The Filibuster Scam

Democrats can't enact Buffet Rule because they don't have 60 votes? Give me a break. Is a 60-vote margin ordained in the Constitution? I don't think so. I know that if they wanted to force a filibuster, they could, so why don't they? Maybe because then all those Senatorial fat cats would have to raise their own taxes? Could it be? Otherwise, why not make the Republican filibuster the raising of tax rates on the rich--wouldn't it be good to make them do it--for the election, I mean? Something smells rotten here and I think it's the Democratic leadership.

On Children's Novels Being Published by their Parents

“What’s next?” asked the novelist Tom Robbins. “Kiddie architects, juvenile dentists, 11-year-old rocket scientists? Any parent who thinks that the crafting of engrossing, meaningful, publishable fiction requires less talent and experience than designing a house, extracting a wisdom tooth, or supervising a lunar probe is, frankly, delusional.”

No, Tom Robbins, what's [immediately] next is a self-financed Presidential candidate. He's old enough, yes, but he has way too much money. If you think Barack Obama is bad, wait for this one: Mitt Romney--sadistic, dishonorable and loony (he just seems sane by contrast with the rest of the Republican field).

And does the press ever mention that this would-be emperor has no clothes? Oh no they just search for stories to put his "beliefs" (as if he had any) in a sane context. We had a Constitution once, remember?

Thoughts after SOTU

Let's step back and get serious here. To whom does the world belong? I think it belongs to the people in it. Surely if we looked at it that way, it would be easier. Take the US (please): There's plenty of money for everyone; the problem is, too much of the wealth is concentrated in too few hands. So why not redistribute the money in such a way that everyone has enough to live decently? Why ever not? For those who are hugely rich, I say TS. It just seems so obviously the right thing to do. And as time goes on, little adjustments can be made to make sure everything's really fair.

But I also don't see how Repugs can just openly say they didn't like anything in Obama's SOTU speech (except the killing part--bin laden). When he talks about fairness and regulation--how can they display their greed so openly, and get away with it? I just don't get it. Dems, bad as they are, are so obviously better at governing than Repugs--it boggles the mind.

Indefinite Detention

I really don't understand why there haven't been riots or demonstrations or front-page editorials protesting or at least marking the end of the United States as we know it. Yes, our Constitution has been slipping away for awhile, but now it seems to be truly a dead letter. It's now legally possible, apparently, for the authorities to detain someone, even a US citizen, forever, without due process. Doesn't that pretty much put paid to any protection the Founding Fathers meant us to have? If someone drops down this rabbit hole, will anyone even know it? Will that person be able to bring a case to the Supreme Court? What will the Court do? I am completely desolate and sick at heart. Is anyone else?

We now LIVE IN A POLICE STATE. It's official. (Well, I live in Mexico, but many people that I love live in the US and it is my native land.) It's no joke. It's serious. I want to scream and rant, but business seems to go on as usual. In the NY Times, other subjects are discussed, as if they mattered. Don't they get it? The state now has the power to take them away, on a whim--oh, if they are associated with someone who is suspected of being a terrorist. Oh I forgot, there does have to be some rationale. But what arm of government could not invent that?

The New Inquiry and The Whine

Leaving aside the fact that The Times didn't provide a hyperlink to The New Inquiry (a journal produced by sadly but unsurprisingly out-of-work young literati), and in fact ran the story in the Fashion section, I am still somewhat appalled by the repeat appearance of The Whine from one of their (The New Inquiry's) editors: "I did everything right...." etcetera etcetera. Since when does doing everything right mean you will get the brass ring? This attitude seems to me at this point incredibly jejeune, naive and grossly, excessively innocent coming from a supposedly savvy, well-read crowd. A lot of people do or try to do "everything right" by their lights and get nowhere at all. Why should young, privileged literati be any different? Gosh, no one ever promised you a rose garden, darlings.

Deaths put Focus on Pastor's Advocacy of Spanking

The Times story today, 11/7/11, speaks of three children who were killed, apparently by their parents, all of whom had this pastor's book (which advocates spanking) in their homes. But the details of the abuse the children suffered make it obvious that these parents are total loons and shouldn't have been allowed to have all the children at all (many of them were adopted or fostered). What government authority allows such people to have so many children (clearly natural births cannot be controlled, but adoption or fostering can and should be). According to the story, the pastor's book lays out all sorts of safeguards or at least does not recommend starving children for days or beating them regularly in the sadistic way these "readers" did. I think it's clear that the state is at fault here.

Coverage of Occupy Wall Street

Well, the Times does cover the protest, in its own little way. It interviews the neighbors, it tells about how the police have arrested protestors for, apparently, no reason at all, but why doesn't it interview politicians to see how (or if) the protests are affecting them. Certain questions seem obvious, "You've seen the polls, [senator, representative, legislator, whoever]--there a lot of support for these protests and people seem to agree with the protestors on a lot of issues. How do you react to that?" It's a beginning. No, the press would prefer to bully the protestors about the absence of clear demands. Well, they've made no secret of what they think is wrong. You can find their original statement on the internet. And doesn't the very name of the protests give you a hint? We are the 99 percent and we'd like some answers. But nobody is giving them.