Heavy sigh.
HERE is a sad reminder of the type of people in the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Yes, after criticising Obama for not communicating to Congress about the plans for military action in Libya, a Republican representative then asks the question, "Where does it stop? Do we go into Africa next?"
Libya is in Africa.
Heavy sigh.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Rock Is Alive...And Live in Seattle
For anyone in Seattle lamenting "the death of rock and roll," I'm here to tell you that rumors of it's demise are exaggerated.
For those of you in the Seattle area, you can get a live listen to some of the better up-and-coming rock bands at local shows coming up this spring:
Don't say I didn't tip you off.
For those of you in the Seattle area, you can get a live listen to some of the better up-and-coming rock bands at local shows coming up this spring:
- British Sea Power - April 2 at Neumo's
- The Joy Formidable - April 12 at the Croc
- Funeral Party - April 14 at the Paramount (can't believe they're going to actually play there...too big. Probably someplace smaller.)
- Mona - June 8 at the Showbox SODO (opening band for another group)
Don't say I didn't tip you off.
Which Pac-10 Men's B-Ball Team Is the Only One Still Playing?
Guess which Pac-10 men's basketball team is the only one still playing this March?
UW? Nope. Out in the second round of the NCAA tournament.
WSU? Nope. Out in the final four of the NIT.
UCLA, USC or Arizona? Nope. Lost at various stages of the NCAA tournament.
No, all of them are done. In fact, the only team still playing is the University of Oregon Ducks. That's right. You heard it correctly. The Ducks.
OK, that's about as good as the story gets because the tournament they are still alive in - the College Basketball Invitational (CBI) - is a minor tournament to be sure. No way you can compare it to the big stage of the NCAA tournament and it's definately second to even the NIT. So, the Ducks' run through the CBI to the finals and climb to a 20 win season should not be overplayed for more than it is.
But hey, for a team that finished the regular season at .500 and 7th in the Pac-10, playing in the CBI and having a good run into the finals is a chance for more practice and work for a young team. Even if they now lose the last game of the finals, you combine the extended experience and PT with the fact that UO only loses two seniors and adds some highly touted freshmen and JC transfers for next season and the Ducks might be looking pretty dang good for the 2011-2012 season.
Ask Virginia Commonwealth University if the CBI helped them. In case you don't recall, they won the CBI last season and now are in the Final Four of the NCAA tournament.
And for fans of Pac-10 basketball, that's why it might be of interest to know that the Ducks are still playing.
UW? Nope. Out in the second round of the NCAA tournament.
WSU? Nope. Out in the final four of the NIT.
UCLA, USC or Arizona? Nope. Lost at various stages of the NCAA tournament.
No, all of them are done. In fact, the only team still playing is the University of Oregon Ducks. That's right. You heard it correctly. The Ducks.
OK, that's about as good as the story gets because the tournament they are still alive in - the College Basketball Invitational (CBI) - is a minor tournament to be sure. No way you can compare it to the big stage of the NCAA tournament and it's definately second to even the NIT. So, the Ducks' run through the CBI to the finals and climb to a 20 win season should not be overplayed for more than it is.
But hey, for a team that finished the regular season at .500 and 7th in the Pac-10, playing in the CBI and having a good run into the finals is a chance for more practice and work for a young team. Even if they now lose the last game of the finals, you combine the extended experience and PT with the fact that UO only loses two seniors and adds some highly touted freshmen and JC transfers for next season and the Ducks might be looking pretty dang good for the 2011-2012 season.
Ask Virginia Commonwealth University if the CBI helped them. In case you don't recall, they won the CBI last season and now are in the Final Four of the NCAA tournament.
And for fans of Pac-10 basketball, that's why it might be of interest to know that the Ducks are still playing.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Republicans Have Zero Credibility on the Budget Deficit
A friendly reminder as the Republican majority in the House drives the Federal government closer and closer to a shut down over the issue of spending cuts to address the massive Federal budget deficit...
It was this very same Republican Party that created the deficit through massive tax cuts and deregulation, combined with massive spending - particularly in the area of defense and the bailout of financial and auto industries.
That's right. In case you forgot, the Republicans controlled the combination of both houses of Congress and the White House from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009. And in that same time frame, our nation went from a budget surplus in 2000 to the largest deficit in the country's entire history by 2009. Thanks.
Also, many of the current leaders of the R party were in positions of leadership then. So, we're also not only talking about the same political party, but literally the same people who created our problems.
Keep that in mind when you see news about the Republicans wanting to address the budget issue. They have zero credibility on what works and what does not.
It was this very same Republican Party that created the deficit through massive tax cuts and deregulation, combined with massive spending - particularly in the area of defense and the bailout of financial and auto industries.
That's right. In case you forgot, the Republicans controlled the combination of both houses of Congress and the White House from Jan. 2001 to Jan. 2009. And in that same time frame, our nation went from a budget surplus in 2000 to the largest deficit in the country's entire history by 2009. Thanks.
Also, many of the current leaders of the R party were in positions of leadership then. So, we're also not only talking about the same political party, but literally the same people who created our problems.
Keep that in mind when you see news about the Republicans wanting to address the budget issue. They have zero credibility on what works and what does not.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Cutting the Federal Budget Deficit In Half in One Step
Turns out, it would be quite easy to cut the Federal budget deficit in half over the next 10 years.
What you say? Are you kidding me? We cannot afford to cut THAT MUCH out of our budget!
Well, you are thinking of only one side of the budget equation. You're only thinking about spending. And sure, there are things that need to be addressed on that side of the equation such as keeping healthcare spending down via the recent healthcare reform law, cutting defense responsibly (it's one of the biggest parts of our annual budget after all) and dealing with Social Security.
But over on the OTHER side of the ledger called revenue, a huge chunk of our deficit can be erased by simply...get this...letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich and corporations expire in 2012 just like they are scheduled to do. Yep, there you go. More revenue coming in from the very people and companies who can afford it most...and who have received a gift windfall of cuts over the past 10 years.
And, here's another thing...Congress would not need to overcome a filibuster as there is no vote required to end them. They would just expire.
See the story and graph HERE.
And for anyone who might say that raising taxes on the rich and on companies will stifle job creation and growth, I say that those things aren't happening now...so, if the rich and companies are not going to use their excess income due to lower taxes to help the economy by choice, lets make them do it in another way.
What you say? Are you kidding me? We cannot afford to cut THAT MUCH out of our budget!
Well, you are thinking of only one side of the budget equation. You're only thinking about spending. And sure, there are things that need to be addressed on that side of the equation such as keeping healthcare spending down via the recent healthcare reform law, cutting defense responsibly (it's one of the biggest parts of our annual budget after all) and dealing with Social Security.
But over on the OTHER side of the ledger called revenue, a huge chunk of our deficit can be erased by simply...get this...letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich and corporations expire in 2012 just like they are scheduled to do. Yep, there you go. More revenue coming in from the very people and companies who can afford it most...and who have received a gift windfall of cuts over the past 10 years.
And, here's another thing...Congress would not need to overcome a filibuster as there is no vote required to end them. They would just expire.
See the story and graph HERE.
And for anyone who might say that raising taxes on the rich and on companies will stifle job creation and growth, I say that those things aren't happening now...so, if the rich and companies are not going to use their excess income due to lower taxes to help the economy by choice, lets make them do it in another way.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
What If You Paid Zero Taxes Annually? Well, You'd Be Just Like G.E.
Are you concerned about the budget deficit?
As with any financial ledger, the Federal budget is comprised of what's going out (spending) and what's coming in (revenue)...and that tells the tale of whether we're in the red or in the black. And when we're in the red there is indeed need to be concerned.
But before you pick up your pitch fork, light up the torches, put on your broad brimmed hat and gather your government-hating neighbors to march under moonlight up the castle of today's government to demand them from spending money, consider this...
...the largest company in the world - a U.S.-based company - pays no taxes annually. That's right. General Electric pays zero corporate taxes. That's $0.00. Nothing. Year in and year out. That is a HUGE hit to the revenue side of the Federal budget ledger, and GE is by no means the only company doing this.
You can read how GE is getting away with this in the New York Times article HERE. They also published a handy chart that illustrates HERE.
Hell, no wonder that elephant in those GE TV ads is dancing!
It's fitting that the GE mascot on their TV ads is an elephant. Why? Well, they're getting away with paying $0 taxes annually because of laws and deregulation ushered in by the Republican Party during its reign of power...and the symbol of the R Party is, indeed, the elephant.
As with any financial ledger, the Federal budget is comprised of what's going out (spending) and what's coming in (revenue)...and that tells the tale of whether we're in the red or in the black. And when we're in the red there is indeed need to be concerned.
But before you pick up your pitch fork, light up the torches, put on your broad brimmed hat and gather your government-hating neighbors to march under moonlight up the castle of today's government to demand them from spending money, consider this...
...the largest company in the world - a U.S.-based company - pays no taxes annually. That's right. General Electric pays zero corporate taxes. That's $0.00. Nothing. Year in and year out. That is a HUGE hit to the revenue side of the Federal budget ledger, and GE is by no means the only company doing this.
You can read how GE is getting away with this in the New York Times article HERE. They also published a handy chart that illustrates HERE.
Hell, no wonder that elephant in those GE TV ads is dancing!
It's fitting that the GE mascot on their TV ads is an elephant. Why? Well, they're getting away with paying $0 taxes annually because of laws and deregulation ushered in by the Republican Party during its reign of power...and the symbol of the R Party is, indeed, the elephant.
Sadly, this makes sense in another way...because of course it's a fact that we have seen the creation of the two largest budget deficits in our nation's history under recent Republican leadership (the 1980s and the 2000s) through their aggressive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, as well as big time deregulation.
Which is why I was so ticked off when President Obama appointed none other than GE CEO Jeff Immelt as his advisor on business and the economy. Post HERE.
To me this is just one more glaring proof point that...we are being USED people. Used. This is the reality of the the conservative economic agenda.
And you know what? It might even be bearable if GE was creating lots of new jobs in the U.S. with all the money they're saving in non-payment of taxes...but they are not. No, they're laying off employees and outsourcing more and more jobs to cheaper labor markets around the globe and keeping windfalls as executive bonuses and payouts to shareholders. This lack of revenue is no laughing matter. Not to mention the layoffs. Not having the billions of dollars in tax revenue annually from companies like GE really hamstrings effective government and the erosion of jobs hurts bad too.
Look, you work hard, you pay your bills, you pay your taxes. If you run a small business, you're paying taxes and dealing with regulations. Meanwhile, companies like GE are literally gaming the system. And we just let them get away with it.
All of which is to say, sure, it's easy to get mad at the government for spending in a time of budget deficits, but you need to keep in mind that there is a HUGE stream of revenue that should be coming in that is not and you might want to focus on that...
...and target #1 should be GE.
Target #2 are the laws and regulations (or lack of them) that allow a company like GE to skip out on paying any taxes while the rest of us are burdened with it.
Friday, March 25, 2011
New Band - The Joy Formidable
Here's another new rock band to check out - The Joy Formidable.
Good, propelling rock and roll with a strong female lead vocal - not something you get much of these days.
You can see them/hear them on their Web site HERE.
They're playing at the Croc in Seattle on April 12.
Good, propelling rock and roll with a strong female lead vocal - not something you get much of these days.
You can see them/hear them on their Web site HERE.
They're playing at the Croc in Seattle on April 12.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The Strategy Behind Blatant Republican Contradictions
Lets be clear here. Lets tell it like it is. Lets not kid ourselves and lets not be naive.
It does not matter what President Obama does or says on any issue - no mater what position he stakes out - the leadership of the Republican party takes an countering view, even when doing so is in direct contrast with their previous statements.
Perhaps the most obvious example is the situation in Libya.
Newt Gingrich criticized Obama for not taking action, not instituting a no-fly zone and even sending our military into action. Now that Obama has done all those things, Gingrich is criticizing these actions.
Not to be outdone, House Speaker Boehner is demanding a full and clear explanation of the objectives of the actions of the U.S. military in Libya. Mind you, this is a man who - like Gingrich - criticized Obama for not doing enough about Libya earlier this month, as well as criticized him over how he handled the Egyptian uprising.
In this instance and others, it seems the primary goal of the Rs is simply to weaken support for Obama by criticizing anything and everything he does - even if doing so is in direct contradiction to what they were saying just several weeks ago.
Hell, Obama could solve world hunger, cure cancer and balance the budget and his opposition would say he's using the U.S. taxpayer money to solve problems that our not ours, is purposefully condemning victims of other diseases to death and has undermined U.S. financial security by cutting budget and raising taxes to balance the budget. It just doesn't matter what he does or says.
Why would they do this? Electoral politics. They want to win the Presidency in 2012.
This is their short-term game plan to "soften up" the President before the election cycle. Sew doubt about him, generate an ongoing "buzz" of opposition that generally presents a question mark about Obama in the minds of the American public. The issue could be on the issue of Libya, could be the budget, could be - as we've seen - even down to taking issue with the First Lady's initiative to encourage children to eat healthy (how dare "the government" tell your child how to eat!"). It does not matter. What matters is criticize, criticize, criticize. Paint him on on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC and all the networks as weak, indecisive and himself a flip-flopper. It's an ooooooooooooooooooold Republican battle tactic.
Well, OK...but won't these Republicans be easily called out and shamed for their obvious, blatant and ongoing contradictions and thin attacks. No, they will not. Why? When it comes to politics, economy and foreign relations, the American public has the attention span for details and facts of about an hour. Seriously. About an hour. Literally, most Americans don't remember what a politician says between one day to another and they certainly don't remember a politicians track record - contradictory or not. Now, you want to talk about a BJ given to the president by an intern? The American public wants to know about and track ALL the details on that!
No, what we all DO seem to remember is the general "feeling" or vague notions of whether we "like" someone or not. And that's what the Republicans are trying to do - errode Obama's likability by trying to make him out as wishy-washy and inconsistent with a sustained criticism campaign that puts a general negative buzz out there about him that reduces his "like factor."
Ironically, the "like factor" is why Clinton continued to get high approval ratings during his Lewinski scandal. It's also a factor in Obama's favor because most people "like" him and the R candidates tend to come off like bullies.
But in any case, make no mistake, what appear to be obvious contradictions from Republicans are about. It's part of the strategy they are pinning hopes on to win the Presidency and pick up seats in the Senate for a majority. And what an occassion that would be.
I think we all can remember the "glorious" eight years 2001 - 2008 when the Rs held the Congress and White House - economy in the tank, unemployment up, permitted worst attack on U.S. soil ever, financial and real estate market meltdown, creation of the worst Federal budget deficit in U.S. history, rising gas prices, blundered invasion of Iraq, and on and on...but hey, tax cut for the rich!
Get ready for some more of all that if the Rs are successful.
It does not matter what President Obama does or says on any issue - no mater what position he stakes out - the leadership of the Republican party takes an countering view, even when doing so is in direct contrast with their previous statements.
Perhaps the most obvious example is the situation in Libya.
Newt Gingrich criticized Obama for not taking action, not instituting a no-fly zone and even sending our military into action. Now that Obama has done all those things, Gingrich is criticizing these actions.
Not to be outdone, House Speaker Boehner is demanding a full and clear explanation of the objectives of the actions of the U.S. military in Libya. Mind you, this is a man who - like Gingrich - criticized Obama for not doing enough about Libya earlier this month, as well as criticized him over how he handled the Egyptian uprising.
In this instance and others, it seems the primary goal of the Rs is simply to weaken support for Obama by criticizing anything and everything he does - even if doing so is in direct contradiction to what they were saying just several weeks ago.
Hell, Obama could solve world hunger, cure cancer and balance the budget and his opposition would say he's using the U.S. taxpayer money to solve problems that our not ours, is purposefully condemning victims of other diseases to death and has undermined U.S. financial security by cutting budget and raising taxes to balance the budget. It just doesn't matter what he does or says.
Why would they do this? Electoral politics. They want to win the Presidency in 2012.
This is their short-term game plan to "soften up" the President before the election cycle. Sew doubt about him, generate an ongoing "buzz" of opposition that generally presents a question mark about Obama in the minds of the American public. The issue could be on the issue of Libya, could be the budget, could be - as we've seen - even down to taking issue with the First Lady's initiative to encourage children to eat healthy (how dare "the government" tell your child how to eat!"). It does not matter. What matters is criticize, criticize, criticize. Paint him on on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC and all the networks as weak, indecisive and himself a flip-flopper. It's an ooooooooooooooooooold Republican battle tactic.
Well, OK...but won't these Republicans be easily called out and shamed for their obvious, blatant and ongoing contradictions and thin attacks. No, they will not. Why? When it comes to politics, economy and foreign relations, the American public has the attention span for details and facts of about an hour. Seriously. About an hour. Literally, most Americans don't remember what a politician says between one day to another and they certainly don't remember a politicians track record - contradictory or not. Now, you want to talk about a BJ given to the president by an intern? The American public wants to know about and track ALL the details on that!
No, what we all DO seem to remember is the general "feeling" or vague notions of whether we "like" someone or not. And that's what the Republicans are trying to do - errode Obama's likability by trying to make him out as wishy-washy and inconsistent with a sustained criticism campaign that puts a general negative buzz out there about him that reduces his "like factor."
Ironically, the "like factor" is why Clinton continued to get high approval ratings during his Lewinski scandal. It's also a factor in Obama's favor because most people "like" him and the R candidates tend to come off like bullies.
But in any case, make no mistake, what appear to be obvious contradictions from Republicans are about. It's part of the strategy they are pinning hopes on to win the Presidency and pick up seats in the Senate for a majority. And what an occassion that would be.
I think we all can remember the "glorious" eight years 2001 - 2008 when the Rs held the Congress and White House - economy in the tank, unemployment up, permitted worst attack on U.S. soil ever, financial and real estate market meltdown, creation of the worst Federal budget deficit in U.S. history, rising gas prices, blundered invasion of Iraq, and on and on...but hey, tax cut for the rich!
Get ready for some more of all that if the Rs are successful.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Quotes To Ponder
One of my favorite bands is Manic Street Preachers. They are literate, diverse in style, epic an a band that has put out quality rock and roll for 20 years.
Usually their singles come with a quotation printed on the inner sleeve, and usually those quotations offer something to ponder or learn.
Below are the quotes included in the various singles the band has put out from their recent Postcards From A Young Man album.
Check 'em out, ponder, noodle, investigate, agree or reject...
"To read a poem in January is as lovely as to go for a walk in June." - John-Paul Sartre
"There is no such thing as simple. Simple is hard." - Martin Scorsese
"We are all transistors in the literal sense." - Karl Heinz Stockhausen
"One thing that success taught me is censorship." - Tracey Emin
"The middle class is a luxury capitalism can no longer afford." - John Gray
"The worst immortality is to give in, give up." - Andrea Dworkin
Usually their singles come with a quotation printed on the inner sleeve, and usually those quotations offer something to ponder or learn.
Below are the quotes included in the various singles the band has put out from their recent Postcards From A Young Man album.
Check 'em out, ponder, noodle, investigate, agree or reject...
"To read a poem in January is as lovely as to go for a walk in June." - John-Paul Sartre
"There is no such thing as simple. Simple is hard." - Martin Scorsese
"We are all transistors in the literal sense." - Karl Heinz Stockhausen
"One thing that success taught me is censorship." - Tracey Emin
"The middle class is a luxury capitalism can no longer afford." - John Gray
"The worst immortality is to give in, give up." - Andrea Dworkin
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Rep. Hastings Is An A-Hole
More evidence of either outright lunacy or maniacal deception by Republicans today...
Rep. Hastings (R) from Washington just went ahead and blamed the Clinton and Obama administrations for rising gas prices - say they are the ones who failed to "tap into" (code for drilling and mining) our own U.S. oil and natural gas resources.
Story HERE.
While it may be true that the USA is addicted to oil from the Middle East and has failed to find new sources of energy, it's hardly something you can blame on one party. Nor is more drilling and mining for old sources in the U.S. necessarily the best or only option.
Also, Rep. Hastings seems to conveniently forget a little thing called the George W. Bush administration who ran the White House for eight of the past eleven years...most the time with a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. Perhaps THEY could have done something about addiction to oil? Oh, right, they did...they decided to invade Iraq. Thanks. That turned out great.
Hey, gas prices have been going steadily up since I can remember. That our nation has failed to invest in, develop and then bring to market alternative energy sources is not a one party problem. Its a problem linked into many parts of our economy - but primarily that oil companies make SPECTACULAR profits year over year in good times and bad, and they do NOT want to give that up. And, those same companies could make even MORE money if they could suddenly drill and mine in the good old USA.
So Representative Hastings is either epically stupid or he is - as I suspect - evilly opportunistic and playing politics when he and his party are in power in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if he or some of his close friends and associates just happen to have financial interest in traditional energy companies and/or energy companies give a lot of money to Hastings' campaigns. This would explain his position better than anything. And for all that, I say, "Rep. Hastings, you sir, are an A-hole."
Rep. Hastings (R) from Washington just went ahead and blamed the Clinton and Obama administrations for rising gas prices - say they are the ones who failed to "tap into" (code for drilling and mining) our own U.S. oil and natural gas resources.
Story HERE.
While it may be true that the USA is addicted to oil from the Middle East and has failed to find new sources of energy, it's hardly something you can blame on one party. Nor is more drilling and mining for old sources in the U.S. necessarily the best or only option.
Also, Rep. Hastings seems to conveniently forget a little thing called the George W. Bush administration who ran the White House for eight of the past eleven years...most the time with a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. Perhaps THEY could have done something about addiction to oil? Oh, right, they did...they decided to invade Iraq. Thanks. That turned out great.
Hey, gas prices have been going steadily up since I can remember. That our nation has failed to invest in, develop and then bring to market alternative energy sources is not a one party problem. Its a problem linked into many parts of our economy - but primarily that oil companies make SPECTACULAR profits year over year in good times and bad, and they do NOT want to give that up. And, those same companies could make even MORE money if they could suddenly drill and mine in the good old USA.
So Representative Hastings is either epically stupid or he is - as I suspect - evilly opportunistic and playing politics when he and his party are in power in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if he or some of his close friends and associates just happen to have financial interest in traditional energy companies and/or energy companies give a lot of money to Hastings' campaigns. This would explain his position better than anything. And for all that, I say, "Rep. Hastings, you sir, are an A-hole."
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Santorum Is a Huge Idiot
Here is the true face of today's Republican party and the people who lead it...
Today, Republican Senator Rick Santorum said that he was appalled that John F. Kennedy believed in the separation of church and state, saying also that for those beliefs JFK was "a radical" who "did great damage." And for good measure and to ensure how crazy he actually came off sounding when saying that, he added that "Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave."
Story HERE.
Oh boy. So many ways the Senator is way, way off base.
Here are several biggies:
1. The separation of church and state is IN THE CONSTITUTION. Read it. Yes, you...who is reading this blog post right now. Read the constitution - specifically the First Amendment.
2. Thomas Jefferson was a religious man, but also THE PRESIDENT who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" because he didn't want the state anywhere near religion. He firmly believed that Congress nor any U.S. governmental body should establish a state religion.
So when this Santorum joker and other Rs start running for President and other offices and you hear them say, well, pretty much anything...remember how way, way off they are on really, really simple things. If they're so wrong on things like the history of separation of church and state, imagine how wrong they are on other issues.
Today, Republican Senator Rick Santorum said that he was appalled that John F. Kennedy believed in the separation of church and state, saying also that for those beliefs JFK was "a radical" who "did great damage." And for good measure and to ensure how crazy he actually came off sounding when saying that, he added that "Thomas Jefferson would be spinning in his grave."
Story HERE.
Oh boy. So many ways the Senator is way, way off base.
Here are several biggies:
1. The separation of church and state is IN THE CONSTITUTION. Read it. Yes, you...who is reading this blog post right now. Read the constitution - specifically the First Amendment.
2. Thomas Jefferson was a religious man, but also THE PRESIDENT who coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" because he didn't want the state anywhere near religion. He firmly believed that Congress nor any U.S. governmental body should establish a state religion.
So when this Santorum joker and other Rs start running for President and other offices and you hear them say, well, pretty much anything...remember how way, way off they are on really, really simple things. If they're so wrong on things like the history of separation of church and state, imagine how wrong they are on other issues.
Monday, March 14, 2011
ESPN's Rock and Roll Tourney
The NCAA men's and women's basketball tournaments are set to start later this week and much of the nation is tuning in to root for teams they love or against teams they hate.
Each year, the NCAA sets the field for the men's tournament by "seeding" the top 64 teams from #1-#16 in four separate regions. The 1 seed plays the 16, 2 plays 15, 3 plays 14 and so forth in each of the four regions. All four regions is a "bracket" as are all four taken together to form the entire NCAA tournament field. The winner who survives four rounds of games in each respective bracket is one of the four regional winners who goes to "The Final Four" to compete for the championship.
Well, the find folks at ESPN have playfully extended this "bracketology" to rock and roll - listing and seeding who they think the best 40 rock bands ever and asks fans to vote on the winners of each "match up" to advance bands through the different rounds to regional championship, the final four and the ultimate winner.
You can have your say by voting on the match ups HERE.
Some observations on the field:
Each year, the NCAA sets the field for the men's tournament by "seeding" the top 64 teams from #1-#16 in four separate regions. The 1 seed plays the 16, 2 plays 15, 3 plays 14 and so forth in each of the four regions. All four regions is a "bracket" as are all four taken together to form the entire NCAA tournament field. The winner who survives four rounds of games in each respective bracket is one of the four regional winners who goes to "The Final Four" to compete for the championship.
Well, the find folks at ESPN have playfully extended this "bracketology" to rock and roll - listing and seeding who they think the best 40 rock bands ever and asks fans to vote on the winners of each "match up" to advance bands through the different rounds to regional championship, the final four and the ultimate winner.
You can have your say by voting on the match ups HERE.
Some observations on the field:
- Clearly some very top bands - Stones, Who, the Floyd, Beatles, Clash, U2, Queen, Bob Marley, AC/DC, Sex Pistols, Ramones, Guns n Roses, Black Sabath for example.
- Some real head scratchers (as in, "what the F are those bands on this list for") - Sublime, Creed, Living Color, Korn, Outcast, Styx, Nickelback, Blink 182 to name a few. Wow.
- There are a LOT of blatant omissions - um, ESPN, how about the Kinks, David Bowie, Springsteen, Elvis Presley, Beach Boys, Stooges, MC5, Foo Fighters, REM or Radiohead? Surely any of those bands would be better rock bands to be in the competition.
- Considering the bands picked, the competition should be titled Rock Band Bracket - 1960s-90s. Bands or performers who got their start in the 50s or the 2000s not welcome.
Of course, you know my vote and my advice - vote for The Clash as often as you can.
But acceptable wins among those still in the competition are: U2, Zep, Stones, Beatles, the Who, Jimi, Nirvana, Pearl Jam.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Say 100 Americans Order a 100-Slice Pizza And The First Guy Takes 80 Slices
Wealth disparity in the United States is a huge a growing problem.
For example...
It turns out that the wealthiest 400 people in our nation have as much money as the next 155 million people combined.
And, 80% of the wealth created in the United States between 1980 and 2005 has gone to the top 1% of income earners in the country. (See the seventh paragraph in the linked story.)
Whoh.
The other night, Bill Maher explained wealth disparity this way...
"Say 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives and the first guy takes 80 slices."
And then Maher furthers the analogy with how the rich are unwilling to budge by saying...
"And if someone suggests 'why don't you just take 79 slices,' that's SOCIALISM!"
Maher has some other interesting points on wealth distribution and the "plight" of the super rich HERE.
At any rate, wealth disparity is so bad that we're now approaching the same levels as just before the Great Depression. The article HERE sums it up pretty well when the author says...
"Folks, there is no way we can have economic prosperity in this country when the top 1% has all of the money. The middle class is basically being destroyed right in front of our very eyes. Consumption economies die when consumers have now money to consume."
There simply should be billions more dollars circulating in our economy. That money could be and should be used to invent, start companies, hire workers, support health and education programs, be used for people to...I don't know...sustain the economy by buying things, and on and on. But it's not. No. It's locked up in private equity by the super rich and/or simply spent by the super rich on inane luxuries that benefit virtually nobody. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrappin' for what we can get and feeling good if we can get by.
So, it's more than resentment or "it's just not fair" sentiment that is at the root of pointing out wealth inequity. No. Such inequity is a direct and lethal economic threat to the vast majority of Americans. It has real implications for everyday people.
Something has to give at some point. I mean, if the 30 year trend continues...what happens when, say, the top 1% of Americans own, say, 95% of the wealth. What about the top 5% owning 99% of the wealth. Where does that leave the rest of us? What kind of life is that? What future will children have? What will we be willing to do to reverse things? Or will the economy simply just collapse into depression?
For example...
It turns out that the wealthiest 400 people in our nation have as much money as the next 155 million people combined.
And, 80% of the wealth created in the United States between 1980 and 2005 has gone to the top 1% of income earners in the country. (See the seventh paragraph in the linked story.)
Whoh.
The other night, Bill Maher explained wealth disparity this way...
"Say 100 Americans get together and order a 100 slice pizza. The pizza arrives and the first guy takes 80 slices."
And then Maher furthers the analogy with how the rich are unwilling to budge by saying...
"And if someone suggests 'why don't you just take 79 slices,' that's SOCIALISM!"
Maher has some other interesting points on wealth distribution and the "plight" of the super rich HERE.
At any rate, wealth disparity is so bad that we're now approaching the same levels as just before the Great Depression. The article HERE sums it up pretty well when the author says...
"Folks, there is no way we can have economic prosperity in this country when the top 1% has all of the money. The middle class is basically being destroyed right in front of our very eyes. Consumption economies die when consumers have now money to consume."
There simply should be billions more dollars circulating in our economy. That money could be and should be used to invent, start companies, hire workers, support health and education programs, be used for people to...I don't know...sustain the economy by buying things, and on and on. But it's not. No. It's locked up in private equity by the super rich and/or simply spent by the super rich on inane luxuries that benefit virtually nobody. Meanwhile, the rest of us are scrappin' for what we can get and feeling good if we can get by.
So, it's more than resentment or "it's just not fair" sentiment that is at the root of pointing out wealth inequity. No. Such inequity is a direct and lethal economic threat to the vast majority of Americans. It has real implications for everyday people.
Something has to give at some point. I mean, if the 30 year trend continues...what happens when, say, the top 1% of Americans own, say, 95% of the wealth. What about the top 5% owning 99% of the wealth. Where does that leave the rest of us? What kind of life is that? What future will children have? What will we be willing to do to reverse things? Or will the economy simply just collapse into depression?
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Hearings Focused In the Wrong Direction
As Republican Representative Peter King conducts stunt hearings this week on Capital Hill about radical Islam and terrorism in the United States, the truth is that it's not Muslims who commit most terrorist acts here.
For example, how about THIS guy? He recently planted a bomb on the route of a MLK Day parade in Spokane, WA.
Remember Timothy McVeigh?
Remember the Unibomber?
What about the guy who set off that bomb at the Atlanta Olympics?
The guy who went on a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech?
Columbine?
Or how about the guy who flew his airplane into a Federal government office building in Texas?
Remember the guy who walked into the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and started shooting?
Or the anti-government mailbox pipe bomber?
Better yet, check out THIS LIST of terror acts in the U.S. The majority were NOT perpetrated by "radical" Muslims or Muslims at all.
Yes, certainly 9-11 was planned and conducted by Muslims, some of whom had moved here and then enacted the plan. And there are some other acts of terrorism in the U.S. by Muslims. These are all tragic and horrible acts that are linked to a radical and dangerous interpretation of Islam. All true and we need to take the threat from that sector seriously.
But...
Those acts are well outnumbered by terrorist actions taken by non-Muslims U.S. citizens. Indeed, the people blowing up bombs, randomly shooting people or planning to do so are not Muslim and their cause is not Islam.
So, my advice for Rep. King would be to look more seriously into who really is conducting terrorism on a regular basis in the U.S., why and how to stop it. By my perusal of the incidents, a far more realistic set of causes of terrorism in the U.S. are: racism, anti-governmentism, radical environmentalism, failings of our health and education system to ID and treat mental illness...and quick and easy access to high powered weaponry for anyone and everyone in the United States.
But, busting anti-government kooks, racists, ultra conservative nut jobs, enviro extremist and railing in favor of a better healthcare system probably wouldn't get him the same sensational headlines he wants.
For example, how about THIS guy? He recently planted a bomb on the route of a MLK Day parade in Spokane, WA.
Remember Timothy McVeigh?
Remember the Unibomber?
What about the guy who set off that bomb at the Atlanta Olympics?
The guy who went on a shooting rampage at Virginia Tech?
Columbine?
Or how about the guy who flew his airplane into a Federal government office building in Texas?
Remember the guy who walked into the Holocaust Museum in D.C. and started shooting?
Or the anti-government mailbox pipe bomber?
Better yet, check out THIS LIST of terror acts in the U.S. The majority were NOT perpetrated by "radical" Muslims or Muslims at all.
Yes, certainly 9-11 was planned and conducted by Muslims, some of whom had moved here and then enacted the plan. And there are some other acts of terrorism in the U.S. by Muslims. These are all tragic and horrible acts that are linked to a radical and dangerous interpretation of Islam. All true and we need to take the threat from that sector seriously.
But...
Those acts are well outnumbered by terrorist actions taken by non-Muslims U.S. citizens. Indeed, the people blowing up bombs, randomly shooting people or planning to do so are not Muslim and their cause is not Islam.
So, my advice for Rep. King would be to look more seriously into who really is conducting terrorism on a regular basis in the U.S., why and how to stop it. By my perusal of the incidents, a far more realistic set of causes of terrorism in the U.S. are: racism, anti-governmentism, radical environmentalism, failings of our health and education system to ID and treat mental illness...and quick and easy access to high powered weaponry for anyone and everyone in the United States.
But, busting anti-government kooks, racists, ultra conservative nut jobs, enviro extremist and railing in favor of a better healthcare system probably wouldn't get him the same sensational headlines he wants.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Newt Is A Hypocrit - Not Fit For Office
If you are someone who thinks a politician's personal life, ethics and choices have an impact on their ability to effectively lead, then you CANNOT SERIOUSLY consider supporting one, Newt Gingrich - regardless of how much you agree with his political ideas.
Story HERE.
And this is not just because you would be contradicting yourself by supporting the Newt, but also because, well, Newt has proven to be an opportunistic hypocrit on top of a being a cheater. After all, this is a man who led efforts to impeach a president for extra-marital relations while himself having extra-mariatal relations who now justifies his own problems as he was so busy that his judgement was impared. Wow.
Personally, I don't think a poiticians personal indiscretions (as long as they are of course legal and conentual!) are a major factor in determining if he or she will be an effective leader. But, I think someone who literally adopts a holier than thow approach on these matters, is exposed as doing the very thing themselves and then tries to brush it off and justify their own problems away is very unqualified for office. I also think anyone who does this and invokes "God" such as Newt is doing exposes them even further as desperate and untrustworthy.
I also think that this situation is one of those things where the people most aggressive against social issues (fidelity or homosexuality for example) often times are operating so aggressively to cover up or make themselves feel better about thier own situation. Show me someone who hates gays, I'll show you someone who is probably gay. Show me someone infuriated about extra-martial affairs, I'll show you someone who probably has had an extra-martial affair. Like that.
Story HERE.
And this is not just because you would be contradicting yourself by supporting the Newt, but also because, well, Newt has proven to be an opportunistic hypocrit on top of a being a cheater. After all, this is a man who led efforts to impeach a president for extra-marital relations while himself having extra-mariatal relations who now justifies his own problems as he was so busy that his judgement was impared. Wow.
Personally, I don't think a poiticians personal indiscretions (as long as they are of course legal and conentual!) are a major factor in determining if he or she will be an effective leader. But, I think someone who literally adopts a holier than thow approach on these matters, is exposed as doing the very thing themselves and then tries to brush it off and justify their own problems away is very unqualified for office. I also think anyone who does this and invokes "God" such as Newt is doing exposes them even further as desperate and untrustworthy.
I also think that this situation is one of those things where the people most aggressive against social issues (fidelity or homosexuality for example) often times are operating so aggressively to cover up or make themselves feel better about thier own situation. Show me someone who hates gays, I'll show you someone who is probably gay. Show me someone infuriated about extra-martial affairs, I'll show you someone who probably has had an extra-martial affair. Like that.
Monday, March 7, 2011
McCain Fails "Made In America" 101
It's easy for conservative politicians to support big business or propose laws that reduce the quality of life for everyday people when they don't have a realistic picture of what's going on.
For example, turns out John McCain is under the impression that Apple produces the iPad in the good old USA. Which of course is not true. It's desighed here, but they are produced in China. Same for iPods and iPhones.
Story HERE.
You wonder why some of our elected officials suggest and act on initiatives that are really harmful to the average U.S. citizen, and I think one big answer could be? Well, they're simply so out of touch that they don't know what they're talking about.
You marry together that type of ignorance and detachment with a healthy dose of that old disproven "supply side" economic theory (cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations along with deregulation) so many conservatives love and believe will benefit everyone...and it's not surprising we're in the mess we're in.
For example, turns out John McCain is under the impression that Apple produces the iPad in the good old USA. Which of course is not true. It's desighed here, but they are produced in China. Same for iPods and iPhones.
Story HERE.
You wonder why some of our elected officials suggest and act on initiatives that are really harmful to the average U.S. citizen, and I think one big answer could be? Well, they're simply so out of touch that they don't know what they're talking about.
You marry together that type of ignorance and detachment with a healthy dose of that old disproven "supply side" economic theory (cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations along with deregulation) so many conservatives love and believe will benefit everyone...and it's not surprising we're in the mess we're in.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
2010: A Bad Year for Rock....Or Was It?
I just read the latest issue of Rolling Stone. The one with Bieber on the cover. No...I did not read the article about "the Bieb." I don't care about him.
But, there were two articles that caught my attention.
The first and most obvious one was the concise, honest and passionate history of my favorite band, the Clash. I know the story well...so nothing new for me except a couple pictures I had not seen. However, two thoughts here. One, if you don't know much of the Clash or their records, read the article. You may find yourself compelled to check them out. Two, the last line of the story says, "The tragedy of the Clash is that we no longer allow the room for their sort of voice."
Which leads me to the other story in the magazine that caught my attention - a story outlining how in the entire history of rock, 2010 was a commercial low. Rock. OK...not dance, country (or what passes for it these days), pop, techno, rap or anything like that. Rock. Rock and roll has hit an all time low in terms of selling music. The article goes on at some length as why this is and that rock bands actually can do well by just touring and/or releasing their music on their own via the Internet. However, it's disconcerting to know that frickin' ROCK AND ROLL is not something the American public wants to hear enough to buy records. That's just depressing. Of course, it may just be the thing the doctor ordered as often when things get stale, boring and predictable...along comes a blast of aggressive great music. See the UK in the late 1970s or the USA in the early 1990s.
Anyway, the article does not mean there were not some really good rock and roll albums out new in 2010. For example, check these sets out if you have not:
Throw in new ones in 2011 already by Social Distortion (Hard Times and Nursery Rhymes) and British Sea Power (Valhalla Dancehall) and things are not all that bleak for the last 12-14 months.
Oh, and finally, there were two other really good stories in the same issue: apparently Bevis and Butt Head are coming back as a TV show and Matt Tiaibbi's expose on why key figures on Wall Street are not in jail.
But, there were two articles that caught my attention.
The first and most obvious one was the concise, honest and passionate history of my favorite band, the Clash. I know the story well...so nothing new for me except a couple pictures I had not seen. However, two thoughts here. One, if you don't know much of the Clash or their records, read the article. You may find yourself compelled to check them out. Two, the last line of the story says, "The tragedy of the Clash is that we no longer allow the room for their sort of voice."
Which leads me to the other story in the magazine that caught my attention - a story outlining how in the entire history of rock, 2010 was a commercial low. Rock. OK...not dance, country (or what passes for it these days), pop, techno, rap or anything like that. Rock. Rock and roll has hit an all time low in terms of selling music. The article goes on at some length as why this is and that rock bands actually can do well by just touring and/or releasing their music on their own via the Internet. However, it's disconcerting to know that frickin' ROCK AND ROLL is not something the American public wants to hear enough to buy records. That's just depressing. Of course, it may just be the thing the doctor ordered as often when things get stale, boring and predictable...along comes a blast of aggressive great music. See the UK in the late 1970s or the USA in the early 1990s.
Anyway, the article does not mean there were not some really good rock and roll albums out new in 2010. For example, check these sets out if you have not:
- The Gaslight Anthem - American Slang
- Manic Street Preachers - Postcards From A Young Man
- The Courteeners - Falcon
- Sound of Guns - What Came From Fire
- Vampire Weekend - Contra
Throw in new ones in 2011 already by Social Distortion (Hard Times and Nursery Rhymes) and British Sea Power (Valhalla Dancehall) and things are not all that bleak for the last 12-14 months.
Oh, and finally, there were two other really good stories in the same issue: apparently Bevis and Butt Head are coming back as a TV show and Matt Tiaibbi's expose on why key figures on Wall Street are not in jail.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Palm Trees and Punches in Wisconsin - Brought To You By Fox News
You know how some people say that Fox News is dishonest or they purposefully distort the news to fit a conservative narrative?
Well, there's a reason these allegations are made. And that reason is...Fox News does do those things.
A couple very recent examples come from the network's coverage of the labor protests in Wisconsin.
In one case, as reported HERE Fox News runs footage of an altercation at a union solidarity rally in California (complete with palm trees in the background) at the end of an on air discussion about the possibility that protesters in Wisconsin are now infiltrated with thugs and left wing radicals bent on violence. If you've ever been to Wisconsin, you are aware that you don't see palm trees growing. But if you weren't paying attention you'd come away inaccurately thinking that, wow, there are some pretty aggressive people protesting in Wisconsin. But for Fox, that inaccuracy is "mission accomplished."
And in another situation, as reviewed HERE, Fox News reporter claims he was "punched" by a protester...except of course he was not.
Are these the worst things ever done on TV news? No. But, it gives you insight into how Fox operates, what their goal is (in my estimation it is to contextualize the news through a conservative lens to influence popular political thought in a conservative direction) and what they're willing to do.
Well, there's a reason these allegations are made. And that reason is...Fox News does do those things.
A couple very recent examples come from the network's coverage of the labor protests in Wisconsin.
In one case, as reported HERE Fox News runs footage of an altercation at a union solidarity rally in California (complete with palm trees in the background) at the end of an on air discussion about the possibility that protesters in Wisconsin are now infiltrated with thugs and left wing radicals bent on violence. If you've ever been to Wisconsin, you are aware that you don't see palm trees growing. But if you weren't paying attention you'd come away inaccurately thinking that, wow, there are some pretty aggressive people protesting in Wisconsin. But for Fox, that inaccuracy is "mission accomplished."
And in another situation, as reviewed HERE, Fox News reporter claims he was "punched" by a protester...except of course he was not.
Are these the worst things ever done on TV news? No. But, it gives you insight into how Fox operates, what their goal is (in my estimation it is to contextualize the news through a conservative lens to influence popular political thought in a conservative direction) and what they're willing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)