jump to navigation

The Calliope Crashed To The Ground 03/24/2009

Posted by Nick in culture, music, politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Let’s play a word association game. If I said the word calliope, what would you think of? When someone mentioned it at lunch today, the first words to pop in to my mind were lyrics from the Springsteen classic “Blinded by the Light.” While this song may seem like a lot of rhyming nonsensical words strung together, I think it actually has a relevant meaning for America today. In his first single release, Bruce reminisces about his younger days saying “With a boulder on my shoulder feelin’ kinda older I tripped the merry-go-round / With this very unpleasing sneezing and wheezing the calliope crashed to the ground”. The Springsteen song is about a cocky young man lured in by the carnival glitz and glamor of the music business. But his calliope, a Greek muse or an organ-like musical instrument powered by steam whistles, gets tripped up by the young man’s naivete about the way the world works. Likewise if America continues to buy into its own arrogant invincibility, our regenerative muse will desert us as well.
In a sense, Americans today are being “blinded by the light” of our own myth. We hear a lot of negative news about the economy, foreign affairs, and political scandals and yet we hear just as much about how the American spirit will carry us through these hardships and we will emerge even stronger. Now, I acknowledge that an optimistic and determined outlook is one of the best things for Americans to have in troubled times, but it’s not going to be our sole means of recovery. Probably following their government’s lead, average Americans, though concerned about the world, have made little changes in their lifestyles proportionate to the constant warnings about the severity of our state of affairs. Compared to description of life in this country during other tough times, we are living it up like there’s no tomorrow. During the Depression or World War II, our land was not a land of plenty. It was a place where people willingly sacrificed instead of running up credit. Back then Americans cut back on luxuries and saved money, not because they wanted to or because they liked deprivation, but because they had a common sense understanding that sacrifice was the best economic remedy. Because it was a matter of survival. To someone who lived during the 1930s and 40s, today’s America must resemble a land of hedonism; a place where wars are fought but few feel the consequences, and where money is easily borrowed and spent with little thought to how it will be repaid.
Not only does too much impudent pleasure-seeking threaten our survival, it is an invitation of blissful ignorance. Weary of all the bad news, we choose to ignore it with petty distractions. We decline to ask questions or raise meaningful protests of the decision makers in America, preferring our own bubbles of security to unpleasant thoughts of what not to buy and what companies to let fail. So we leave it to the politicians, most of which have no more training in economics than the average citizen and a lot less common sense. And when we find out that the law that we didn’t read and didn’t debate allowed more egregious abuses of taxpayer money, we feign outrage for awhile and then go out to eat, buy clothes at the mall, and watch $100 dollar/month cable TV. All the while, more things slip by our willful ignorance. The Congress wants to pass legislation that will destroy the meaning of a contract ( what? hand me that menu). The President wants to regulate the executive bonuses, not only of banks receiving bail out money, but all financial institutions and publicly traded companies (did you get those jeans on sale?). The federal deficit for this year is projected  to exceed 13% of our overall economy and force us to borrow 9.3 trillion dollars in the next ten years (wait, what’s going on in California? no, not taxes. why aren’t there any good movies out?). Where will this come from if China does not want to loan us any more money? (change the channel, this show sucks).

Instead of hedonism, we must return to the stoicism of our grandparents’ generations if we want any semblance of the America of the last fifty years to survive for our children. The knowledge-draining bliss from Ipods and flatscreen TVs can only last so long, before we find ourselves in real trouble. Do we really need these things to be happy for another two weeks or two minutes? The ancient Roman stoics would say that only “virtue is sufficient for happiness.” Of course, Rome eventually fell under its own decadence too, so maybe the coming collapse is just an inevitable part of the human experience. I guess it’s like the song says “Mama always told me not to look into the sights of the sun. Oh but mama that’s where the fun is.”


Political Limbo 03/17/2009

Posted by Nick in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
2 comments

How low can we go? The topic of Dick Cheyney’s recent comments to CNN came up at lunch today. I can’t defend Cheyney too much when he accuses another administration of expanding the power of executive branch, but I would like to question the response of the Obama Administration. It has been quite some time since I’ve heard the buzz words, hope and change, from the administration. Now, instead of brushing off idle criticism from talking heads and staying positive, we have Press Secretary Robert Gibbs exchanging jabs with Cheyney and Limbaugh and taking up valuable press time. For a campaign that was so practiced at staying “on message” in the face of criticism and promising bi-partisanship, it seems like the old addage is true – the more things “change”, the more they stay the same.

In times of economic turmoil, more AIG bailout money bonuses, escalating war in Afghanistan and cuts in medical funding for Veterans, couldn’t the press secretary address more urgent matters than playing into a failed, old man’s attempt to stay in the media spotlight? Our former president suffered under innumerable, daily attacks from every politician (including Obama) and journalist on the left and rarely allowed his press secretary to stoop to the sarcastic tone shown by Gibbs today. The current President and his staff do have the right to defend themselves, but they should at least do so by citing facts and not invoking Rush Limbaugh and the “Republican cabal.” I expect this kind of language from Chris Matthews but not from someone representing the highest office in the land.

Perhaps the reason Cheyney still produces such a visceral response from Gibbs and the Obama administration is that there is a kernel of truth in the ex-Sith Lord’s criticism. Despite the change in Gitmo’s status, the unnecessary expansion of executive power that occurred under Bush has continued under Obama, specifically in areas of secrecy and eavesdropping. He also appears to be expanding government power again in the arena of health care. Just because the man at the head of the Executive branch has changed, we should not expect a change in the level of media criticism directed towards it. So let’s leave the bodies of the Bush administration sleep where they lie and leave the Limbaugh attacks to MSNBC. And if the Obama Administration really wants to differentiate themselves from Bush and Cheyney, the next time a member of the media actually breaks rank and does their job by asking a tough question they should act professionally and provide a substantive response.

Stick to the Veto, Will Ya? 03/12/2009

Posted by Nick in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

In his first 50 days, President Obama has made many uses of the presidential practice of executive orders. While his pronouncements represent a marked change from the Bush administration and fulfill some of Obama’s campaign promises, citizens beware! Whether you like what he’s done or not, Obama, like many presidents before him, is walking a thin constitutional line. There is no explicit power given to the executive in the Constitution that allows him to make his own decrees. Similarly, our new President has also continued the practice of using signing statements to modify the meaning of bills that he signs into law. Keep in mind that Democrats heavily criticized Bush’s use of the signing statement when a bill did not fit into his ideology. Again, whether Republican or Democrat, the president is not given these powers anywhere in the Constitution. In fact, I think the framers might consider the modern obsession with executive orders and signing statements tantamount to the royal decrees made by King George III that sparked our first suspicions of tyranny in America so long ago.

Here’s what the president can do. He can direct the officers of his executive branches and clarify their roles under his administration. Cast in this light, President Obama has the right to close down Guatanamo Bay by executive order because one could argue that the Attorney General under Obama should give closer review to the enemy combatant cases coming to trial. It could also be argued that control of the military and it’s prisons are within the bounds of the President’s constitutional powers. But when Obama begins venturing into realms of specific allocations of federal money, the constitutionality of it all gets a little blurry. How can the president decide if federal funds should or should not go to embryonic stem cell research? Or decide if tax payer money should or should not be denied to doctors who refuse to carry out abortions on moral grounds? The Constitution clearly states that Congress alone has the power of the purse.

Like executive orders, signing statements carry no legal force. They simply serve as a way for a president define how he will or will not implement provisions of a law. For example, President Obama has decided that he will pass the $410 billion omnibus spending bill, but with the signing statement provision that he will now put in place new rules to control earmarks. Maybe the President views earmark spending as unconstitutional, or maybe this move is as politically motivated as any of Bush’s 152 signing statements. It seems like the current executive is engaged in political doublethink, acting as though he is sticking to his campaign promise of earmark reform while at the same time signing into law 8,500 new pet projects costing an extra $7.7 billion of spending during a time when Americans are supposed to be tightening their belts.

The president is charged to uphold the Constitution and faithful execution of the law, but these recent executive orders and the signing statement have more to do with pleasing political constituents than anything else. Even if the President had Constitutional doubts on this latest bill, how is he able to modify his enforcement of laws and challenge some on the basis of their constitutionality? Don’t we have separation of powers and a Supreme Court with the power of judicial review serving the same purpose?  Otherwise, it could be possible that the president could make his own laws, purposefully misconstrue congressional intent on others or simply refuse to enforce those he found unsuitable. In other words, he would become a de facto King. One would think that the founding fathers would have anticipated this problem and planned for it. Oh, that’s right, they did. It’s called the veto. Is the legislative process so terrible that we can’t send the occasional law back for revisions every now and then. Instead of taking the easy way out and making all kinds of exceptions, President Obama should just use his veto power if he doesn’t like a bill on his desk. And if the President wants to make new laws about earmark spending, stem cell research, organization of labor unions, endangered species, or whatever else is on his political checklist, then maybe he should  just go back to the modest life of a single term junior senator from Illinois.

What Government do you Want? 03/11/2009

Posted by shiketyshaq in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , ,
2 comments

Today there was another use of executive power. But this time the guy doing it is our guy, so I guess it is all right. The idea the president is making legal decisions and shifting money is counter to the intended purpose of the position. The President said that this time it is not about ideology, but all politics is, and if it is not, then what is it, factual? I think few Americans ever choose the kind of government they want. So for this blog I want to discuss and hear your opinions on the Government you think would be best for you. The first question: Why do people need government?
We need government so that people will not oppress others who are weaker. Government is the great equivocator. It is in itself only there to serve and balance what nature has created unbalanced. The idea that nature is a promoter of the strong versus the weak and not a symbiotic organism may challenge some old notions that natural is the best. But the fact that prior governments have made the strong the strong and the weak the weak, and newer governments, or at least ours, have been created to right some of those wrongs, may shift some of the blame off nature. Government is there to protect the rights of the citizens. By its very nature, it is a military and judicial force. I think the government that promotes the equal distribution of natural resources and promotes a work ethic by creating competition for non-natural resources is the one I want. The natural resources or the ones protected by the government will set the ground level for traditional discriminated groups while the non-natural will allow a stratum of accepted luxury and lifestyles to develop and flourish. It is in the first where the militant leg of the government must act and the second where they must be cognizant, only making the necessary laws to not infringe upon the free will of the people. Government must be a relationship we enter with awareness. The natural resources must be determined by each nation, but must be enough to support the citizens of the nation or so valuable so to trade with other nations to get supportable allotments. The non-natural commodities must be determined by the people so to keep them valuable to require the people will work to get them, though never by force.
The second question: When can government get oppressive? When they allow for the natural resources to be distributed unequally or the values shared by your government do not motivate the citizens to work hard for their acquisition. Governments must change over time because the resources and desires of the people change. Then the Government must be abolished and replaced with a workable and modern government. Science and technology will accelerate the changes of governments, as well as diversity. Government above all must be mutable and willing to be abolished.
What is most important is that the people must be aware of the government they want and never fall in love with the government they have. They must always be suspicious and alter it to the collective needs and well as its natural characteristics. Most important, we must be aware when one man can make changes based on ideology, regardless of how close it is to ours.