Freedom's Nightmare
2/1/06Yesterday the President gave his State of the Union Address. I did not watch it but I read the transcript this morning and I haven’t felt this disgusted with the
actual state of the union since November of 2004.
Besides all the “We’re winning the war on terror” and “Death to all lawyers who do not protect corporations,” I was a tad surprised at the muted tone of the whole speech. I have to commend him on his attempt at reconciliation but, in all honesty, the Republican Party has been running things for a long time now so if he was serious about all these positive things that he supposedly envisions (He mentioned alternative fuel sources and AIDS research) they would have been put in place already.
If his speech was more honest he would have said something like, "We are going to work hard to stop gun control, ban abortion and give outrageous tax breaks to any one with a lot of money...and I don't mean just 'alot of money' I am talking about some one who has
real money 70 to 100 million dollars...liquid. Oh...and we're going to start a war too."
Of course, the preceding was a fictitious quote. All others in this post are real and my source is www.whitehouse.gov.)
But, in that vain, one statement HE DID make which was kind of ridiculous was, “We will pass along to our children all the freedom we enjoy and chief among them is freedom from fear.”
Is he kidding? These are the guys who have been working the fear angle for years now. I think this mother-fucker is urinating down my back again.
He also said quite succinctly, “I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.” His position is no surprise really but what exactly does marriage need protection from? This is not a rhetorical flip question. I am completely serious. I hear this phrase pretty regularly but yet have no idea what it means. Somebody out there…ANYBODY…please give me an answer.
In that same bullet point, he also used another non-sensical chestnut that has become very popular in the ongoing systematic murder of our language: the term “activist judges.” Again, I do not understand what is meant by this. Sure I hear it all the time on these talking-head Sunday political shows. And sometimes I even hear a co-worker/acquaintance use it to explain whatever they are trying to explain but what does it mean? Is an “activist” some one who has an opinion or makes a decision? In other words, someone who actually judges? If that is the case, aren't all judges "activists"? Isn’t that their job description? Someone please give me an answer.
He devoted several paragraphs of the speech to the reform of Social Security, an institution which, he described as, “…a symbol of the trust between generations…” and “…a great moral success of the 20th Century.” He claimed that the program is in bad need of reform because it will be insolvent in forty years or so. I am not an economist so I will take his word for it.
But the administration’s plan is to dismantle not reform.
”As we fix Social Security, we also have a responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts. Here is how the idea works. Right now, a set portion of the money you earn is taken out of your paycheck to pay for the Social Security benefits of today’s retirees. If you’re a younger worker, I believe you should be able to set aside part of that money in your own retirement account, so you can build a nest egg for your own future.”
Which, of course, is the exact opposite of the reason why the, “Great Moral Success of the 20th Century” was started in the first place. The concept of Social Security was not so someone can "Go for mines" but it was started to help everybody. So, in theory, no one would have to die in squalor although they might have had some bad luck or have not made the best financial decisions.
Now I can’t argue with the logic being used. The suggestion is that right now Social Security (Managed by the government) is making a very low percentage in interest while private mutual funds, etc. are making a lot more so why shouldn’t the contributor have a choice? Fair enough, but besides the abandonment of a communal “safety net” concept, as anyone who has invested in the last 7 years or so knows, these funds can be volatile and these great percentage points being bandied about today can easily turn into negative numbers tomorrow.
The return rates might be variable but there is one thing that stays constant, the amount of cash the fund managers make regardless if you win or lose which, I believe, is the true motivation behind these “reforms.” The bottom line is simple. You have to ask yourself one question: Who do you trust more, the Federal Government or the asshole at Charles Schwab? I know the current crop of heroes running this government want you to believe that jack-offs like Citi-Corp do things in “our best interests” but the reality is they do things for one reason and one reason only: to make money. And if there is a choice between your (The customer) well being or making even more money, there is NO DOUBT that they will opt for the additional funds…even if the sum total of their additional profit is four dollars and sixty-two cents.
You would know that if you ever lived a day in your life.
Then there is the argument that we must trust…or have “faith”…in that magical state of grace called “the free market.” If only, the theory states, we allowed “the market” to operate completely unencumbered, I.E. no federal, state or local regulations, then all of our needs and wants would be taken care of. Supply and demand would magically regulate production and prices. People would have the best of everything; The best products, the best wages, the best choices. I think it was Adam Smith who came up with this theory.
But there is only one problem with this euphoric love affair certain groups have with the Holy Grail of materialism. This point of view does not take into account that conditions were totally deplorable and working people’s status was a half notch above slave prior to the government regulations which are now being characterized as evil. When Laissez-Faire economics (At that time called “Liberal”) slowly replaced the centralized controlled commerce (At that time called “conservative”), creating the industrial revolution, a large underclass of workers was created whose wretched conditions and horrible existence could be considered intolerable.
When I think of the social history of the world or, at the very least, this country I find it very hard to imagine anybody sitting in a cube, driving a bus, working an assembly line or mixing cement declaring, “We got to get the government off our backs.” And yet
I do hear those very words being said by people who do not realize that without the “Government on their back” they would be literally working sixty-hour weeks and getting paid in company script. To think how we constantly piss on ourselves depresses me to no end.
Of course the irony is that these same people have no problem with the brutal assault that has been waged on our civil rights. And they hardly, if ever, mention all the Kafa-esque shit that has been going on over the past five years.
Don’t get me wrong, I do not want to turn the clock back to a pre-industrial revolution world where people shat out of windows and ignorance ran rampant. A time period when natural occurrences and diseases were explained in terms of magic and curses. The industrial revolution created a lot of evil and suffering but it also produced great creature comforts and inventions that have dramatically benefitted mankind. I suppose you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
The Great Depression of the 1930s made painfully clear that this Laissez-Faire approach needed to be revised. People started to embrace the idea that the government should not stand by and do nothing while its citizens starved in the streets. To corect this inherent flaw, FDR's New Deal was born.
The Republican Party has been trying to dismantle it ever since.
With that being said ask yourself, why do the current crop of movers and shakers want to turn back the clock and make like we had no social evolution or “moral successes” in the last 100 years? Here is an exact quote,
“So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but should never undermine them.”
I have to admit that whoever wrote this line knew what he was doing. The way it is worded, it appears that there is nothing to object to and if you do you’re a scumbag. To me, it is a folksy, almost poetic, way to proudly embrace conformity, passivity and willful ignorance, pretending that the toothpaste never came out of the tube.
As I mentioned before I did not watch the speech live for two reasons. First of all I just plain forgot that it was on. Besides, even if I did remember, there was a dynamite episode of Mannix on opposite it. Second, and most importantly, I can’t even look at this guy anymore without becoming spiritually and emotionally ill. But I did happen to catch some of the “Democratic Response” afterwards.
I say I saw some of it because the image was so off putting that I had to immediately turn it off. In the middle of this library/office looking place stands this chump from Virginia with a sleazy suit and an even sleazier smile. After a few remarks about Coretta Scott King, he starts talking. His words sounded awfully scripted delivered in tones that betrayed no sign of passion or conviction. He put me into such a hypnotic trance that, rather rapidly, I completely lost tract of what he was saying. After a (short) while, I became convinced that this guy was not a leader of an opposition party outraged about what has been happening to our hopes and ideals, but some guy who was introducing the next episode of Masterpiece Theatre.
And, after the last five years, the best the Democrats can do is have a passionless fool read lines off a teleprompter with all the urgency of sap coming out of a tree?
It is completly disheartening and disgusting.
Fuck them all.
Larry
