.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
Has any First World nation ever had more contempt for the poor than America does today?
Hating the poor has become as American as apple pie. Particularly since the Reagan era, we Americans have been taught from an early age that the poor deserve no sympathy. For a "Christian" nation, we seem to be clueless about Christ himself had to say on the subject.
What's bizarre is that many Americans, particularly the Rush Limbaugh crowd, are under this delusion that the poor are actually treated well in this country.
Supposedly, there are all these lavish, generous welfare programs out there to take care of all the poor. In fact, we Americans supposedly have such expensive programs for the poor that this is the real cause of our nation's titanic deficits.
No, not George W. Bush's $3 trillion war crime in Iraq. Not the insane mega-trillion-dollar cesspool of graft, corruption and fraud that is laughably known as "Defense Spending." Not Bush's trillion-dollar tax giveaway to the crooks on Wall Street.
No, the real reason America is going broke is that we're just too damn generous to the poor. The welfare states of Sweden, France and Germany have nothing on us.
Of course, there's only one problem.
All these supposedly lavish government welfare programs for the poor simply don't exist. Don't believe me? Ask a poor person sometime just how much he's raking in from the government. Odds are, he'll laugh in your face.
If the poor were really raking it in from lavish welfare programs, then they wouldn't be poor, would they? And the reality is that the ranks of the poor are growing rapidly in America. The current trend started under George W. Bush, (particularly after the economy essentially collapsed in 2008).
The fact is, until you've experienced true poverty yourself in America, you probably have little idea of just how much utter contempt this government has for people at the bottom of the economic ladder.
In fact, because of regressive taxes (like sales and gas tax), not only are the poor butt-f*cked daily in America, but they pay more of their income into taxes than "successful" rich people like Paris Hilton and Rush Limbaugh.
People like Limbaugh remind me of the likes of Marie "Let Them Eat Cake" Antoinette. Although the quote is apocryphal, it's clear the rich and royal leech classes in France thought everything was fine and dandy in the late 18th century. I'd suspect they were so out of touch with the peasant class that the fury of the French Revolution took them by surprise.
Despite today's widening income inequality in America, I'd suspect a lot of the rich and powerful in this country give little thought to the growing ranks of poor. And they have little idea of the coming People's Revolution that will likely result someday.
After all, history has shown time and time again what happens when the rich gorge themselves while the peasants starve. It happened in England in the 1300s. It happened in France in the 1700s. It happened in Russia in 1917.
Don't think it can happen here? If so, you're kidding yourself. After all, America was born in a revolution.
Among the rich, there are a few astute observers (like Warren Buffett) who realize the current situation in unsustainable.
When Buffett argues that rich people like him aren't paying their fair share of taxes, I'd suspect it's not because he's a big fan of paying taxes. Rather, he's an astute money man and financial genius who realizes that if America goes broke and the nation's social fabric is ripped to shreds, then the rich are going to suffer with the rest of us.
But for now, the rich in America are living the high life. And they're doing it in large part with our tax dollars (see Bush's trillion-dollar bailout of the crooks on Wall Street).
America's rich have nothing but contempt for the poor. And, thanks to their stooges like Limbaugh, they've even managed to convince a sizeable (and gullible) portion of the American people to hate poor people as well.
In this brilliant song (the lead-off track on their 1980 album, Fresh Fruit For Rotting Vegetables), San Francisco punks the Dead Kennedys take this argument to its logical conclusion: since we Americans despise the poor so much in America, let's just kill them all.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Today's Music Selection: Japan's Masterful Psychedelic Band, The Mops
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
With the ongoing horrific crisis in Japan, that nation has been on my mind quite a bit lately. And as I've tried to steer my thoughts toward a less-depressing topic, I got to thinking about Japan's amazing popular music scene, which has long been virtually (and unfairly) ignored in the West.
As we Americans never tire of reminding ourselves, the U.S. has the world's dominant culture, in everything from cinema to music to literature. We export "culture" to every corner of the earth.
It's a shame, though, that it's not a two-way exchange with the rest of the world. By and large, Americans remain completely ignorant about the cultures of other nations. In fact, when it comes to popular music, Americans these days are completely clueless about music outside of the U.S. (Indeed, the only other country that we've ever paid any attention to, pop music-wise, is Britain).
This is a shame. Not only does this state of affairs leave Americans hopelessly ignorant about the rest of the world, we're also missing out on some incredible music.
Japan's popular music scene is, for my money, one of the most interesting and dynamic on earth. Maybe not necessarily the J-Pop teenybopper music, which clogs up the charts there. In Japan, as is the case with other nations, the really interesting stuff is what's going on underground.
The brilliant British musician and author, Julian Cope has been one of the very few Westerners to document this music scene and bring it to the attention of the West. His 2009 book, Japrocksampler: How the Post-War Japanese Blew Their Minds on Rock 'n' Roll conclusively demonstrated (at least for me) that Japan is easily the equal of the U.S. and Britain when it comes to popular music creativity.
The artists Cope writes about may be unfamiliar to many in the West, but they are well worth checking out. They include the heavy early 70s rockers, Flower Travellin' Band, the trippy and mystical Far East Family Band and the legendary Taj Mahal Travellers. For my money, the greatest of them all is the mysterious and radical Les Rallizes Denudes, whose scorching and defiantly anti-commercial sound makes the Velvet Underground seem tame by comparison.
But since I'm bummed out these days by Japan's terrible tragedy, I thought I'd serve up a uplifting tune by The Mops, one of Japan's best 1960s psychedelic bands. These guys are definitely one of the great garage bands---they equal the likes of Stateside groups like the 13th Floor Elevators. Their song, "I Am Just a Mops" (sic) was, as a YouTube commenter noted, "the reason the fuzz pedals were invented."
.
By MARC McDONALD
With the ongoing horrific crisis in Japan, that nation has been on my mind quite a bit lately. And as I've tried to steer my thoughts toward a less-depressing topic, I got to thinking about Japan's amazing popular music scene, which has long been virtually (and unfairly) ignored in the West.
As we Americans never tire of reminding ourselves, the U.S. has the world's dominant culture, in everything from cinema to music to literature. We export "culture" to every corner of the earth.
It's a shame, though, that it's not a two-way exchange with the rest of the world. By and large, Americans remain completely ignorant about the cultures of other nations. In fact, when it comes to popular music, Americans these days are completely clueless about music outside of the U.S. (Indeed, the only other country that we've ever paid any attention to, pop music-wise, is Britain).
This is a shame. Not only does this state of affairs leave Americans hopelessly ignorant about the rest of the world, we're also missing out on some incredible music.
Japan's popular music scene is, for my money, one of the most interesting and dynamic on earth. Maybe not necessarily the J-Pop teenybopper music, which clogs up the charts there. In Japan, as is the case with other nations, the really interesting stuff is what's going on underground.
The brilliant British musician and author, Julian Cope has been one of the very few Westerners to document this music scene and bring it to the attention of the West. His 2009 book, Japrocksampler: How the Post-War Japanese Blew Their Minds on Rock 'n' Roll conclusively demonstrated (at least for me) that Japan is easily the equal of the U.S. and Britain when it comes to popular music creativity.
The artists Cope writes about may be unfamiliar to many in the West, but they are well worth checking out. They include the heavy early 70s rockers, Flower Travellin' Band, the trippy and mystical Far East Family Band and the legendary Taj Mahal Travellers. For my money, the greatest of them all is the mysterious and radical Les Rallizes Denudes, whose scorching and defiantly anti-commercial sound makes the Velvet Underground seem tame by comparison.
But since I'm bummed out these days by Japan's terrible tragedy, I thought I'd serve up a uplifting tune by The Mops, one of Japan's best 1960s psychedelic bands. These guys are definitely one of the great garage bands---they equal the likes of Stateside groups like the 13th Floor Elevators. Their song, "I Am Just a Mops" (sic) was, as a YouTube commenter noted, "the reason the fuzz pedals were invented."
Thursday, March 10, 2011
How Unions Make a Nation Competitive
.
By MARC McDONALD
Note: welcome to readers of CrooksAndLiars.com.
Like Rodney Dangerfield, unions in America have long struggled to gain respect, especially since 1980. I've long been amazed at all the workers I've talked to over the years who are reluctant to support the union movement.
"Maybe unions were needed back in the 19th century era of Robber Barons," union foes argue. "But these days, unions are a dinosaur. They're no longer needed."
I've heard variants of the above argument repeatedly over the years, from both Republicans and even some Democrats. Of course, it makes no sense. It's like saying, "We already have Free Speech in America, so we no longer need the First Amendment."
Indeed, unions tend to get blamed for all kinds of ills facing present-day America. After all, wasn't it "greedy, overpaid" union members that resulted in America losing its manufacturing base?
That seems to be the Conventional Wisdom these days.
But there's only one problem. It's not only bullsh*t---it's the total opposite of the truth.
Unions, in fact, help make a nation more competitive.
Don't believe me?
Take a look at two of the most heavily unionized nations in the world: Germany and Japan. Both nations are thriving and have jobless rates far below the U.S. rate. Both nations still have large manufacturing sectors, which are heavily unionized. And both nations are exporting more than ever---even to low-wage nations like China. (Japan, for example, is one of the few nations on earth that has enjoyed a trade surplus with China much of the time in recent years).
In short, Germany and Japan are the polar opposite of the U.S. these days. While the U.S. continues to rack up record trade deficits, both Japan and Germany enjoy vast trade surpluses.
Not only are Germany and Japan heavily unionized, both nations have strong pro-worker laws that back up their labor movements. In both nations, for example, it's virtually impossible to fire full-time workers. Mass layoffs are very rare in both nations.
Every worker in Germany enjoys a minimum of six weeks' paid vacation per year. In fact the average is two months. And even in Japan these days, employees work fewer hours on average than Americans (who work the longest hours of any developed nation).
According to the International Labor Organization, "Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers."
Americans, in fact, are the most overworked people in the First World.
We're the only industrialized nation without a national paid parental leave benefit. We're the only nation without a legally mandated annual leave. We're the only First World nation with no required paid sick days.
All of this, of course, is due to the fact that organized labor in the U.S. is much weaker than other industrialized nations. In fact, unions having been going downhill since Ronald Reagan declared war on them in the 1980s.
But getting back to the original point of this article. One might ask: what does all this have to do with America's competitiveness?
A lot, actually.
It's clear that unions haven't been a hindrance to the economies of nations like Japan and Germany. In fact, it's clear that organized labor has been a key part of both those nations' success in growing their high-tech manufacturing export powerhouse economies.
If this sounds counterintuitive, consider the following question. Why has the U.S. consistently had a difficult time competing in high-tech manufacturing in recent decades? It's clear that a good part of the reason is that (unlike their counterparts in Germany and Japan), U.S. corporations have long been short-sighted.
While German and Japanese corporations typically plan decades ahead, U.S. corporations look no further ahead than the next fiscal quarter. In short, U.S. corporations have sacrificed their long-term health in return for short-term profit.
Which raises a question: why, exactly, have German and Japanese corporations consistently always planned way ahead? For example, why are both nations now working hard on industries of the future---industries that may take decades to reap financial rewards (think high-speed trains, advanced wind power, solar power and other green technologies).
The answer to this question is the fact that both nations have strong unions and pro-worker laws.
The fact that it is very difficult to fire workers in both nations seems like a recipe for economic decline. The reality is the total opposite. Japanese and German corporations plan very far ahead because they are forced to.
When it is extremely difficult to lay off staff, corporations find that they must take a very long-term view. It isn't sufficient (as is the case with U.S. corporations) to simply plan ahead for the next fiscal quarter. Instead, Japanese and German corporations must plan ahead at least a decade. And the lack of mass layoffs in both nations---which helps social harmony---is a bonus of the system.
Another advantage that unions bring the Japanese and Germans is the very fact that they work to bring generous benefits and pay to workers in those nations. When workers enjoy 6 weeks paid vacation, as the Germans do, you tend to have a workforce that isn't chronically burned out.
If you've ever driven a top-of-the-line Porsche, an Audi, a BMW, or a Mercedes, you know that the Germans make some of the highest quality products on earth. You don't get high-quality, top-of-the-line manufactured products when your nation's workforce is burned out (as most American workers are these days).
Another advantage: workforce stability, which encourages corporations to spend heavily on worker training. (U.S. corporations spend much less on training workers than Japanese and German corporations do).
True, the Japanese have a reputation for being an overworked people. But this is (at least compared to overworked American employees) an increasingly outdated stereotype. As I mentioned previously, Japanese workers these days actually work less hours than do Americans. And the laws preventing layoffs in Japan are even stronger than those in Germany.
In short, one could say that strong unions have the effect of "disciplining" corporations into taking the long-term view. Since organized labor in the U.S. is very weak, American corporations are under little pressure to look far ahead. Hence the short-sighted U.S. CEOs who only work to ensure that the next fiscal quarter is as profitable as possible.
Such short-sightedness has long been a disaster for U.S. industry. For example, Detroit's short-sighted policies have transformed U.S. automakers from a formerly world-beating industry into one that is currently only a pale shadow of its former self. Detroit's short-sightedness for example, was a disaster in the 1970s when U.S. automakers were cranking out gas-guzzling monsters that rapidly fell out of favor with consumers after the 1973 oil shocks. Detroit never really recovered.
True, there are other factors behind the strong high-tech manufacturing prowess of Germany and Japan. These include strong secondary public education, patient capital, and smart industrial and trade policies. But it's clear that unions and strong pro-labor laws play a key role, as well.
By MARC McDONALD
Note: welcome to readers of CrooksAndLiars.com.
Like Rodney Dangerfield, unions in America have long struggled to gain respect, especially since 1980. I've long been amazed at all the workers I've talked to over the years who are reluctant to support the union movement.
"Maybe unions were needed back in the 19th century era of Robber Barons," union foes argue. "But these days, unions are a dinosaur. They're no longer needed."
I've heard variants of the above argument repeatedly over the years, from both Republicans and even some Democrats. Of course, it makes no sense. It's like saying, "We already have Free Speech in America, so we no longer need the First Amendment."
Indeed, unions tend to get blamed for all kinds of ills facing present-day America. After all, wasn't it "greedy, overpaid" union members that resulted in America losing its manufacturing base?
That seems to be the Conventional Wisdom these days.
But there's only one problem. It's not only bullsh*t---it's the total opposite of the truth.
Unions, in fact, help make a nation more competitive.
Don't believe me?
Take a look at two of the most heavily unionized nations in the world: Germany and Japan. Both nations are thriving and have jobless rates far below the U.S. rate. Both nations still have large manufacturing sectors, which are heavily unionized. And both nations are exporting more than ever---even to low-wage nations like China. (Japan, for example, is one of the few nations on earth that has enjoyed a trade surplus with China much of the time in recent years).
In short, Germany and Japan are the polar opposite of the U.S. these days. While the U.S. continues to rack up record trade deficits, both Japan and Germany enjoy vast trade surpluses.
Not only are Germany and Japan heavily unionized, both nations have strong pro-worker laws that back up their labor movements. In both nations, for example, it's virtually impossible to fire full-time workers. Mass layoffs are very rare in both nations.
Every worker in Germany enjoys a minimum of six weeks' paid vacation per year. In fact the average is two months. And even in Japan these days, employees work fewer hours on average than Americans (who work the longest hours of any developed nation).
According to the International Labor Organization, "Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers."
Americans, in fact, are the most overworked people in the First World.
We're the only industrialized nation without a national paid parental leave benefit. We're the only nation without a legally mandated annual leave. We're the only First World nation with no required paid sick days.
All of this, of course, is due to the fact that organized labor in the U.S. is much weaker than other industrialized nations. In fact, unions having been going downhill since Ronald Reagan declared war on them in the 1980s.
But getting back to the original point of this article. One might ask: what does all this have to do with America's competitiveness?
A lot, actually.
It's clear that unions haven't been a hindrance to the economies of nations like Japan and Germany. In fact, it's clear that organized labor has been a key part of both those nations' success in growing their high-tech manufacturing export powerhouse economies.
If this sounds counterintuitive, consider the following question. Why has the U.S. consistently had a difficult time competing in high-tech manufacturing in recent decades? It's clear that a good part of the reason is that (unlike their counterparts in Germany and Japan), U.S. corporations have long been short-sighted.
While German and Japanese corporations typically plan decades ahead, U.S. corporations look no further ahead than the next fiscal quarter. In short, U.S. corporations have sacrificed their long-term health in return for short-term profit.
Which raises a question: why, exactly, have German and Japanese corporations consistently always planned way ahead? For example, why are both nations now working hard on industries of the future---industries that may take decades to reap financial rewards (think high-speed trains, advanced wind power, solar power and other green technologies).
The answer to this question is the fact that both nations have strong unions and pro-worker laws.
The fact that it is very difficult to fire workers in both nations seems like a recipe for economic decline. The reality is the total opposite. Japanese and German corporations plan very far ahead because they are forced to.
When it is extremely difficult to lay off staff, corporations find that they must take a very long-term view. It isn't sufficient (as is the case with U.S. corporations) to simply plan ahead for the next fiscal quarter. Instead, Japanese and German corporations must plan ahead at least a decade. And the lack of mass layoffs in both nations---which helps social harmony---is a bonus of the system.
Another advantage that unions bring the Japanese and Germans is the very fact that they work to bring generous benefits and pay to workers in those nations. When workers enjoy 6 weeks paid vacation, as the Germans do, you tend to have a workforce that isn't chronically burned out.
If you've ever driven a top-of-the-line Porsche, an Audi, a BMW, or a Mercedes, you know that the Germans make some of the highest quality products on earth. You don't get high-quality, top-of-the-line manufactured products when your nation's workforce is burned out (as most American workers are these days).
Another advantage: workforce stability, which encourages corporations to spend heavily on worker training. (U.S. corporations spend much less on training workers than Japanese and German corporations do).
True, the Japanese have a reputation for being an overworked people. But this is (at least compared to overworked American employees) an increasingly outdated stereotype. As I mentioned previously, Japanese workers these days actually work less hours than do Americans. And the laws preventing layoffs in Japan are even stronger than those in Germany.
In short, one could say that strong unions have the effect of "disciplining" corporations into taking the long-term view. Since organized labor in the U.S. is very weak, American corporations are under little pressure to look far ahead. Hence the short-sighted U.S. CEOs who only work to ensure that the next fiscal quarter is as profitable as possible.
Such short-sightedness has long been a disaster for U.S. industry. For example, Detroit's short-sighted policies have transformed U.S. automakers from a formerly world-beating industry into one that is currently only a pale shadow of its former self. Detroit's short-sightedness for example, was a disaster in the 1970s when U.S. automakers were cranking out gas-guzzling monsters that rapidly fell out of favor with consumers after the 1973 oil shocks. Detroit never really recovered.
True, there are other factors behind the strong high-tech manufacturing prowess of Germany and Japan. These include strong secondary public education, patient capital, and smart industrial and trade policies. But it's clear that unions and strong pro-labor laws play a key role, as well.
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Oscars Got It Right: "The King's Speech" Towers Over "The Social Network"
By MARC McDONALD
With the Oscars upon us, I thought I'd do a review of a film that many people thought would capture the Best Picture award, The Social Network.
I simply don't understand the hype about this film and I can't comprehend how it could be considered one of the year's best.
In a nutshell, The Social Network about a bunch of privileged, pampered Harvard kids who are ruthless and who crush anyone who gets their way. Along the way, they create a company that exists solely to collect as much personal data as it can get its grubby hands on---and then turn around and sell that data off to the highest corporate bidder.
For this, Facebook gets praised as a era-defining phenomenon that is supposedly out to invent a wonderful new online world by creating this vast social network.
To which I say: hogwash. The World Wide Web itself is actually the real great social network. In the end, Facebook really adds nothing to the online experience. Some might argue that a Facebook page is easier to set up than a Web site. But this is false. Anyone can easily set up a Web site for free, with only a few clicks these days---and in doing so, you have freedom from the grubby clutches of Facebook.
The problem with Facebook is that it goes against the open nature of the Web that made the latter so successful. Facebook rejects being a part of the Web. Indeed, it wants to replace the Web. Facebook stakes its claim in an isolated community that's hermetically sealed off from the Web. Facebook basically wants to control everything (including all your personal data). And not for lofty idealistic reasons, but simply to rake in billions of dollars.
The Social Network is idealizing and over-hyping a company that has been basically extremely overrated by the gullible mainstream media. Even revenue-wise, I'd say Facebook is overrated---I'm not at all convinced that its multi-billion dollar valuations are going to stand the test of time (any more than companies that had ridiculous valuations during the 2001 Dot Com meltdown). And even as a work of fiction, The Social Network utterly fails.
Maybe it's just me, but I simply can't get into a film that has no appealing characters. Nobody in this film has a heart. Nobody seems to care about anyone else but themselves. I couldn't really relate to anyone in the movie. They're all a bunch of privileged, elitist kids who believe they are geniuses who tower over the rest of us. In reality, the only way they're "superior" to the rest of us is that they have bigger trust funds (or trust funds at all, for that matter).
Maybe some people enjoy two hours of watching egotistical jerks, scheming about how they're going to control our online lives (and sell our personal data off to the highest bidder). But the characters left me ice cold, as did the story.
Incidentally, I know a thing or two about creating successful Web properties myself. I'm a Dot Com entrepreneur who has built a number of popular Web sites. And for me, The Social Network simply didn't ring true in depicting the grueling, hard work that it takes to build a popular Web site.
For one thing, no one in this film ever seems to break a sweat. Success for the characters seems to come effortlessly. The film does a poor job of depicting the brutal, marathon, 20-hour days that one must put in to build a popular Web site. When I built my sites, I didn't spend loads of time (as the characters in this movie do) at fancy bars and nightclubs, sipping $20 martinis. The reality is a lot less glamorous.
In truth, to find success on the Web, you must spend endless hours hunched over a computer monitor, doing tedious, often repetitive work, trying to find the spark that will make your site a success. (Oh, and unlike the privileged, pampered site creators in this movie, most popular Web site builders, including myself, also worked at full-time day jobs as we built our Web sites). Life wasn't an endless series of parties, as it appears to be for the characters in this film.
For me, The Social Network simply didn't ring true. It's an overrated film about an overrated company.
Personally, I'm glad that The King's Speech took Best Picture over The Social Network. I'm not an Anglophile (and I haven't been since Tony Blair sucked up to George W. Bush) and I really don't give a f*ck about the British monarchy. But The King's Speech at least had real, flawed, human, flesh-and-blood characters with a heart (unlike the sterile, narcissistic people who populate The Social Network).
With the Oscars upon us, I thought I'd do a review of a film that many people thought would capture the Best Picture award, The Social Network.
I simply don't understand the hype about this film and I can't comprehend how it could be considered one of the year's best.
In a nutshell, The Social Network about a bunch of privileged, pampered Harvard kids who are ruthless and who crush anyone who gets their way. Along the way, they create a company that exists solely to collect as much personal data as it can get its grubby hands on---and then turn around and sell that data off to the highest corporate bidder.
For this, Facebook gets praised as a era-defining phenomenon that is supposedly out to invent a wonderful new online world by creating this vast social network.
To which I say: hogwash. The World Wide Web itself is actually the real great social network. In the end, Facebook really adds nothing to the online experience. Some might argue that a Facebook page is easier to set up than a Web site. But this is false. Anyone can easily set up a Web site for free, with only a few clicks these days---and in doing so, you have freedom from the grubby clutches of Facebook.
The problem with Facebook is that it goes against the open nature of the Web that made the latter so successful. Facebook rejects being a part of the Web. Indeed, it wants to replace the Web. Facebook stakes its claim in an isolated community that's hermetically sealed off from the Web. Facebook basically wants to control everything (including all your personal data). And not for lofty idealistic reasons, but simply to rake in billions of dollars.
The Social Network is idealizing and over-hyping a company that has been basically extremely overrated by the gullible mainstream media. Even revenue-wise, I'd say Facebook is overrated---I'm not at all convinced that its multi-billion dollar valuations are going to stand the test of time (any more than companies that had ridiculous valuations during the 2001 Dot Com meltdown). And even as a work of fiction, The Social Network utterly fails.
Maybe it's just me, but I simply can't get into a film that has no appealing characters. Nobody in this film has a heart. Nobody seems to care about anyone else but themselves. I couldn't really relate to anyone in the movie. They're all a bunch of privileged, elitist kids who believe they are geniuses who tower over the rest of us. In reality, the only way they're "superior" to the rest of us is that they have bigger trust funds (or trust funds at all, for that matter).
Maybe some people enjoy two hours of watching egotistical jerks, scheming about how they're going to control our online lives (and sell our personal data off to the highest bidder). But the characters left me ice cold, as did the story.
Incidentally, I know a thing or two about creating successful Web properties myself. I'm a Dot Com entrepreneur who has built a number of popular Web sites. And for me, The Social Network simply didn't ring true in depicting the grueling, hard work that it takes to build a popular Web site.
For one thing, no one in this film ever seems to break a sweat. Success for the characters seems to come effortlessly. The film does a poor job of depicting the brutal, marathon, 20-hour days that one must put in to build a popular Web site. When I built my sites, I didn't spend loads of time (as the characters in this movie do) at fancy bars and nightclubs, sipping $20 martinis. The reality is a lot less glamorous.
In truth, to find success on the Web, you must spend endless hours hunched over a computer monitor, doing tedious, often repetitive work, trying to find the spark that will make your site a success. (Oh, and unlike the privileged, pampered site creators in this movie, most popular Web site builders, including myself, also worked at full-time day jobs as we built our Web sites). Life wasn't an endless series of parties, as it appears to be for the characters in this film.
For me, The Social Network simply didn't ring true. It's an overrated film about an overrated company.
Personally, I'm glad that The King's Speech took Best Picture over The Social Network. I'm not an Anglophile (and I haven't been since Tony Blair sucked up to George W. Bush) and I really don't give a f*ck about the British monarchy. But The King's Speech at least had real, flawed, human, flesh-and-blood characters with a heart (unlike the sterile, narcissistic people who populate The Social Network).
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Sarah Palin Reveals Hypocrisy In Wisconsin Union Debate
By MARC McDONALD
Perhaps it was inevitable, but Sarah Palin has finally waded into the Wisconsin union controversy. But her comments have only revealed her ignorance and hypocrisy on the union debate.
As she has constantly pointed out, Palin's family has long had union connections. Her husband, Todd, was a long-time United Steelworkers union member, enjoying a nice salary and generous union benefits. (For example, Todd Palin earned $102,716 in 2006, working for BP, as a union member).
Clearly, the Palin family has long enjoyed the benefits of union membership. But instead of doing anything to help unions in return, all Palin has done is try to exploit her family's union ties in an effort to boost her political standing with union members.
In short, Palin has cynically used organized labor as nothing more than a prop (just as George W. Bush often used the military as a prop, in publicity photos, to further his own career).
On Friday, Palin waded into the Wisconsin union debate, with a typically ignorant and ill-informed Facebook post. In her post, Palin managed to simultaneously try to polish her labor credentials, even as she blasted the Wisconsin public employee union and urged its members to break away from their leadership.
In other words, while sucking up to the union members (even repeatedly addressing them as "brothers and sisters") Palin secretly pulled out a knife and stuck it in the back of the union workers. She must think these people are really stupid.
Union members must "sacrifice and carry our share of the burden," Palin wrote.
Ho, hum.
Palin is nothing is not predictable in her comments. And she's also dishonest. Her buddies like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would never address union members as "brothers and sisters." At least Limbaugh and Hannity are being honest in their open contempt for organized labor.
Palin tries to have it both ways. Her husband enjoyed a nice, well-paid union job. She then uses this fact to try to bolster her cred with union members. And then, at the same time, she embraces the extreme far-right policies of today's GOP: a party that has a pathological hatred of unions and seeks to abolish them completely.
In 2008, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard got so sick of Palin's hypocrisy on unions that he blasted her "worker-savaging positions" in a statement and called upon her to stop using her husband's union membership as a "prop."
Indeed, Palin's 2008 running mate, John McCain, has had a long history of extreme hostility toward unions. In 2007, he voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, for example. In 1994, he also voted against a bill protecting discrimination against workers who go on strike.
But for all her professed love of her union "brothers and sisters," Palin apparently believes they're so stupid that they'd support a fire-breathing, far-right extremist like her.
And it's easy for Palin to ask that the Wisconsin union members accept "sacrifices" and tighten their belts. After all, this is a woman who has made an enormous fortune since she quit as Alaska's governor. In a mere 9 months after she quit, Palin raked in an incredible $12 million.
Yet she insists that the Wisconsin union members need to "sacrifice."
Perhaps it was inevitable, but Sarah Palin has finally waded into the Wisconsin union controversy. But her comments have only revealed her ignorance and hypocrisy on the union debate.
As she has constantly pointed out, Palin's family has long had union connections. Her husband, Todd, was a long-time United Steelworkers union member, enjoying a nice salary and generous union benefits. (For example, Todd Palin earned $102,716 in 2006, working for BP, as a union member).
Clearly, the Palin family has long enjoyed the benefits of union membership. But instead of doing anything to help unions in return, all Palin has done is try to exploit her family's union ties in an effort to boost her political standing with union members.
In short, Palin has cynically used organized labor as nothing more than a prop (just as George W. Bush often used the military as a prop, in publicity photos, to further his own career).
On Friday, Palin waded into the Wisconsin union debate, with a typically ignorant and ill-informed Facebook post. In her post, Palin managed to simultaneously try to polish her labor credentials, even as she blasted the Wisconsin public employee union and urged its members to break away from their leadership.
In other words, while sucking up to the union members (even repeatedly addressing them as "brothers and sisters") Palin secretly pulled out a knife and stuck it in the back of the union workers. She must think these people are really stupid.
Union members must "sacrifice and carry our share of the burden," Palin wrote.
Ho, hum.
Palin is nothing is not predictable in her comments. And she's also dishonest. Her buddies like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would never address union members as "brothers and sisters." At least Limbaugh and Hannity are being honest in their open contempt for organized labor.
Palin tries to have it both ways. Her husband enjoyed a nice, well-paid union job. She then uses this fact to try to bolster her cred with union members. And then, at the same time, she embraces the extreme far-right policies of today's GOP: a party that has a pathological hatred of unions and seeks to abolish them completely.
In 2008, United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard got so sick of Palin's hypocrisy on unions that he blasted her "worker-savaging positions" in a statement and called upon her to stop using her husband's union membership as a "prop."
Indeed, Palin's 2008 running mate, John McCain, has had a long history of extreme hostility toward unions. In 2007, he voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, for example. In 1994, he also voted against a bill protecting discrimination against workers who go on strike.
But for all her professed love of her union "brothers and sisters," Palin apparently believes they're so stupid that they'd support a fire-breathing, far-right extremist like her.
And it's easy for Palin to ask that the Wisconsin union members accept "sacrifices" and tighten their belts. After all, this is a woman who has made an enormous fortune since she quit as Alaska's governor. In a mere 9 months after she quit, Palin raked in an incredible $12 million.
Yet she insists that the Wisconsin union members need to "sacrifice."
Friday, February 18, 2011
Music To Resist Union Bashing: "Fight the Power"
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
These days, the GOP is finally implementing the agenda that they've planned all along: to completely and totally crush organized labor in the U.S. They won't be satisfied until they've abolished every union in the country once and for all. It's all-out war on the working class.
I'm not sure that Public Enemy's classic, "Fight the Power" has anything to do with unions or organizing. But I do know that it's an extraordinarily angry (but understandably so) anthem from the Golden Age of Hip-Hop, recorded before that genre turned into a apathetic, predictable celebration of all things "bling-bling" and narcissism. It's a call to street action: which is precisely what we need now. Facebook petitions will only get you so far.
Back in the day, Public Enemy's righteous angry raps took on the Powers That Be, which made the band dangerous in a way that corporate sell-outs like Eminem can only dream of.
"Fight the Power," featured here with the brilliant opening credits to Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, kicked off one of the best films of the 1980s.
With the GOP cracking down on the working class, it's now time to get angry. Unless we all take to the streets and Fight The Power, we will eventually have no rights at all (except the right to starve to death as the economic serfs of fascist corporate America).
.
By MARC McDONALD
These days, the GOP is finally implementing the agenda that they've planned all along: to completely and totally crush organized labor in the U.S. They won't be satisfied until they've abolished every union in the country once and for all. It's all-out war on the working class.
I'm not sure that Public Enemy's classic, "Fight the Power" has anything to do with unions or organizing. But I do know that it's an extraordinarily angry (but understandably so) anthem from the Golden Age of Hip-Hop, recorded before that genre turned into a apathetic, predictable celebration of all things "bling-bling" and narcissism. It's a call to street action: which is precisely what we need now. Facebook petitions will only get you so far.
Back in the day, Public Enemy's righteous angry raps took on the Powers That Be, which made the band dangerous in a way that corporate sell-outs like Eminem can only dream of.
"Fight the Power," featured here with the brilliant opening credits to Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, kicked off one of the best films of the 1980s.
With the GOP cracking down on the working class, it's now time to get angry. Unless we all take to the streets and Fight The Power, we will eventually have no rights at all (except the right to starve to death as the economic serfs of fascist corporate America).
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wisconsin Workers, Remember: "There Is Power In A Union"
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
As the workers in Wisconsin stand up for their rights, I thought I'd serve up some classic labor music that has inspired me over the years. Although many of us can't be in Wisconsin at the moment, we're definitely with the workers there (and everywhere) in spirit.
In 1986, Britain's Billy Bragg served up his take on the traditional worker's anthem in this track from his classic album, Talking with the Taxman About Poetry.
I saw Bragg in concert back in 1986 at a small club on Greenville Avenue in Dallas. It was a no-frills show: just one man and his guitar--but Bragg held the audience spellbound. It was a welcome tonic for us workers back during the dark, gloomy days of the Reagan era.
There is power in a factory, power in the land
Power in the hands of a worker
But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand
There is power in a union
Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud
War has always been the bosses' way, sir
The union forever, defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and out sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union
Now I long for the morning that they realise
Brutality and unjust laws can not defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organise
When the bosses send their lackies out to cheat us?
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone
What a comfort to the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a union
The union forever defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and out sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
As the workers in Wisconsin stand up for their rights, I thought I'd serve up some classic labor music that has inspired me over the years. Although many of us can't be in Wisconsin at the moment, we're definitely with the workers there (and everywhere) in spirit.
In 1986, Britain's Billy Bragg served up his take on the traditional worker's anthem in this track from his classic album, Talking with the Taxman About Poetry.
I saw Bragg in concert back in 1986 at a small club on Greenville Avenue in Dallas. It was a no-frills show: just one man and his guitar--but Bragg held the audience spellbound. It was a welcome tonic for us workers back during the dark, gloomy days of the Reagan era.
There is power in a factory, power in the land
Power in the hands of a worker
But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand
There is power in a union
Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud
War has always been the bosses' way, sir
The union forever, defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and out sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union
Now I long for the morning that they realise
Brutality and unjust laws can not defeat us
But who'll defend the workers who cannot organise
When the bosses send their lackies out to cheat us?
Money speaks for money, the devil for his own
Who comes to speak for the skin and the bone
What a comfort to the widow, a light to the child
There is power in a union
The union forever defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and out sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Thom Hartmann Smacks Down NeoCon On Wisconsin Union Busting
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
The normally mild-mannered Thom Hartmann finally got enraged when NeoCon Seton Motley spewed one wingnut lie about labor unions too many on his "The Big Picture" TV program yesterday.
The two were discussing Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's war on state workers when Motley started spouting endless, predictable NeoCon bullshit about how public sector unions are basically evil and should be abolished.
Even a cool, rational figure like Hartmann, though, has his limits of tolerance and he finally called out Motley for his lies. When the latter continued to spew his wingnut venom, Hartmann showed a rare (for him) flash of anger. Although he lost his cool, Hartmann didn't lose his head and he proceeded to completely demolish every lie that Motley spewed out.
"I'm not going to let you get away with these lies!" Hartmann said. (I hope the "liberal" corporate MSM was taking notes on how to counter blatant Conservative propaganda).
One thing I've long admired about Hartmann is that he is always well-informed and he always has a ready comeback, with a heavy dose of the facts, to any NeoCon who is simply making up bullshit.
At one point, Motley claimed that unions were forcing themselves on the American people. "People don't want to unionize!" he claimed.
To this sheer nonsense, Hartmann had a ready reply: "More than 60 percent of Americans say they would join a union if they could."
To which Motley could only meekly (and falsely) reply: "That's a lame poll."
Yeah, right, whatever.
I myself have personally been intimidated and threatened by employers for simply talking about unions (even though it was on my own time and it wasn't on company property). I personally know of many other people who were threatened and even fired for simply talking about organizing. Yes, there are supposedly labor laws on the books that prohibit this sort of thing, but since the Reagan era, such laws have been rarely enforced.
The bottom line is: the capitalist bosses will do anything (even kill) to prevent American workers from joining unions.
I applaud the union workers in Wisconsin and I wish them well. However, I think they should be aware that Walker's threat to use the National Guard is no empty threat. Indeed, when I think of previous labor clashes in our nation's history (like the 1914 Ludlow Massacre, in which 19 people were killed by the Colorado National Guard), it makes me worried.
Hartmann's "The Big Picture" TV show airs live Monday through Friday at 9:00 p.m. EST with a repeat broadcast at 2:00 a.m. EST on FSTV DISH Network channel 9415, DIRECTV channel 348.
Additional program info is here.
.
By MARC McDONALD
The normally mild-mannered Thom Hartmann finally got enraged when NeoCon Seton Motley spewed one wingnut lie about labor unions too many on his "The Big Picture" TV program yesterday.
The two were discussing Wisconsin governor Scott Walker's war on state workers when Motley started spouting endless, predictable NeoCon bullshit about how public sector unions are basically evil and should be abolished.
Even a cool, rational figure like Hartmann, though, has his limits of tolerance and he finally called out Motley for his lies. When the latter continued to spew his wingnut venom, Hartmann showed a rare (for him) flash of anger. Although he lost his cool, Hartmann didn't lose his head and he proceeded to completely demolish every lie that Motley spewed out.
"I'm not going to let you get away with these lies!" Hartmann said. (I hope the "liberal" corporate MSM was taking notes on how to counter blatant Conservative propaganda).
One thing I've long admired about Hartmann is that he is always well-informed and he always has a ready comeback, with a heavy dose of the facts, to any NeoCon who is simply making up bullshit.
At one point, Motley claimed that unions were forcing themselves on the American people. "People don't want to unionize!" he claimed.
To this sheer nonsense, Hartmann had a ready reply: "More than 60 percent of Americans say they would join a union if they could."
To which Motley could only meekly (and falsely) reply: "That's a lame poll."
Yeah, right, whatever.
I myself have personally been intimidated and threatened by employers for simply talking about unions (even though it was on my own time and it wasn't on company property). I personally know of many other people who were threatened and even fired for simply talking about organizing. Yes, there are supposedly labor laws on the books that prohibit this sort of thing, but since the Reagan era, such laws have been rarely enforced.
The bottom line is: the capitalist bosses will do anything (even kill) to prevent American workers from joining unions.
I applaud the union workers in Wisconsin and I wish them well. However, I think they should be aware that Walker's threat to use the National Guard is no empty threat. Indeed, when I think of previous labor clashes in our nation's history (like the 1914 Ludlow Massacre, in which 19 people were killed by the Colorado National Guard), it makes me worried.
Hartmann's "The Big Picture" TV show airs live Monday through Friday at 9:00 p.m. EST with a repeat broadcast at 2:00 a.m. EST on FSTV DISH Network channel 9415, DIRECTV channel 348.
Additional program info is here.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Progressive Music Classics. Mark Stewart's "As the Veneer of Democracy Starts to Fade"
.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
When I try to think of music that perfectly captures the horror of what it was like to live in America during the era of George W. Bush, this song would probably be at the top of the list. Amazingly, this song dates back a quarter of a century---and yet it could have easily been written specifically about the Bush years.
Reading about the Grammy Awards tonight, it occurred to me that Britain's Mark Stewart will never, ever receive a Grammy or be voted into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame. (In fact, he's always had great difficulties even getting his records released in the U.S.). And yet for my money, Stewart's music is far more brilliant than any artist who will win a Grammy this year. (He's also infinitely more subversive than any corporate whore like Lady Gaga, with her contrived "controversies," could ever be).
Unlike the disposable Top 40 mediocrities, whose boring music clogs up the airwaves, artists like Stewart have followed their muse and never tailored their music for the radio. Unlike the Top 40 cowardly artists (whose only goal is to sell loads of records) Stewart appears to have a mission: that is, to rip the wool from our eyes and reveal the greedy, soul-less corporate monsters that really control all the levers of power in our "democracy."
If you're looking for a catchy melody, an uplifting lyric, or a groove to get lost in, Stewart's music is definitely not for you. However, if you enjoy uncompromising art and music that has a real message, Stewart is definitely worth a listen.
I first became aware of Stewart via his brilliant post-punk band, The Pop Group, which had a short career in the late 1970s and early 80s (and who recently reformed to play gigs in Europe). When The Pop Group originally folded, Stewart began a solo career, in which he often collaborated with the stunningly brilliant U.K. producer and master of experimental dub, Adrian Sherwood.
Working with backing musicians from early hip-hop artists the Sugarhill Gang and Grandmaster Flash, Stewart created his nightmarish sonic textures. Although he was specifically addressing the evils of Thatcher's Britain, he very well could have been describing Bush's America. Indeed, passages of this song seem to eerily describe the Orwellian Patriot Act, as well as the GOP's ongoing war against organized labor.
Radical music like this never wins Grammys. And I'm sure that's exactly just the way Stewart likes it.
"The military police, act as a private army,
with the bosses.
To break the back of organized labour
to get this cheap, strike-free workforce."
These are lyrics you've never going to hear from the likes of fucking Lady Gaga, or Britney Spears, or Justin Bieber, or any of the other mediocrities crossing the stage to pick up their awards at the corporate whore-fest known as the Grammy Awards.
.
By MARC McDONALD
Welcome to another edition of Progressive Music Classics.
When I try to think of music that perfectly captures the horror of what it was like to live in America during the era of George W. Bush, this song would probably be at the top of the list. Amazingly, this song dates back a quarter of a century---and yet it could have easily been written specifically about the Bush years.
Reading about the Grammy Awards tonight, it occurred to me that Britain's Mark Stewart will never, ever receive a Grammy or be voted into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame. (In fact, he's always had great difficulties even getting his records released in the U.S.). And yet for my money, Stewart's music is far more brilliant than any artist who will win a Grammy this year. (He's also infinitely more subversive than any corporate whore like Lady Gaga, with her contrived "controversies," could ever be).
Unlike the disposable Top 40 mediocrities, whose boring music clogs up the airwaves, artists like Stewart have followed their muse and never tailored their music for the radio. Unlike the Top 40 cowardly artists (whose only goal is to sell loads of records) Stewart appears to have a mission: that is, to rip the wool from our eyes and reveal the greedy, soul-less corporate monsters that really control all the levers of power in our "democracy."
If you're looking for a catchy melody, an uplifting lyric, or a groove to get lost in, Stewart's music is definitely not for you. However, if you enjoy uncompromising art and music that has a real message, Stewart is definitely worth a listen.
I first became aware of Stewart via his brilliant post-punk band, The Pop Group, which had a short career in the late 1970s and early 80s (and who recently reformed to play gigs in Europe). When The Pop Group originally folded, Stewart began a solo career, in which he often collaborated with the stunningly brilliant U.K. producer and master of experimental dub, Adrian Sherwood.
Working with backing musicians from early hip-hop artists the Sugarhill Gang and Grandmaster Flash, Stewart created his nightmarish sonic textures. Although he was specifically addressing the evils of Thatcher's Britain, he very well could have been describing Bush's America. Indeed, passages of this song seem to eerily describe the Orwellian Patriot Act, as well as the GOP's ongoing war against organized labor.
Radical music like this never wins Grammys. And I'm sure that's exactly just the way Stewart likes it.
"The military police, act as a private army,
with the bosses.
To break the back of organized labour
to get this cheap, strike-free workforce."
These are lyrics you've never going to hear from the likes of fucking Lady Gaga, or Britney Spears, or Justin Bieber, or any of the other mediocrities crossing the stage to pick up their awards at the corporate whore-fest known as the Grammy Awards.
Rumsfeld Jumps The Shark in Bizarre FT Interview
By MARC McDONALD
In his weekend "Lunch With the FT" interview with Britain's Financial Times
newspaper, Donald Rumsfeld, was stubbornly defensive, as always, about his actions as Defense Secretary in the administration of George W. Bush.
He also jumped the shark in his surreal, bizarre justification for the disastrous Iraq War.
In the interview, one of the ways Rumsfeld defends the invasion of Iraq was by noting the "godawful prisons" that existed under Saddam Hussein.
It appears that Rumsfeld is a man without a sense of irony. Or shame.
This, after all, is a man who was the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal.
In fact, in November 2006, the prison's former commander, U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, said that Rumsfeld knew about, and was responsible for, what happened at Abu Ghraib.
In a written statement, Karpinski said:
"It was clear the knowledge and responsibility (for what happened at Abu Ghraib) goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld."
Rumsfeld, like Bush, still fiercely defends anything and everything that occurred on his watch. Anyone looking for Robert McNamara-style regrets over the Iraq War fiasco will be disappointed with Rumsfeld's stubbornly unrepentant approach.
In his weekend "Lunch With the FT" interview with Britain's Financial Times
newspaper, Donald Rumsfeld, was stubbornly defensive, as always, about his actions as Defense Secretary in the administration of George W. Bush.
He also jumped the shark in his surreal, bizarre justification for the disastrous Iraq War.
In the interview, one of the ways Rumsfeld defends the invasion of Iraq was by noting the "godawful prisons" that existed under Saddam Hussein.
It appears that Rumsfeld is a man without a sense of irony. Or shame.
This, after all, is a man who was the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal.
In fact, in November 2006, the prison's former commander, U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, said that Rumsfeld knew about, and was responsible for, what happened at Abu Ghraib.
In a written statement, Karpinski said:
"It was clear the knowledge and responsibility (for what happened at Abu Ghraib) goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld."
Rumsfeld, like Bush, still fiercely defends anything and everything that occurred on his watch. Anyone looking for Robert McNamara-style regrets over the Iraq War fiasco will be disappointed with Rumsfeld's stubbornly unrepentant approach.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
If Palin's "Crosshairs" Map Was Really Harmless, Why Was It Scrubbed From Web?
By MARC McDONALD
Sarah Palin has drawn criticism for her infamous "target" map that illustrated Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' 8th district with target crosshairs. A Palin spokeswoman has defended the map image, claiming that it was never meant to evoke guns or violence.
But if that's true, then why did Palin's camp rush to scrub the site with the image from the Internet only minutes after Giffords was shot? And why, in March, when Giffords criticized what she called a "gun sight" graphic, did Palin not rush to dispute this description back then?
Clearly, Palin doesn't have the courage of her convictions---which is ironic, because she portrays herself as a rugged "mama grizzly bear" who proudly stands her ground against the wimpy Dems and the "lamestream" media. But now, she's cowering in fear over what the latter might have to say about her crosshairs map.
It's notable that Giffords herself had previously raised concerns about Palin's map. Last March, Giffords, who had been the target of threats over her vote on health care reform, told MSNBC: "The way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."
Note that Giffords' comments were scrubbed from Palin's Facebook page on Sunday.
Incidentally, anyone who expects the Giffords tragedy to cause GOP hate-mongers to tone down their heated rhetoric is dreaming. Right-wing radio continues to spew hate and bile and indeed, has reached a new low in the aftermath of the shooting.
On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh said the suspected shooter, Jared Loughner, was smirking in his latest photo for a reason.
"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame."
Keep it classy, Rush.
Sarah Palin has drawn criticism for her infamous "target" map that illustrated Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' 8th district with target crosshairs. A Palin spokeswoman has defended the map image, claiming that it was never meant to evoke guns or violence.
But if that's true, then why did Palin's camp rush to scrub the site with the image from the Internet only minutes after Giffords was shot? And why, in March, when Giffords criticized what she called a "gun sight" graphic, did Palin not rush to dispute this description back then?
Clearly, Palin doesn't have the courage of her convictions---which is ironic, because she portrays herself as a rugged "mama grizzly bear" who proudly stands her ground against the wimpy Dems and the "lamestream" media. But now, she's cowering in fear over what the latter might have to say about her crosshairs map.
It's notable that Giffords herself had previously raised concerns about Palin's map. Last March, Giffords, who had been the target of threats over her vote on health care reform, told MSNBC: "The way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have got to realize there are consequences to that action."
Note that Giffords' comments were scrubbed from Palin's Facebook page on Sunday.
Incidentally, anyone who expects the Giffords tragedy to cause GOP hate-mongers to tone down their heated rhetoric is dreaming. Right-wing radio continues to spew hate and bile and indeed, has reached a new low in the aftermath of the shooting.
On Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh said the suspected shooter, Jared Loughner, was smirking in his latest photo for a reason.
"What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame."
Keep it classy, Rush.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Check Out the "Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2010"
By MARC McDONALD
My Nov. 9, 2010 piece, "The Most Nauseating Lie in Bush's New Book," was featured in Vagabond Scholar's "Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2010." If you haven't already, be sure to check out this roundup, which offers a lot of great articles from many of the Web's top progressive blogs. And also, be sure to check out Vagabond Scholar itself, which is one of our favorite liberal blogs. Here's to a great 2011 for all progressive bloggers everywhere.
My Nov. 9, 2010 piece, "The Most Nauseating Lie in Bush's New Book," was featured in Vagabond Scholar's "Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2010." If you haven't already, be sure to check out this roundup, which offers a lot of great articles from many of the Web's top progressive blogs. And also, be sure to check out Vagabond Scholar itself, which is one of our favorite liberal blogs. Here's to a great 2011 for all progressive bloggers everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
