look at both his specifics thus far, combined with what he's done since being in *national* office, he actually seems less likely to accomplish--or even try for--real change than either Edwards or Clinton. Coming from someone with his campaign-speak, this not only rubs me the wrong way, it makes me fearful that an Obama election followed by a socially conservative, economically moderate presidency will make a lot of progressives simply quit voting.

(6) He keeps speaking in vague rousing platitudes without specifics just like that other charismatic, well speaking politician, Ronald Reagan. I don't think Reagan was a good president. And things like "hope freed the slaves" actually bug me far more than "morning in america", since the latter is just empty phrasing, while the former makes it sound like happy feelings rather than grim determination, warfare, and the whole blood sweat & tears thing was what was needed. Except for shooting-type warfare, I think sacrifice and fighting more than hope will be needed to fix many of our problems now, anyone who's studied the current situation realizes this, and anyone who implies different is being well beyond disingenuous.

That said, if he gets the nom I'll almost certainly vote for him -- not only because I like him much, much much more than any of the Republicans, but also because the supreme court appointments are just too important (tho this is another area where I have less confidence in him than Clinton, Edwards or Richardson), plus the Republicans have shown themselves too fond of invading countries for non-existent reasons to be given further opportunity. But I'd a hell of a lot rather see any of the other three top candidates.

(x-posted to "progressives")
link5 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]

Advertisement