Minor Observation
Is it just me, or are White Supremicists usually themselves the best argument against their own beliefs?
Thursday, February 27, 2003
More Hatred For Technology
So, I spent the evening trying to get Internet Explorer to function properly. Apparently, it decided that it no longer wanted to load images. Or large chunks of text. Or my website.
Then after I completly reinstalled Explorer, I found at the Blogger wasn't loading my template properly, preventing anyone from, you know, actually loading my site.
So, you know. Whatever.
This is what happens with Republicans in the White House.
So, I spent the evening trying to get Internet Explorer to function properly. Apparently, it decided that it no longer wanted to load images. Or large chunks of text. Or my website.
Then after I completly reinstalled Explorer, I found at the Blogger wasn't loading my template properly, preventing anyone from, you know, actually loading my site.
So, you know. Whatever.
This is what happens with Republicans in the White House.
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Undying Hatred For Technology
Apparently, the comments service I use will not let me change the template without erasing all prior posts. They should have a warning of some kind, especially when the changes don't take effect for 12 hours.
If anyone knows of a good comments service that won't make me want to buy a gun, please let me know.
Apparently, the comments service I use will not let me change the template without erasing all prior posts. They should have a warning of some kind, especially when the changes don't take effect for 12 hours.
If anyone knows of a good comments service that won't make me want to buy a gun, please let me know.
Ha!
Oh man. I couldn't stop laughing when I read this.
A "cracker comedy" that's really "bigotry for bucks!"
Which I suppose is worse than Senatoring for bucks?
Someday, I will write about just how much I hate Zell Miller. For now, I am greatly enjoying laughing at him.
Oh man. I couldn't stop laughing when I read this.
A "cracker comedy" that's really "bigotry for bucks!"
Which I suppose is worse than Senatoring for bucks?
Someday, I will write about just how much I hate Zell Miller. For now, I am greatly enjoying laughing at him.
Reading other People's Work So I Don't Have To Do Any
CalPundit makes a damn good catch.
Photo-op missile defense. Shit, now I'm going to buy some duct tape...
CalPundit makes a damn good catch.
Photo-op missile defense. Shit, now I'm going to buy some duct tape...
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
In Defense of Ralph Nader
First in an Ongoing Series
"Thanks Ralph." "God Bless Ralph Nader." "Happy, Ralph?"
Dripping with sarcasm and contempt, these phrases are representative of a common enough sentiment among Democrats. You would think that Ralph Nader is personally destroying the country.
The funny thing about these types of comments is that they are almost exclusively found at the end of some outraged piece about what a Bad Man George W. Bush is.
Actually, I lied. There's nothing funny about them. They're cheap. Cheap to the point of childish petulance. And they make me angry.
Why? Simple. Because they are based on the idea that Ralph Nader's run for the Presidency was motivated purely by egomania -- as opposed to genuine conviction and a desire to make things better -- which is an obscene slander against a man who should be honored by people who believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party, and indeed, those of the United States.
Here's a question for every smart, well-informed Democrat: What do you hate about the American people? Deep down, what makes you angry about the general electorate? How do you reconcile the fact that the Democrats have been getting spanked since the early seventies with your firm belief that Democratic ideas are better, smarter, and more beneficial to the people?
I'll tell you what. You think that too many of the people are too ill-informed, too easily persuaded by special interests, and too damned lazy to actively make this country the better place you think it can be.
And you know what? You're right.
That's why vilifying Ralph Nader is so inane.
From the beginning, from the very beginning, of his career, Ralph Nader has put forth more effort than any other person to try, not so much to do good things for the people, but to try to get his fellow Americans to be able to do it themselves.
The underlying theme of every political action he's participated in, every article he's written, every speech he's given is active citizenship.
Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with Nader's work understands that he does not want to impose reform upon people so much as educate and motivate them enough to do it for themselves, and to make sure that the tools are in place for them to do so.
This can be seen throughout his career:
- From his first foray into public life with the publication of Unsafe At Any Speed, one of the driving principles behind his work has been exposing, with rigorous documentation and analysis, abuses of the public trust. Nader has displayed a deep conviction that if people are shown what is wrong, they will take an interest in correcting it.
- When, early in his career, he formed the group that would later be dubbed "Nader's Raiders" (a term which he initially fought against, as it tended to put the focus on him rather than the group's work), he did not form it into an organization devoted to him, but rather recruited smart, capable volunteers who were given the tools and the training to pursue corporate and government wrongdoing on their own. He used the fame and credibility he had gained with Unsafe at Any Speed to help them, but from the beginning he encouraged them to operate without his close supervision, to come up with their own ideas and strategies and to confront those in power and deal with the public themselves. He said himself that he saw the idea behind the Raiders as "a social innovation that will produce just and lasting benefits for the country as these young people generate new values and create new roles for their professions." [italics added]
- Another central theme running through his career is forcing supposedly democratic organizations to actually function in a democratic manner. This can be seen is his attacks on the Teamsters leadership in the late 70's. At the time, the Teamsters union, while supposedly a democratic organization, was in fact controlled by a relatively small group that used their authority to prevent dissidents within the organization from acquiring power, and therefore were able to remain the heads of the union. In this manner, the voice of the rank-and-file was effectively silenced. Through extensive legal action, the Professional Driver's Safety Council (PROD), led by first Joan Claybrook and then Arthur Fox, two close Nader associates, was eventually able to give the rank-and-file a much more significant voice in Union matters.
The other major sector where Nader has fought for greater democracy is in corporate governance. Since the early 70's, Nader has fought to bring executive-level management under the direct control of the shareholders, which is, in theory, the way corporations are supposed to operate. This battle is exemplified by his 1984 article Reforming Corporate Governance, which discusses the weakening of power of corporate Boards of Directors in favor of the Chief Executives. This weakening is a direct threat to shareholders, who, having less and less say over the operation of the corporation they supposedly own, are constantly in danger of being defrauded by Executives. The relevance of this issue was made excruciatingly clear last year, with the downfall of Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, and all the other corporate busts that enriched executives while leaving the shareholders holding the bag. In the article (which, again, was written eighteen years before this latest round of corporate scandals), Nader proposes a series of reforms that would both give corporate Boards of Directors more power over executive management, and give shareholders more power over the Boards of Directors. This would have the effect of preventing major defrauding of the shareholders, while making corporations more financially sound, as the people whose money is at risk (shareholders) would be the people with the authority.
- The fundamental principle behind his third party run in 2000 was to encourage the growth of grassroots political activism. As politics becomes more and more a game of money, where the most accurate predictor of electoral success is not your record on issues but the amount of money you spend in your campaign, it is becoming harder and harder for the people to actually choose who they want to represent them in the government. The whole idea behind grassroots activism is democracy at its best- average people working towards a common political goal. Regardless of how one feels about the Republicans and Democrats, it is impossible to deny the fact that there are a broad range of issues on which a significant portion of the American people have opinions that diverge from those represented by the two major Parties. Is there anyone undemocratic enough to argue that those opinions have any less right to representation than those endorsed by the Parties?
And yet, outside of the two major Parties, it is virtually impossible to gain access to the government, access which is supposed to be the right of every American.
At its core, grassroots activism -- true grassroots activism, as opposed to manufactured grassroots activism -- is supposed to remedy that.
Again, the underlying theme here is one of supplying tools and education to people so that they can enact change that benefits them. Grassroots activism is supposed to give voice to those that have significant disagreements with both of the major Parties. And that was Nader's primary motivation in accepting the Green Party's nomination for President: To encourage thought and action independent of the two Parties. And surely no one would argue against the righteousness of that cause.
***
Whether or not Ralph Nader caused George Bush to be elected is an issue I will discuss in a later post. For now, though, I would like to see the immediate cessation of the "Nader is an egomaniac who just wants personal power" theme. It is incorrect, unfair, and extremely damaging to the work he does and the ideas he promotes, which anyone who labels themselves a Democrat should consider extremely carefully. He is not right about everything, but he has worked harder for principles which are fundamental to the Democratic Party -- and for less personal compensation -- than anyone else in the last fifty years.
Any Democrat who would dismiss Nader's service out of pique does a disservice to both their credibility and their ideals.
Edit: I should have pointed out in an aside that the other major goal of Nader 2000 was to hit the Democrats with a stick large enough to make them listen. The only reason I didn't mention this was that I intend to address it later, when I will talk about whether or not Bush is in the White House because of Nader.
Update: Reader Jim E. makes some very good points in the comments section, which need to be addressed (even if he does try to provoke me by repeating the phrase "Thanks, Ralph"). I'll address these and other points tommorrow (possibly Thursday, depending on classes...) in the second part.
First in an Ongoing Series
"Thanks Ralph." "God Bless Ralph Nader." "Happy, Ralph?"
Dripping with sarcasm and contempt, these phrases are representative of a common enough sentiment among Democrats. You would think that Ralph Nader is personally destroying the country.
The funny thing about these types of comments is that they are almost exclusively found at the end of some outraged piece about what a Bad Man George W. Bush is.
Actually, I lied. There's nothing funny about them. They're cheap. Cheap to the point of childish petulance. And they make me angry.
Why? Simple. Because they are based on the idea that Ralph Nader's run for the Presidency was motivated purely by egomania -- as opposed to genuine conviction and a desire to make things better -- which is an obscene slander against a man who should be honored by people who believe in the ideals of the Democratic Party, and indeed, those of the United States.
Here's a question for every smart, well-informed Democrat: What do you hate about the American people? Deep down, what makes you angry about the general electorate? How do you reconcile the fact that the Democrats have been getting spanked since the early seventies with your firm belief that Democratic ideas are better, smarter, and more beneficial to the people?
I'll tell you what. You think that too many of the people are too ill-informed, too easily persuaded by special interests, and too damned lazy to actively make this country the better place you think it can be.
And you know what? You're right.
That's why vilifying Ralph Nader is so inane.
From the beginning, from the very beginning, of his career, Ralph Nader has put forth more effort than any other person to try, not so much to do good things for the people, but to try to get his fellow Americans to be able to do it themselves.
The underlying theme of every political action he's participated in, every article he's written, every speech he's given is active citizenship.
Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with Nader's work understands that he does not want to impose reform upon people so much as educate and motivate them enough to do it for themselves, and to make sure that the tools are in place for them to do so.
This can be seen throughout his career:
- From his first foray into public life with the publication of Unsafe At Any Speed, one of the driving principles behind his work has been exposing, with rigorous documentation and analysis, abuses of the public trust. Nader has displayed a deep conviction that if people are shown what is wrong, they will take an interest in correcting it.
- When, early in his career, he formed the group that would later be dubbed "Nader's Raiders" (a term which he initially fought against, as it tended to put the focus on him rather than the group's work), he did not form it into an organization devoted to him, but rather recruited smart, capable volunteers who were given the tools and the training to pursue corporate and government wrongdoing on their own. He used the fame and credibility he had gained with Unsafe at Any Speed to help them, but from the beginning he encouraged them to operate without his close supervision, to come up with their own ideas and strategies and to confront those in power and deal with the public themselves. He said himself that he saw the idea behind the Raiders as "a social innovation that will produce just and lasting benefits for the country as these young people generate new values and create new roles for their professions." [italics added]
- Another central theme running through his career is forcing supposedly democratic organizations to actually function in a democratic manner. This can be seen is his attacks on the Teamsters leadership in the late 70's. At the time, the Teamsters union, while supposedly a democratic organization, was in fact controlled by a relatively small group that used their authority to prevent dissidents within the organization from acquiring power, and therefore were able to remain the heads of the union. In this manner, the voice of the rank-and-file was effectively silenced. Through extensive legal action, the Professional Driver's Safety Council (PROD), led by first Joan Claybrook and then Arthur Fox, two close Nader associates, was eventually able to give the rank-and-file a much more significant voice in Union matters.
The other major sector where Nader has fought for greater democracy is in corporate governance. Since the early 70's, Nader has fought to bring executive-level management under the direct control of the shareholders, which is, in theory, the way corporations are supposed to operate. This battle is exemplified by his 1984 article Reforming Corporate Governance, which discusses the weakening of power of corporate Boards of Directors in favor of the Chief Executives. This weakening is a direct threat to shareholders, who, having less and less say over the operation of the corporation they supposedly own, are constantly in danger of being defrauded by Executives. The relevance of this issue was made excruciatingly clear last year, with the downfall of Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, and all the other corporate busts that enriched executives while leaving the shareholders holding the bag. In the article (which, again, was written eighteen years before this latest round of corporate scandals), Nader proposes a series of reforms that would both give corporate Boards of Directors more power over executive management, and give shareholders more power over the Boards of Directors. This would have the effect of preventing major defrauding of the shareholders, while making corporations more financially sound, as the people whose money is at risk (shareholders) would be the people with the authority.
- The fundamental principle behind his third party run in 2000 was to encourage the growth of grassroots political activism. As politics becomes more and more a game of money, where the most accurate predictor of electoral success is not your record on issues but the amount of money you spend in your campaign, it is becoming harder and harder for the people to actually choose who they want to represent them in the government. The whole idea behind grassroots activism is democracy at its best- average people working towards a common political goal. Regardless of how one feels about the Republicans and Democrats, it is impossible to deny the fact that there are a broad range of issues on which a significant portion of the American people have opinions that diverge from those represented by the two major Parties. Is there anyone undemocratic enough to argue that those opinions have any less right to representation than those endorsed by the Parties?
And yet, outside of the two major Parties, it is virtually impossible to gain access to the government, access which is supposed to be the right of every American.
At its core, grassroots activism -- true grassroots activism, as opposed to manufactured grassroots activism -- is supposed to remedy that.
Again, the underlying theme here is one of supplying tools and education to people so that they can enact change that benefits them. Grassroots activism is supposed to give voice to those that have significant disagreements with both of the major Parties. And that was Nader's primary motivation in accepting the Green Party's nomination for President: To encourage thought and action independent of the two Parties. And surely no one would argue against the righteousness of that cause.
***
Whether or not Ralph Nader caused George Bush to be elected is an issue I will discuss in a later post. For now, though, I would like to see the immediate cessation of the "Nader is an egomaniac who just wants personal power" theme. It is incorrect, unfair, and extremely damaging to the work he does and the ideas he promotes, which anyone who labels themselves a Democrat should consider extremely carefully. He is not right about everything, but he has worked harder for principles which are fundamental to the Democratic Party -- and for less personal compensation -- than anyone else in the last fifty years.
Any Democrat who would dismiss Nader's service out of pique does a disservice to both their credibility and their ideals.
Edit: I should have pointed out in an aside that the other major goal of Nader 2000 was to hit the Democrats with a stick large enough to make them listen. The only reason I didn't mention this was that I intend to address it later, when I will talk about whether or not Bush is in the White House because of Nader.
Update: Reader Jim E. makes some very good points in the comments section, which need to be addressed (even if he does try to provoke me by repeating the phrase "Thanks, Ralph"). I'll address these and other points tommorrow (possibly Thursday, depending on classes...) in the second part.
Minor Accusations
Thinking about the current situation with North Korea, and trying to figure out how the Bush administration could be so utterly incompetent as to place us in the dangerous position we are in (with N. Korea obtaining both nuclear weapons and missiles capable of hitting the west coast), it occurred to me that we now have a very, very, very good reason to pour lots and lots of money into missile defense.
I don't think I want to formally make the accusation that is now in everyone's mind, because that would mean accusing senior administration members of high treason, but you have to wonder...
Thinking about the current situation with North Korea, and trying to figure out how the Bush administration could be so utterly incompetent as to place us in the dangerous position we are in (with N. Korea obtaining both nuclear weapons and missiles capable of hitting the west coast), it occurred to me that we now have a very, very, very good reason to pour lots and lots of money into missile defense.
I don't think I want to formally make the accusation that is now in everyone's mind, because that would mean accusing senior administration members of high treason, but you have to wonder...
The Great Georgetown-SomewhereinthecontinentalUS Debate
Max has proven himself to be a good sport and has agreed to try to publicly convince me that we should go to war with Iraq.
Due to the fact that he's doing whatever people in Washington DC do (perhaps it involves hookers?), the festivities won't start until next week.
But a good time shall no doubt be had by all.
Max has proven himself to be a good sport and has agreed to try to publicly convince me that we should go to war with Iraq.
Due to the fact that he's doing whatever people in Washington DC do (perhaps it involves hookers?), the festivities won't start until next week.
But a good time shall no doubt be had by all.
Monday, February 24, 2003
Is That Four Horsemen I Hear?
Bill O'Reilly is starting a website. With forums.
On the plus side, maybe this will kill off FreeRepublic.
No, God does not love me that much.
(via Rittenhouse Review)
Bill O'Reilly is starting a website. With forums.
On the plus side, maybe this will kill off FreeRepublic.
No, God does not love me that much.
(via Rittenhouse Review)
The Rules
Rea, left-wing forum lurker extraordinaire, has made the suggestion on one of Matthew Yglesias' comments sections that I should be referred to as "20-13-18-13" due to my opposition to the substitution of numerals for phonetic sounds in song titles (i.e. Avril Lavigne's Sk8er Boi).
In a manly display of administrative authority, I will IP ban with extreme prejudice anyone referring to me as such from my comments section.
Except for Rea, who has said nice things about me in the past.
Update: Never again will I try to be funny online. Good Lord. Three of my friends have asked me why I am so angry at "that Rea person." To clarify, I am not. I was kidding.
Hmmph.
Rea, left-wing forum lurker extraordinaire, has made the suggestion on one of Matthew Yglesias' comments sections that I should be referred to as "20-13-18-13" due to my opposition to the substitution of numerals for phonetic sounds in song titles (i.e. Avril Lavigne's Sk8er Boi).
In a manly display of administrative authority, I will IP ban with extreme prejudice anyone referring to me as such from my comments section.
Except for Rea, who has said nice things about me in the past.
Update: Never again will I try to be funny online. Good Lord. Three of my friends have asked me why I am so angry at "that Rea person." To clarify, I am not. I was kidding.
Hmmph.
Plans For The Week
Confession time. I know that VeryVeryHappy hasn't been worthy of even the trickle of traffic it's been getting over the last few days. My excuse: Seriously, dude, there's shit that just gotta be done. I have a life outside of the internet (and unlike many bloggers, I haven't quite developed the skills necessary to be able to absorb, process, synthesize, and respond to information at the obscenely high rate necessary to produce high-volume, high-quality output and still attend to necessities like eating and attending class).
Anyway, I feel the need to justify my receiving repeat visits (and all the nice things people have said about me: Vaara, Rittenhouse, Ampersand, Sullywatch (whose archives are on the fritz), etc.) by giving you the Official VeryVeryHappy To Do List (for the week of 2/24 - 2/28):
`
1. Rebut a lot of the anti-Nader bullshit that still floats around a lot of the leftie blogs
2. Continue to explain my undying love for Mike Savage
3. Start a Holy War against use of the imbecilic term "idiotarian"
4. Get into a discussion with a warblogger, and give him or her a chance to convince me that they are right (I have a couple in mind; whoever accepts my challenge will be treated fairly. Those that do not will be beaten with Large Rhetorical Sticks)
Keep in mind, I will be punctuating these tasks with posts about various things, some that matter, some that don't. I just wanted to give my regular readers (all four of you) a reason to keep checking in.
Remember, VeryVeryHappy, where the customers count.
Confession time. I know that VeryVeryHappy hasn't been worthy of even the trickle of traffic it's been getting over the last few days. My excuse: Seriously, dude, there's shit that just gotta be done. I have a life outside of the internet (and unlike many bloggers, I haven't quite developed the skills necessary to be able to absorb, process, synthesize, and respond to information at the obscenely high rate necessary to produce high-volume, high-quality output and still attend to necessities like eating and attending class).
Anyway, I feel the need to justify my receiving repeat visits (and all the nice things people have said about me: Vaara, Rittenhouse, Ampersand, Sullywatch (whose archives are on the fritz), etc.) by giving you the Official VeryVeryHappy To Do List (for the week of 2/24 - 2/28):
`
1. Rebut a lot of the anti-Nader bullshit that still floats around a lot of the leftie blogs
2. Continue to explain my undying love for Mike Savage
3. Start a Holy War against use of the imbecilic term "idiotarian"
4. Get into a discussion with a warblogger, and give him or her a chance to convince me that they are right (I have a couple in mind; whoever accepts my challenge will be treated fairly. Those that do not will be beaten with Large Rhetorical Sticks)
Keep in mind, I will be punctuating these tasks with posts about various things, some that matter, some that don't. I just wanted to give my regular readers (all four of you) a reason to keep checking in.
Remember, VeryVeryHappy, where the customers count.
Blogger Problems
The kind folks at Blogger have apparently been playing around with their code and servers. I don't know what the ultimate effect of this will be, but for now, it means that my archives are screwed up beyond all reason. I have done everything suggested on their troubleshooting pages to remedy the problem, but it seems that we'll just have to wait a while for their code monkeys to get their shit together.
Anyway, if this site acts funny, try refreshing the page a few times. If it still acts screwy, send them hate mail.
(I'm kidding. Don't send them hate mail. Pray for them, instead. Maybe sacrifice a small woodland creature.)
Update: Apparently, my comments service is down as well. Good Lord. If you have anything really important to tell me (or even not-so-important), send me an email. The address is at the bottom of the page. Unless, of course, Yahoo is down as well... in which case I'm giving up on computers and all technology, and moving out to a cabin in the woods where I will grow a beard and chop lots of wood.
The kind folks at Blogger have apparently been playing around with their code and servers. I don't know what the ultimate effect of this will be, but for now, it means that my archives are screwed up beyond all reason. I have done everything suggested on their troubleshooting pages to remedy the problem, but it seems that we'll just have to wait a while for their code monkeys to get their shit together.
Anyway, if this site acts funny, try refreshing the page a few times. If it still acts screwy, send them hate mail.
(I'm kidding. Don't send them hate mail. Pray for them, instead. Maybe sacrifice a small woodland creature.)
Update: Apparently, my comments service is down as well. Good Lord. If you have anything really important to tell me (or even not-so-important), send me an email. The address is at the bottom of the page. Unless, of course, Yahoo is down as well... in which case I'm giving up on computers and all technology, and moving out to a cabin in the woods where I will grow a beard and chop lots of wood.
Sunday, February 23, 2003
Vanity
I finally took the ten minutes necessary to change the color scheme of VeryVeryHappy. I kept the overall layout, as this one seems to be fairly popular for the simple reason that it's easy to read. However, I wanted to differentiate it a bit from all the other blogs that use this layout.
I also changed the text color to black, as that gray color gets slightly annoying after reading it for a while. So, the change isn't entirely for vanity reasons.
And that's all that needs to be said about that.
I finally took the ten minutes necessary to change the color scheme of VeryVeryHappy. I kept the overall layout, as this one seems to be fairly popular for the simple reason that it's easy to read. However, I wanted to differentiate it a bit from all the other blogs that use this layout.
I also changed the text color to black, as that gray color gets slightly annoying after reading it for a while. So, the change isn't entirely for vanity reasons.
And that's all that needs to be said about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
