Heywood Ja Sacrifice Something?

From Heywood J's Hammer of the Blogs:

We have not even been asked to cut into our large-living ways; indeed, we've been encouraged to indulge them. Consumerism is what keeps this Ponzi economy afloat, that and dangerously bundled derivatives on the esoteric hedge-fund market. So instead of conserving and rationing, the way homefront Americans were glad to do in WW2, to be part of the cause, we continue to indulge and consume, and in particular waste oil profligately, as if we weren't over in the Middle East to -- at least in part, whether people can admit it to themselves or not -- secure our access and supply.

[snip]

This is replayed day after day, across the country, heedlessly, rhythmically, almost like a ginormous variation of musical chairs -- if they stopped, they would think about what they were doing, and reality might set in. And the heroic Chinese-made ribbon magnet might then not seem to be enough to justify driving a 3-ton, 10-mpg mini-RV to the post office or the Wal-Mart.

Sacrifice should be shared across the board, rich and poor, wherever possible. But mostly it appears to be two classes of people who need to start sacrificing proportionately to what they take -- the profiteering class and the mindless hyper-consumption class. (read the whole thing here)

When I travel to the midwest it is clear to me just how little impact this war actually has on many people, and sadly they can't see how their behavior could make a difference.

What if the President asked everyone to enlist? What if he went on the air and said:

"I don't want to have a draft, but we don't have enough troops. We need 500,000 more troops NOW to win this thing. I won't let my successor take on this burden and they way they are talking, they will leave. In my mind leaving is losing. So I'm asking every able bodied man and woman to enlist in the armed forces. If you are between 17 and 42 you can enlist in the army. And I'm going to ask the military contractors to leave Blackwater and related firms and re-enlist in the armed forces."

What if he specifically asked the rich to send their money and their children to fight? Maybe he could call people who didn't go to war, unpatriotic? He would demand that people who make excessive profit from the war that they are America haters and traitors. People who have avoided taxes by going offshore will be identified and vilified.

"If you can't serve yourself, ask your child to serve.
If your child can't serve, ask your relatives to serve.
If you can't serve, have no children or relatives serving, send us your money.
If you have children and relatives already serving, God bless you.

We need more than just your taxes. To win we need your savings and then we need some more. If we don't get it, we will lose and we will be attacked and many of you will die. What good will your money do you if you are dead? Everyone who has a yellow ribbon on their car or a flag in their heart should be willing to send us more than just your tax dollars.

I pledged not to raise taxes, but I never said I couldn't ask the people to voluntarily give more. We need 900 billion more to win.

I'm asking the middle classes --those making between $30,000-350,000 a year-- to send us 5 percent of your GROSS income to help pay for this global war on terror. This is on top of your taxes, that I will remind you, I haven't raised. Those making $350,000-2,500,000? I'm asking you for 10 percent. If you are fortunate enough to make 2.5 million to 25 million we need 15 percent of your gross. 25 million and up. 20 percent. If you try and cheat on this and leave the country or lie on your taxes I'll consider you a traitor and unpatriotic. I'm going to ask the people who supported this effort in the beginning to be the first to give. If you were on board and supporting me in 2003 I know I can count on you now. Right now I'm going over the lists of all the Bush Rangers, radio talk show hosts, Fox news anchors, and PNAC members. If you have flipped flop on your support of me and this war, shame on you. Only liberals flip flop and don't follow what their duly elected President says. Especially when it comes to matters of National Security--which everyone agrees is the responsibility of the executive branch.

Yes, you can question the percent that I'm asking, but if you do, you obviously don't want America to win and don't deserve your freedom. Freedom's not free and right now you aren't paying your fair share. The people who won't have to pay this voluntary extra money? The people who have a spouse or child serving in the armed forces.

Why do we need your money now? Several reasons. The first reason is that sacrifice in the global war against terror is only borne by a small part of America, and that has to stop. We are better than that.

Another is that the cost of this war is forcing us to do things detrimental of the health of America. For example, right now America is beholden to China. China is the bank and we are charging this war on the credit card they issued us. In return we are forced to eat their poisoned food and accept their untested vitamins and drugs. We don't like to talk about this, but that was part of the deal China made with us when they agreed to pay for the war. The "interest" we pay is accepting the goods they send us, with nothing more than cursory checks on the food. Their system is so dangerous and corrupt that they sentenced the head of their FDA to death. It was a price I was willing to pay on your behalf because I didn't think they would really sell us that much poisoned food, but I was wrong. I won't allow Americans to die because we had to eat poison food to pay for this war. If we want to get out from under our debt, we need more money. And we can't just cut China off, if we do they will retaliate economically and our economy will crash. Specifically our largest employer, Wal-Mart, will crash, and I can't let that happen.


I love to hear the phrase Freedom isn't free from people because those people know that they need to pay their fair share. And this will be enforced by the IRS.

Starting on July 4th the IRS will be be undergoing a radical shift in focus to the top one tenth of one percent, so anyone who isn't making over 2.5 million a year doesn't need to worry. That doesn't mean they won't still be doing the rest of their work on regular tax payers, but if you try to hide your income in foreign banks or with tricks, we will find you and punish you. Also, no companies that are incorporated out side of the US and who aren't paying their fair share of taxes,will get Government contracts.

And we will know if these people and companies aren't paying taxes.

I will use my authority under the Patriot Act to post the names of American citizens and companies who have NOT paid their taxes, voluntarily given more or enlisted. The first list will be all members of this administration and all Republican elected officials. The next list will be all corporations that have been been employed by the government in the global war on terror.

If we can't do this for our country then we don't deserve the trust of the people. It's a small price to pay for our freedom and liberty.

Defending Those who Can't Defend Themselves

One of the coolest kids I know, Allison Hantschel, has a column in the DailySouthtown about the regular attacks on journalists by folks like Rush Limbaugh.

I agree with Allison (Athenae at First-Draft) in her response to USA Today founder Allen Neuharth, who said he thought the idiotic things Rush says were amusing. As I was discussing with the brilliant and media savvy volvodrivingliberal the other day, the power of right-wing talk radio over the public airwaves is not something to dismiss as only fodder for the weak minded. Rush's heuristic techniques and language seeps into the popular culture on both sides. Some of Rush's phrases become anchor phrases that can frame an issue so that we see the phrase but not the underlying deeply disturbing premise.

What do I mean? Here's one example, Rush constantly calls the media "The Drive By Media"

Now what image does that bring up?

Criminals. People with guns who drive by and shoot people. Criminals who should be in jail, not allowed to roam the streets.

And what race of people are the current drive by shooters?

They aren't white mobsters are they? He is comparing them to the current violent murderers who do drive by shootings. This is his casual "joke". In one phrase he compares the media with cowardly, murdering thugs. And he is never called out on it.

When over 108 journalists and 39 media support people have been killed to cover Bush's war, calling them killers is disgusting and disrespectful of their sacrifice.

Here's part of Allison's column.

Limbaugh and his lesser lights, imitators like Mark Belling in Wisconsin and Melanie Morgan in California, have made their bones on mocking, attacking and denigrating.

Ignoring such slights -- laughing them off -- has led us to what New York Times columnist E.J. Dionne called "the rightward press," in which constant pushing from the right-wing end of the political spectrum so intimidates the so-called objective press that it attempts to pre-empt criticism by feigning docility.

Treating hatemongers and advocates of violence (Morgan memorably called for New York Times editor Bill Keller to hang) as performance artists who shouldn't be taken seriously -- respectfully interviewing them as fellow travelers -- is what has led to this state of affairs in which there is literally nothing a conservative can say that will get him or her in trouble.

Ignoring these people -- acting like they don't matter -- allows their influence to grow in the dark like mildew, unchallenged, uncontested.

Read the rest here (link)

OH, and before she explodes into a flurry of, "I never said that!" Here is the audio proof of Morgan saying "Hang 'em". You will of course note there is no, "If tried and convicted and then found guilty" (which is what she and her colleagues have now be trained to say as there legal talisman after I busted them on their violent rhetoric. Listen here. (link)

Melanie Morgan's history of attacking the press is well documented. Criticizing the media for not doing their job is one thing, saying "Hang 'em" is another.

Talk Radio Wants War in Iran

When I talk about inciting violence on the radio it was often focused on individuals as well as groups. Stories about individuals as targets of violence was something that people could grasp as just plain wrong. But equally disturbing is the constant drum beat to use violence as the first and ONLY option in dealing with all foreign policy issues. Violence is THE knee jerk reaction of neocons and talk radio hosts. It makes them feel "manly".


Do they not feel the impact of this war? They must not.

Why else would they want to whip up the people for yet another war?

I'm getting really sick of this "who is a real man?" question. Calling Edwards "The Breck" girl as a slur. (I wonder how many overweight balding pundits would love to have Edward's good hair and looks?) And how would a "real man" respond to a hostage crisis?

They will bring up Jimmy Carter and misrepresent what happened and HOW it happened and WHO did what when. They will forget the REAL role their god Ronnie played in that affair.

It really is all about THEIR "masculinity" or their idea of what it takes to be a man. People who think that bombing people is the right response to any situation are not strong.

Do you care more about getting the 15 people out of harms way or do you care more about "looking weak"? Do they care more about "sending a message" than saving the messenger?

What if you knew that you had a solution that would make you look weak to the pundits but would definitely guarantee that those people would live AND you wouldn't have to deal with all the mess that a bombing run would start? Would you take it?

And WHO are you afraid of calling you a coward? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity? People who have never served, who have to use chemicals to get it up and get off?

You want to prove you are strong and SMART? Figure out a way to get them out without getting into another war. That is what a real man does.

A real man worries less about what Chris Matthews thinks of him and more about the lives of his troops. A real man cares more about effective action that being called weak by some entertainer.

Only the people who are REALLY insecure care more about the opinions of some chattering class than real lives.

Iron Rings, Faulty Pumps, and Order of the Engineer

One evening about 17 years ago, over a glass of Romulan Ale, I noticed a small ring on the little finger of the right hand of a friend of mine, who is a registered professional engineer, a graduate from an engineering program at a Canadian University. I was used to seeing wedding rings on humans, but the location, shape and material stood out. I was told it was an iron ring from, "The Order of the Engineer."


I don't remember all the details, but the story as I remember it had to do with a huge bridge in Canada that collapsed due to poor planning and design. It also was a deeply moving story about engineers who didn't share information and didn't put the safety of people first over their employer or client. Additionally, it served as a reminder that their specialized knowledge brings with it an obligation to the public that transcends making money.

That story has always stuck with me. We always think that when it comes down to it we will "do the right thing" on the tough choices in life, but most people are good at making rationalizations for our own questionable actions. Or the questionable actions of our leaders.

Many people internalize the spin and excuses given us by our gifted entertainers or leaders who don't have the same ethical obligations as good engineers.

And by gifted entertainers who don't have the same ethical obligations as engineers,-I mean people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O' Reilly, Lee Rodgers, Melanie Morgan and Brian Susman.

Who are the people who put politics and allegiance to an authority figure above the lives of their other humans? Of course these people try and show how it is all in service of some greater good, like their understanding of what national security requires.

People who demonstrate their obligation to their client first, before the safety of people, will tell us that we should trust them and everything will be fine. But we have been shown time and time again that when people have a history of violating the public trust, they need to have solid oversight. It's an obvious, logical thing to do. Even the right-wing's god, Ronald Reagan, said "Trust, yet verify."

It is HARD to do the right thing when you have people telling you every day that the right thing is really NOT following the guidelines your profession tells you are there for a reason.

That is why I always thought the story of the Iron Ring and the accompanying ceremony was brilliant. It was a reminder that real lives are in the balance from your words and actions. It also helped to bind together new engineers and experienced engineers, connecting them to a history that means something in a fashion they can remember forever and can remind them about your obligations every day.

I am in awe of the technical marvels that engineers can create and build. An iron ring might remind you of your responsibility to others, but it won't force you to take action. Especially if you have convinced yourself that "Those other people are worse!" or "It's not that big a deal, everything will be fine." or "Something that doesn't really work is better than nothing."

Rolling the dice with people's lives is something that politicians do all the time. They have no obligation to tell the truth if they think that it isn't necessary. That is who THEY are.
Who are you? What are YOUR obligation to others?

---------------------------------------------------

This post is dedicated to all the people who died in the flooding in New Orleans and the 86 bridgeworkers who died in the construction of the Quebec Bridge. With a hope that no more lives will be lost because of engineers who didn't share information or put the safety of people over their employer or client.


A body floats outside the Superdome in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
(James Nielsen AFP/Getty Images)
September 2, 2005

"Drive by media" is what Rush calls 'em

What does he mean when he says "Drive by media"?

What is Rush saying with that phrase? Simple: the media are criminals. They will shoot you and run away. They are killers and cowards and they are to be caught and prosecuted.

Also, who are the typical drive-by shooters in our current world? Are they 1930's white gangsters? No. When you answer that question you see yet another Rush Limbaugh bias come out. 15 million Rush listeners are now calling people (including excellent journalists like Dana Priest) the "drive by media". Are they really criminals, cowards and murderers who shoot people with automatic machine guns and drive away? No. But that is the association Rush wants people to have.

When you look at how the right looks at and works with the MSM and the left does, you can see a difference.

They want them hanged, we want them to do their jobs. They view them as the enemy and use analogies of killers and thugs to describe them.

The role of journalist is important. Dana Priest, who is one of my new favorites, was quickly attacked by talk radio. Think about what she (and the Salon editors two years before) did on that Walter Reed story. That is important work that will help make changes that will positively impact a lot of lives. (It also negatively impacted a few, but sadly, not the people who continued to let it happen while they were saying, "We support our troops!")

But as Jane Hamsher mentioned, the right wing half wits like to attack the media especially when they are picking on their authoritarian Daddy.



Note: Update for minor spelling edit by Interrobang.

Jamison Foser Explains it All to You

An EXCELLENT recap and analysis of this week's news stories by Jamison Foser of Media Matters. The whole article is excellent, but I especially liked the second section: The media's blogger double standard. Did I say how excellent it is? No? Well it really is excellent.

I'm also waiting for Eric Boehlert's analysis next week on the radio, blog and main stream media's assault on Nancy Pelosi under the Clinton rules of journalmalism.