I know that this is not in connection with the previous theme of this site, but I felt the need to connect to the ether, and this struck my fancy. I promised more about Reagan, and I will deliver, but I highly doubt that my limited audience is concerned. Perhaps "someone" will play this on the piano when the time arrives. I would like KC to sing, as I will be singing along from somewhere else. It would be rather ironic, considering my nebulous concept of the Afterlife.
Dearly Beloved
By Bad Religion
Here's the story of an honest man losing religion
Climbing the pulpit steps before an eager
congregation
The while praying came a wicked inspiration
Brothers, sisters this is what he said
Dearly beloved, dearly beloved, dearly beloved,
(Make no mistake despite our traits I've seldom
seen evidence of genes)
I can't relate to you, I can't relate to you
He was the kind of guy who would always go right
out of his way
But more before that crazy notion leapt right into
his head
And stubbornly crept into every mad perception
I can't deny a funny feeling when he said
Dearly beloved, dearly beloved, dearly beloved,
I can't relate to you, I can't relate to you
Dearest in memoriam - set phasers to stun
And grab yourself a neighbors skeleton to
lean upon
Did you know him in life - one filled with regret
So soon we all forget - we ever met
Do you know my name - sing a light refrain
For a man estranged - I won't deny that I'm
inclined to isolate
Dearly beloved, dearly beloved, dearly beloved,
(Make no mistake despite our traits I've seldom
seen evidence of genes)
I can't relate to you, I can't relate to you
I can't relate to you, I can't relate to you, I can't
relate to you
To listen to the acoustic version, follow the link and select the "play arrow" third track from the bottom
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Idle Worship: Reagan and the New Right
For whatever reason, Ronald Reagan has been resurrected from his interred state of sleep and become a symbol of proper leadership in the last three years. I understand that much of this is an attempt by the Conservative Republicans to place a spotlight on the faults of a Democrat president, and as a banner and trumpet call for a Republican revival in the next Presidential election cycle. Strategy and propaganda are one thing, but this deification of Ronald Reagan is becoming a bit macabre, as well as completely misleading.
So it has become an opportunity for me to get back to a passion of mine -- that being the examination of U.S History, and especially a moment for a cognitive scalpel to interrupt this postmortem lovefest with a few facts about this idolized president.
I understand that we all want to return to better days and memories are powerful things. Memories tend to be more powerful as the years pass because our understanding of the world and its current times provides for criticism moreso than adulation. History also tends to mitigate the criticisms of a person at that time, and therefore I understand the newfound desire to place Reagan in the pantheon of great men and leaders. But a close examination, and a return to a dispassionate understanding of that particular time, should remand his deification and portray him as merely human -- a man acting as President, without divine connections, without omniscience, and without the "herculean strength" to bring down an entire nation through sheer will and some buzzwords or catchphrases scribed by White House speechmakers.
So please allow me to break down this model of worship and provide some facts that will disrupt the concept of Ronald Wilson Reagan as the greatest thing since sliced bread -- and the last great leader of a great nation that was divined from God to promote its idea of greatness upon the rest of the world.
Perhaps we can begin with the election of Reagan to office. The issues leading up to this are well-recalled in the minds of those who voted at that time. They are also listed in current history books. Nineteen-seventy-nine was a culmination of three decades of strife and international stare-downs, beginning with Truman and the Korean War, the dismissal of MacArthur, the onset of Vietnam (engaged under Eisenhower), the shock of a Catholic President gunned down in Dealey Plaza -- Watergate, Fumbling Ford, and Carter's Adminstration held at gunpoint by OPEC and Iran. There was the counter-culture hippie movement, the movement of "Mother's Little Helper" for the household wives, and use of LSD, marijuana, and opiates for revolutionaries and drop-outs. When in doubt, there was a cowboy elected to office ... the State Governor of California.
Ronald Reagan was a screen actor, and a B-movie best actor. He was a liberal Democrat at that time, and was the head of the Actors' Union. He was a man that you could view on the Big Screen and consider him a solid figure, an upstanding man representing the best qualities of an American citizen. And then he became Governor of California.
He railed against the counter-culture movement. He threatened violence against opposition, especially on California University campuses. He tried for the Presidency twice, failing to gain nomination to the Republican Party post. He received his third opportunity with the election of 1980.
And then he won election. Over Jimmy Carter. Carter was an embattled President under the yoke of an energy crisis, a hostage situation in Iran, and the mantle of one unable to garner public trust after the torrid 1960s and the decadent 1970s. And Reagan was resoundingly the victor, receiving 80% of the popular vote as an apparent reaction to the failure of Jimmy Carter. Right time, right place. The first four years of the Reagan Adminstration did not seemingly characterize him as the cowboy to the rescue of the American people. Unemployment continued a similar trend as it had under the Carter Administration. Energy prices remained high. The U.S.S.R. continued to dominate eastern Europe. Something greater than Reagan happened, and the Election of 1984 posed less difficulty. Buoyed by a recovering economy, and enhanced by a weak Democratic candidate in Walter Mondale, Reagan won a second term overwhelmingly. The trees grew taller, people whistled as they walked, birds sang once more. It was reported that a rainbow spread from Staten Island to the Golden Gate Bridge. And the Second Term was as lionized as the First. But then there was a great deal of investigation and consideration that followed in the coming years that shed some light on the happenings during those eight years of bliss.
More to come …
So it has become an opportunity for me to get back to a passion of mine -- that being the examination of U.S History, and especially a moment for a cognitive scalpel to interrupt this postmortem lovefest with a few facts about this idolized president.
I understand that we all want to return to better days and memories are powerful things. Memories tend to be more powerful as the years pass because our understanding of the world and its current times provides for criticism moreso than adulation. History also tends to mitigate the criticisms of a person at that time, and therefore I understand the newfound desire to place Reagan in the pantheon of great men and leaders. But a close examination, and a return to a dispassionate understanding of that particular time, should remand his deification and portray him as merely human -- a man acting as President, without divine connections, without omniscience, and without the "herculean strength" to bring down an entire nation through sheer will and some buzzwords or catchphrases scribed by White House speechmakers.
So please allow me to break down this model of worship and provide some facts that will disrupt the concept of Ronald Wilson Reagan as the greatest thing since sliced bread -- and the last great leader of a great nation that was divined from God to promote its idea of greatness upon the rest of the world.
Perhaps we can begin with the election of Reagan to office. The issues leading up to this are well-recalled in the minds of those who voted at that time. They are also listed in current history books. Nineteen-seventy-nine was a culmination of three decades of strife and international stare-downs, beginning with Truman and the Korean War, the dismissal of MacArthur, the onset of Vietnam (engaged under Eisenhower), the shock of a Catholic President gunned down in Dealey Plaza -- Watergate, Fumbling Ford, and Carter's Adminstration held at gunpoint by OPEC and Iran. There was the counter-culture hippie movement, the movement of "Mother's Little Helper" for the household wives, and use of LSD, marijuana, and opiates for revolutionaries and drop-outs. When in doubt, there was a cowboy elected to office ... the State Governor of California.
Ronald Reagan was a screen actor, and a B-movie best actor. He was a liberal Democrat at that time, and was the head of the Actors' Union. He was a man that you could view on the Big Screen and consider him a solid figure, an upstanding man representing the best qualities of an American citizen. And then he became Governor of California.
He railed against the counter-culture movement. He threatened violence against opposition, especially on California University campuses. He tried for the Presidency twice, failing to gain nomination to the Republican Party post. He received his third opportunity with the election of 1980.
And then he won election. Over Jimmy Carter. Carter was an embattled President under the yoke of an energy crisis, a hostage situation in Iran, and the mantle of one unable to garner public trust after the torrid 1960s and the decadent 1970s. And Reagan was resoundingly the victor, receiving 80% of the popular vote as an apparent reaction to the failure of Jimmy Carter. Right time, right place. The first four years of the Reagan Adminstration did not seemingly characterize him as the cowboy to the rescue of the American people. Unemployment continued a similar trend as it had under the Carter Administration. Energy prices remained high. The U.S.S.R. continued to dominate eastern Europe. Something greater than Reagan happened, and the Election of 1984 posed less difficulty. Buoyed by a recovering economy, and enhanced by a weak Democratic candidate in Walter Mondale, Reagan won a second term overwhelmingly. The trees grew taller, people whistled as they walked, birds sang once more. It was reported that a rainbow spread from Staten Island to the Golden Gate Bridge. And the Second Term was as lionized as the First. But then there was a great deal of investigation and consideration that followed in the coming years that shed some light on the happenings during those eight years of bliss.
More to come …
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The Next Economy for the United States of Americannot
There has been a great deal of conjecture about what will constitute an end to "The Recession," and one of those points of progress is the re-building of jobs in the United States. As of this morning, March 4th 2011, a new Jobs Report stated that the precipitous drop of employment was held, and the unemployment rate dropped point-one-percent -- certainly a reason to rejoice. Finally, we are on the correct path and gaining momentum! Marie Antoinette "tweeted" BREAD FOR ALL, CAKE FOR NONE. No one told her in the 19th C. that it was improper to use CAPS.
Propaganda is a powerful thing, but so is understanding. In the height of a booming economy, perhaps one could look at four-percent unemployment as great. Five percent would be considered usual. Even eight percent has been tolled as an acceptable feat. The idea behind such is that there are certain people "between jobs," that are taken at a survey level and will later be considered as employed.
This idea is not the new normal consideration of things. At one point in the development of of the United States, the unemployment of people during downtimes might be considered a loose body of potential hirings when things come around. With the development of technology -- from Taylorism and the Assembly Line -- to modern computers and diagnostic abilities to use people in an effective role consolidating and compartmentalizing, the creation of Man has become the reason that Man needs less of its people.
The plethora of jobs that existed earlier in this century will cease to exist. The current recession has forged employers to ask more of their staff, while cutting their staff. Therefore, the mantra has become "do more with less." It is an appropriate axiom for capitalism, but it also leaves a nation of expanding populace without positions of earning. The Recession has brought about a new consideration of the business model in every area, and capitalism as a model demands that less labor and more output equals a better bottom line. This idea, born from the fire of recession, will not lessen. Technology will only become greater, and the people that develop and implement that technology will be the ones that will lessen the amount of opportunity for employment in this nation -- and many others.
I was listening to an economist talking today who stated that despite the 9% unemployment rate at the present, we would still need to add 100,000 jobs in this nation each day to return to normal employment percentage, all the while curtailing the influx of immigrants to this nation. Intuitively, I construed that such will not happen. Maybe someone understands more than me. Perhaps all of our technology will become a sham, and humans will have to do what computers and robots cannot. I bet that it will not happen.
Prepare for a new frontier, and grab your ankles while you are doing it. As I do not trust the idea of Direct-Deposit, I was in a bank to refuel my account. Two weeks ago, I did the same. Two weeks ago, there were two tellers to take account action. Now there was one. The supervisor told me that she could help me, and came across her desk to a teller window. There are seven teller windows, so I suppose at one time, there were that many tellers. I think I recall such a scene from the '80s. We have known each other for some time, and she asked me how things were at work. I replied as I tend to do, then asked her how things were here, overtly asking where the usual second teller was. She replied that he had left. I remarked that I had just read an article in U.S.A. Today that mentioned a bank stating that with the Recession, they decided to cut back on some people, and cross-train the rest so that a teller could open new accounts, help you with the concept of a loan, wax the balls of your dog, and figure out String Theory. The employees were so happy to be free to take on new responsibilities! I dont have a dog, but if I had one, that would be a GREAT bank promotional device.
I suppose that the message, the idea, the fact is that jobs will not be returning. I doubt that we will even have much expansion. First, we need contraction of the 9%+ unemployment listing. Then, we need an actual account of how many people are actively seeking employment or have just given up. But as technology grows and replaces people, and as businesses have created an environment of "doing more with less," and as people have held so tightly to positions that they themselves learn to "do more with less," there may be a lapping tide upon a shore, but it will remain just that.
And by the way, Karl Marx proposed this demise nearly two centuries ago. His belief that free enterprise would lead to innovation, which would lead to the removal of necessary human interaction within a working structure should not be considered a precept of Communism. It was a critique of the capitalist formula, one consideration that built upon another to display the exact destination at which we seem to be arriving at the present. The system itself is grand -- the way that people will, and do, use it is detestable.
Some jobs have been sent overseas, some workings have been contracted and placed upon existing individuals, and some positions have simply eroded due to the advancement of technology.
Employment is not going to expand to the degree that is necessary to support the population. But there will be more downtime, so we can procreate more. That should help things.
Propaganda is a powerful thing, but so is understanding. In the height of a booming economy, perhaps one could look at four-percent unemployment as great. Five percent would be considered usual. Even eight percent has been tolled as an acceptable feat. The idea behind such is that there are certain people "between jobs," that are taken at a survey level and will later be considered as employed.
This idea is not the new normal consideration of things. At one point in the development of of the United States, the unemployment of people during downtimes might be considered a loose body of potential hirings when things come around. With the development of technology -- from Taylorism and the Assembly Line -- to modern computers and diagnostic abilities to use people in an effective role consolidating and compartmentalizing, the creation of Man has become the reason that Man needs less of its people.
The plethora of jobs that existed earlier in this century will cease to exist. The current recession has forged employers to ask more of their staff, while cutting their staff. Therefore, the mantra has become "do more with less." It is an appropriate axiom for capitalism, but it also leaves a nation of expanding populace without positions of earning. The Recession has brought about a new consideration of the business model in every area, and capitalism as a model demands that less labor and more output equals a better bottom line. This idea, born from the fire of recession, will not lessen. Technology will only become greater, and the people that develop and implement that technology will be the ones that will lessen the amount of opportunity for employment in this nation -- and many others.
I was listening to an economist talking today who stated that despite the 9% unemployment rate at the present, we would still need to add 100,000 jobs in this nation each day to return to normal employment percentage, all the while curtailing the influx of immigrants to this nation. Intuitively, I construed that such will not happen. Maybe someone understands more than me. Perhaps all of our technology will become a sham, and humans will have to do what computers and robots cannot. I bet that it will not happen.
Prepare for a new frontier, and grab your ankles while you are doing it. As I do not trust the idea of Direct-Deposit, I was in a bank to refuel my account. Two weeks ago, I did the same. Two weeks ago, there were two tellers to take account action. Now there was one. The supervisor told me that she could help me, and came across her desk to a teller window. There are seven teller windows, so I suppose at one time, there were that many tellers. I think I recall such a scene from the '80s. We have known each other for some time, and she asked me how things were at work. I replied as I tend to do, then asked her how things were here, overtly asking where the usual second teller was. She replied that he had left. I remarked that I had just read an article in U.S.A. Today that mentioned a bank stating that with the Recession, they decided to cut back on some people, and cross-train the rest so that a teller could open new accounts, help you with the concept of a loan, wax the balls of your dog, and figure out String Theory. The employees were so happy to be free to take on new responsibilities! I dont have a dog, but if I had one, that would be a GREAT bank promotional device.
I suppose that the message, the idea, the fact is that jobs will not be returning. I doubt that we will even have much expansion. First, we need contraction of the 9%+ unemployment listing. Then, we need an actual account of how many people are actively seeking employment or have just given up. But as technology grows and replaces people, and as businesses have created an environment of "doing more with less," and as people have held so tightly to positions that they themselves learn to "do more with less," there may be a lapping tide upon a shore, but it will remain just that.
And by the way, Karl Marx proposed this demise nearly two centuries ago. His belief that free enterprise would lead to innovation, which would lead to the removal of necessary human interaction within a working structure should not be considered a precept of Communism. It was a critique of the capitalist formula, one consideration that built upon another to display the exact destination at which we seem to be arriving at the present. The system itself is grand -- the way that people will, and do, use it is detestable.
Some jobs have been sent overseas, some workings have been contracted and placed upon existing individuals, and some positions have simply eroded due to the advancement of technology.
Employment is not going to expand to the degree that is necessary to support the population. But there will be more downtime, so we can procreate more. That should help things.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)