Shut up Johnnie, You're Ignorant's Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 7 most recent journal entries recorded in
Shut up Johnnie, You're Ignorant's LiveJournal:
|Tuesday, August 30th, 2005|
|I'll stick with the union til every battle's won
So, guess what America, you suck. Unbridled capitalism means that 37 million Americans are below the poverty rate, at least according to government statistics (Check it out here
). While many would like to chalk this up to fluctuations to economic cycles I have to wonder about the morality of leaving the average working stiff at the mercy of the markets like this. How does this fit in with things like Christian morality or the American ideal of equal opportunity? Why are we so blind to all the shit that goes on in front of us?
Employment was up last year, but no one seems to care what kind of employment people are finding. Are they stuck in soulless service jobs, kissing the asses of wealthy investment bankers and spoiled suburban kids? Are people taking lower paying jobs because that's all that's available. There is a serious problem with our economy. Our trade deficit is such that our currency is fucked if China ever gets mad at us, we are at the mercy of another nation that is in direct competition with us for natural resources. The entire thing reeks of impending problems, possibly of earth shattering consequences but no one is willing to tell us. People need to wake up Current Mood: pissed off
|Saturday, August 13th, 2005|
|I know you watch the news, I've seen it too
So, gas prices, so... SHUT UP YOU FAT LAZY AMERICAN PIGS!!!!!!
First of all, gas prices aren't as bad as they once were. Adjusted for inflation gas prices, while on the rise, are still fairly low historically. Most of the people I see complaining should be able to remember the original gas crisis, that was a lot worse, and you know what happened. The government forced us to lower fuel consumption. Then we got greedy again. All the current situation demonstrates is that American's don't understand basic economics, don't see anything with historical perspective, are blind to the concept of personal responsibility and budgeting, and have no conception of environmental ethics. Christ on a fucking stick, drive a smaller car, drive less, bike or walk places, use public transportation, and shut the fuck up! Current Mood: angry
|Friday, July 1st, 2005|
|Venezuela gets aggressive
So, Hugo Chavez is pretty badass (and kinda scary for the United States). His control of so much oil puts us (partially) at his mercy and no one in the Bush administration likes him at all. From a Bolivarian leftist perspective he's the best thing to happen to Latin American politics in a while. I like him, though his militarism is not my style and he's a bit too authoritarian for my liking. Of course, there's no way he would actually invade the United States and if he invaded Colombia I'd be down with kicking Uribe out. Anyway, I just thought I'd post this link
off of the BBC.
|Sunday, June 26th, 2005|
|What ever happened to federalism?
So, I haven't posted here in a while, but I'm bored and thought I should try some critical thought/lambasting.
Federalism is one of the founding principles of our country. The separation of powers between the state and national governments is a good idea. Localized bureaucracies are more efficient and can focus on the individual problems of the states and municipalities while the national government can make sure that there is no great disparity among the various areas of the country and that our land is defended. It seems to be that no one likes federalism any more though, the great compromise of the constitutional debates that led to major successes for our nation is in danger of being completely disregarded.The Atlantic
has an interesting article (I don't know if it's on the site but it is in print) about the potential for economic collapse for this country. It highlights what I see as the biggest problem with the Republicans today. That is the fact that they have lost their belief in small government. The overspending that the article takes special note of is not at all like the promised Republican party and shows what was once the progressive voice in politics to becoming more and more regressive and stupid. I've always been a fan of decentralization (though municipalities and states should be pretty collectivist in their runnings). Unfortunately the blatantly pro-business spin that the Republicans put on this decentralization was (and where applicable still is) disgusting. Instead of saying that local governments should deal with issues of welfare and regulation they said no one should have to worry about it. But now Republicans don't even call for decentralization. As it stands they are bloating the government further while creating inefficient attempts at preventing terrorism. All the while they continue to keep things like college out of the reach of the poor and they continue to keep their mitts off of big business.
It seems that no party now wants to tell the federal government to back off. While decentralization does lend itself to unfortunate discrepancy between the states it is also more efficient and cuts down on things like pork barrel spending. But now there isn't a major political force trumping what we should call federalism but is instead thought of as extreme "states rights." I doubt I would have ever voted Republican but I now find their positions unfathomable and feel further trapped into voting for the disgusting slime balls who sit on the other side of the aisle. Until we see a states rights party that is not based on racist ideology or idiotic love of large corporations things will not change and the federal government will grow more inefficient while placing our economy and educational systems in further jeopardy. Ah, I love American politics.
|Wednesday, March 30th, 2005|
|On the matter of Lebanon
The issue of Lebanon and Syria is pretty damn interesting, not just because it shows the potential for peaceful democratic change within the Middle East but also because it shows that using military might to move towards these changes isn't always the best idea.
In Lebanon we see several things. For one, we see the United States happily working with France within the boundaries of the United Nations. This cooperation shows that the US government can be significantly more pragmatic in its ideological war than the Iraqi war would indicate. The United States is here proving that it willing to work within an international body to foster the spread of democracy Wolfowitz and Perle like so much.
What is particularly interesting about the issue of Syria and Lebanon is that I agree with Bush here. Syria needs to get the fuck out, this is a matter of sovreignity and political rights. It's really odd though that Bush could so callously ignore a nation's borders while here he strikes a blow for those in favor of the old order where nation states get to decide what happens to them.
So, Bush is shifty. Bush really is in favor of democracy, he's just inconsistent in making it happen. The Economist is nice enough to point out the difficulty the Iraqis are having with forming a government here
. Bush thinks he can use force, while his own actions here prove that it doesn't pan out the best. Bush must learn to manipulate international politics if he wants to create positive change in places like Iran rather than greater tension. Hopefully politicians and policy makers on both side of America's inperceptible political divide will wise up to how this works and avoid idiotic wars and idiotic isolationism.
|Let the ranting continue
So, first of all, the top story on the BBC website right now is this
. Thank god someone got solid evidence backing up the obvious because it seemed like most people weren't getting it. What is so difficult to understand about overfishing and mining that we need a study to show that it causes potentially unrervisable environmental damage? I swear, humans are so stupid.
In other news, the FBI has ordered flag.blackened.net
, which hosts a variety of radical websites to hand over IP logs regarding two as yet unspecified incidences. While I don't know the specifics of this shit, I get the feeling that there is very little legitamacy to the investigation. You can check out the obviously biased "informal press release" here
. This Washington Post Article
brings up something that is rather alarming. While organizations like the BBC and others made a point of reporting the recent school shooting on the Red Lake Reservation in Minnesota the Bush administration has said barely a word, and the US media hasn't done a whole lot on follow-up. Compare this with other school shootings (I remember one in California that killed a relatively low number that got more coverage) and the Schiavo case and it says two things. The government cares less about American Indians than white suburban kids, and one braindead woman in Florida matters a whole lot more than a tragedy on a rez in the midwest. After Columbine Clinton spoke to the country, the White House barely gets McClellan to say anything here. Well, at least Clinton was a bit nicer right?
In another case of "we told you so" the UN says that malnutrition in Iraqi children has risen since the war. Yeah, great job on the humanitarian front Mr. Bush. If Bush really gave a shit about these people he'd make sure the kids got food, and if the kids got food maybe fewer people would be getting blown up. But eh, what do I know, there have been times where being nice to people has backfired. Like with that one girl in seventh grade, what was her name again? Yeah, check out the BBC article
if you wanna know more. Current Mood: bloggish
|Tuesday, March 29th, 2005|
|First entry on this journal
So, my girlfriend's mom is a big fan of listening to talk radio, Limbaugh, Savage, and Hannity, And all they seem capable of talking about is Terry Schiavo. Here we have an issue of absolutely no importance to anyone but they (and plenty of people on the "left") are set on creating an issue out of it. Now that the battle is pretty much over the attacks made by these talk radio dipshits focus on the "liberal" media. Rush and company are so caught up in how this whole thing has been misrepresented that they fail to see that there is absolutely no reason to debate a single person's death like this. Right to lifers made this their cause because they saw the potential to rally people like Limbaugh's listeners and it works amazingly well. I don't care whether this woman is really in a vegatative state or what her wishes are, this should not be an issue that congress needs to get in on, this is not something the state legislature should've gotten its hands dirty with. There is absolutely no reason why people can't just live with the legal decision this woman's husband made. Maybe her family is right, maybe he shouldn't have custody over her, but that's really the only issue here. It is not the place of the government to determine whether or not this woman lives. The politicians need to recognize that they have no impact on the personal, that this is an issue that has nothing to do with them, and that they are overstepping their authority for reasons that have nothing to do with the wellbeing of the state. Current Mood: annoyed