I can verify that what chemo patient say is true: The drug the doctor prescribed today (Compazine) does very little to help with the nausea. I don’t even like pot, but I wish I had some now.
One little girl asks why little girls have to be princesses, when boys get to be action figures:
Virtually Speaking Susie 6pm pacific, 9pm eastern Digby and Susie Madrak explore the impact of current events on the daily lives of working class people. Listen live and later
Following A to Z on Thursday, Jay hosts Eve Gittelson, who reviews the year in health care policy. Listen Live and Later. A to Z at 5pm/8pm, Jay and Eve at 6pm/9pm eastern.
The administration has proven that the policies they never tried don’t work. Austerity!
See? I could do that.
Mr. President? When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING.
I’ve been wondering about this. When was the turning point, where the U.S. decided pursuing war for empire was our path? That military might was preferable to actually improving the lives of our citizens? Why don’t the people who live here get any say in making these decisions? This piece from the Atlantic is enlightening, go read it all:
DURING EISENHOWER’S PRESIDENCY, few credited him with being a great orator. Yet, as befit a Kansan and a military professional, Ike could speak plainly when he chose to do so. The April 16 speech early in his presidency was such a moment. Delivered in the wake of Joseph Stalin’s death, the speech offered the new Soviet leadership a five-point plan for ending the Cold War. Endorsing the speech as “one of the most notable policy statements of U.S. history,” Time reported with satisfaction that Eisenhower had articulated a broad vision for peace and “left it at the door of the Kremlin for all the world to see.” The likelihood that Stalin’s successors would embrace this vision was nil. An editorial in The New Republic made the essential point: as seen from Russia’s perspective, Eisenhower was “demanding unconditional surrender.” The president’s peace plan quickly vanished without a trace.
Largely overlooked by most commentators was a second theme that Eisenhower had woven into his text. The essence of this theme was simplicity itself: spending on arms and armies is inherently undesirable. Even when seemingly necessary, it constitutes a misappropriation of scarce resources. By diverting social capital from productive to destructive purposes, war and the preparation for war deplete, rather than enhance, a nation’s strength. And while assertions of military necessity might camouflage the costs entailed, they can never negate them altogether.
“Every gun that is made,” Eisenhower told his listeners, “every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Any nation that pours its treasure into the purchase of armaments is spending more than mere money. “It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” To emphasize the point, Eisenhower offered specifics:
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities … We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
Yet in Cold War Washington, Eisenhower’s was a voice crying in the wilderness. As much as they liked Ike, Americans had no intention of choosing between guns and butter: they wanted both. Military Keynesianism—the belief that the production of guns could underwrite an endless supply of butter—was enjoying its heyday.
Who happens to be black? If you’ve read Malcolm X, you already know the answer. Chauncy Devega at We Are Respectable Negroes writes a compelling essay on racism, and how it permeates the national discussion on Obama. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, because the things that racists say to other white people are so shocking, not only for the content of their fevered insanity, but for their assumption that every other white person agrees with them. Still. In America.
I do believe that most overt racists are unaware of the workings of their own psyche. Why else would they go to so much trouble to fabricate lies to justify their hatred of a black president? I have my issues with President Obama, but they’re based on policy, not skin color. Since he’s been elected, I’ve had people say things to me that are so vile, I can only shake my head — after I point out that they’re clearly more upset about his skin color than anything else.
It sickens me. Not that we don’t all have unconscious biases (and yes, belief in white supremacy is a hard one to shake. After all, how else would you explain the American habit of doing whatever needs to be done to suck up the world’s resources while everyone else suffers?), but we try. We keep talking. I don’t know how we’ll ever heal this festering sore of racism, but we have to keep trying.
The personal is political. The rage machine that presumes the worst of Barack Obama, precisely because he is not white, is old hat. Black folks have known that game for centuries. We did not need to read Thomas Jefferson’s racist tract, Notes on the State of Virginia, in order to grasp the deep wells of anti-black sentiment which are the beating heart of America’s political culture.
My surprise at the claim that President Obama shares anything in common with a “skinny, ghetto, crackhead” is rooted in its absurdity. Obama is human. He is imperfect. I often disagree with his politics. Obama is a man. He is nothing more, nothing less. But a crackhead? Impulsive drug user? A hype? Nope. Not ever. Obama’s personhood and habitus, his relaxed and effortless black cool pose (even if some do not possess the cultural framework and lens necessary to perceive it) is obvious–and unapologetic.
The inability by some on the Right to see Obama’s full and dignified black humanity, as opposed to a default of black drug use, criminality, and omnipresent, irrepressible “niggerdom,” is the source of my hurt. I must ask: If the white conservative imagination can frame a man of Obama’s abilities, poise, intelligence, genius, life accomplishments, and talent as a skinny, ghetto, crackhead, how do they see the rest of us?
Continue Reading »
I read an intriguing article years ago (I think it was in Harpers) about how SUVs were actually designed to look hostile and aggressive — to appeal to the angry white male. There was a lot of talk about how buyers would perceive them as rolling fortresses to protect themselves and their families in a dangerous world. (It was more than a little ironic that so many of the early SUVs had a little problem with rollover that killed their passengers, but I digress.) For someone who’s paranoid, you can’t possibly have enough protection – unfortunately for the rest of us.
I’d suggest that we all just stay home, but at least two people were shot by stray bullets while they were asleep this past week.
Anyway, the Times takes a look at how that open-carry law in North Carolina has worked out, so be sure to go read the rest:
Alan Simons was enjoying a Sunday morning bicycle ride with his family in Asheville, N.C., two years ago when a man in a sport utility vehicle suddenly pulled alongside him and started berating him for riding on the highway.
The bullet passed through Mr. Simons’s helmet.
Mr. Simons, his 4-year-old son strapped in behind him, slowed to a halt. The driver, Charles Diez, an Asheville firefighter, stopped as well. When Mr. Simons walked over, he found himself staring down the barrel of a gun.
“Go ahead, I’ll shoot you,” Mr. Diez said, according to Mr. Simons. “I’ll kill you.”
Mr. Simons turned to leave but heard a deafening bang. A bullet had passed through his bike helmet just above his left ear, barely missing him.
Mr. Diez, as it turned out, was one of more than 240,000 people in North Carolina with a permit to carry a concealed handgun. If not for that gun, Mr. Simons is convinced, the confrontation would have ended harmlessly. “I bet it would have been a bunch of mouthing,” he said.
Continue Reading »