Apologia...
Again, many apologies for not keeping up. Life has a way of disruptng my insanity, and thus, my blogging.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
I Can't Take No More...
If I have to look at any of them again, I am certain to puke.
It begins as soon as one awakens. Turn on the television in the mistaken impression that there's a world out there, in which all sorts of activities are taking place that you should know about, and your mistake is made apparent within ten seconds or so (provided it's not yet another commercial about the expanding prostate which every Baby Boomer male can, apparently, expect); one of THEM shows up on the screen.
THEM is one of the eight, nine, ten, I-don't-know-how-many-I've-lost-count, people who are running for the Office of President of the United States. This is a frightening proposition, particularly if you manage to catch sight of them before your morning coffee. A full 15 seconds of Hillary Clinton might cross your eyes for the rest of the day.
It's getting out of hand. There is nothing that is reported anymore, it seems, that isn't related to this farcical orgy of Look-at-me-ism, or which can be contrived to somehow be construed to be related to it. The 24-hour news cycle ensures that this stuff is talked about, reported, analyzed, debated, expounded, folded, spindled, mutilated, extruded and regurgitated at a rapid and constant pace, and to an inhuman extent. I'm beginning to believe that the news channels wouldn't let you know about a mass murderer on the loose unless the killings took place during a state primary, and then they would trot out some moron to mewl in monotone for 20 minutes on how this might affect voter turnout, and he could postulate about how this might "split the mass-homicide vote". Assuming they didn't get dueling "political consultants" to hurl partisan invective at each other for half an hour.
The political news has fallen victim to the same two horrid, life-sapping phenomena as everything else in America: excess and over-analysis. It's an infinitely more dangerous situation when it's an excess of over-analysis which is the problem, at which point, the Earth may be ready to spin off it's axis and spiral into the sun. Trust me, the networks are so keyed up to do nothing but report everything (because they have all that dead air to fill, and because they don't wish to be accused of not covering something or anybody), that at this moment (Friday, Jan. 18, at 6:11 a.m.) both Fox News and MSNBC have crack reporting teams, ready and raring to go, who will be prepared to report that Mitt Romney farted the very second that it happens. Perhaps they will report the whispered speculation that Romney may have, indeed, possibly farted, but this is not confirmed, until 90 minutes of reporting speculation has gone by before it can be confirmed. Furthermore, they will have a panel of experts conveniently on hand to reassure America that a) Mormons fart just like the rest of us, and b) it smells just as bad as anyone else's. No need to panic, all is normal.
Of course, that fart may cost Romney 3 or 4 points in the polls, but then again, those don't seem to mean anything anymore.
Should such an event occur, the cable networks are prepared with a dizzying array of flashing lights, mind-sickening crawls at the bottom of the screen (which are full of grammatical and spelling errors), flashy graphics, brand-new "swoosh" sound effects, and "Mitt Romney: Gastrointeritis Crisis" music (something sonorous, somber and syncopated), to put right next to the "Breaking News" banner (or would it, in this case, be "Breaking Wind"?).
Is it too much to ask that perhaps, just for a minute, I could hear about something else?
This constant drumbeat of the same nonsense being repetitively recycled makes you want to take a hammer to the TV set --- or perform a do-it-yourself lobotomy with a power drill.
If I have to look at any of them again, I am certain to puke.
It begins as soon as one awakens. Turn on the television in the mistaken impression that there's a world out there, in which all sorts of activities are taking place that you should know about, and your mistake is made apparent within ten seconds or so (provided it's not yet another commercial about the expanding prostate which every Baby Boomer male can, apparently, expect); one of THEM shows up on the screen.
THEM is one of the eight, nine, ten, I-don't-know-how-many-I've-lost-count, people who are running for the Office of President of the United States. This is a frightening proposition, particularly if you manage to catch sight of them before your morning coffee. A full 15 seconds of Hillary Clinton might cross your eyes for the rest of the day.
It's getting out of hand. There is nothing that is reported anymore, it seems, that isn't related to this farcical orgy of Look-at-me-ism, or which can be contrived to somehow be construed to be related to it. The 24-hour news cycle ensures that this stuff is talked about, reported, analyzed, debated, expounded, folded, spindled, mutilated, extruded and regurgitated at a rapid and constant pace, and to an inhuman extent. I'm beginning to believe that the news channels wouldn't let you know about a mass murderer on the loose unless the killings took place during a state primary, and then they would trot out some moron to mewl in monotone for 20 minutes on how this might affect voter turnout, and he could postulate about how this might "split the mass-homicide vote". Assuming they didn't get dueling "political consultants" to hurl partisan invective at each other for half an hour.
The political news has fallen victim to the same two horrid, life-sapping phenomena as everything else in America: excess and over-analysis. It's an infinitely more dangerous situation when it's an excess of over-analysis which is the problem, at which point, the Earth may be ready to spin off it's axis and spiral into the sun. Trust me, the networks are so keyed up to do nothing but report everything (because they have all that dead air to fill, and because they don't wish to be accused of not covering something or anybody), that at this moment (Friday, Jan. 18, at 6:11 a.m.) both Fox News and MSNBC have crack reporting teams, ready and raring to go, who will be prepared to report that Mitt Romney farted the very second that it happens. Perhaps they will report the whispered speculation that Romney may have, indeed, possibly farted, but this is not confirmed, until 90 minutes of reporting speculation has gone by before it can be confirmed. Furthermore, they will have a panel of experts conveniently on hand to reassure America that a) Mormons fart just like the rest of us, and b) it smells just as bad as anyone else's. No need to panic, all is normal.
Of course, that fart may cost Romney 3 or 4 points in the polls, but then again, those don't seem to mean anything anymore.
Should such an event occur, the cable networks are prepared with a dizzying array of flashing lights, mind-sickening crawls at the bottom of the screen (which are full of grammatical and spelling errors), flashy graphics, brand-new "swoosh" sound effects, and "Mitt Romney: Gastrointeritis Crisis" music (something sonorous, somber and syncopated), to put right next to the "Breaking News" banner (or would it, in this case, be "Breaking Wind"?).
Is it too much to ask that perhaps, just for a minute, I could hear about something else?
This constant drumbeat of the same nonsense being repetitively recycled makes you want to take a hammer to the TV set --- or perform a do-it-yourself lobotomy with a power drill.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Fascism by Another Name...
I didn't want to have to write about this, but I was asked about it recently and so I feel compelled.
The source for this little screed is one Mike Huckabee, one of the seven or eight morons presently engaged in making an ass of himself on a national stage for the purposes of becoming the nominee of the republican (small 'r' intentional) Party in the 2008 Presidential election.
Huckabee is something of a marvel these days; a candidate with no money, none of the experience you would think a man should have when he stands to ask the people of this country to make him their leader. He is the former governor of Arkansas, which is sort of like being the Master of Arms of the Loyal Order of Buffaloes of Flintstones fame. If you asked 100 Americans where Arkansas was on a map, 98 might hesitate for a moment and then draw a lazy circle with their finger around New England. Assuming they found the United States on the map in the first place, of course. The other two would indicate that Arkansas was the northernmost province of Mexico, and a make a compelling argument for it. I would hazard to guess that at least 80 of them probably attended college, too.
Anyways, Huckabee is doing something which the 'conventional wisdom' says it impossible (it never ceases to amaze me how often conventional wisdom is wrong, because it's always being proved as such) and he's making a case for himself in the 'all-important' primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he might, just might, knock all the 'establishment' candidates off the battlefield.
As an aside, primaries and caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire should not be considered 'all-important' because they truly prove nothing at all; the myopic views of self-interested ('who will promise me more useless, but lucrative, ethanol subsidies?') farmers in Iowa, and stubborn, hard-headed self-important Yankees (who believe they are the only 'normal' people left in the US) in New Hampshire are not representative of anything. Except for the idiosyncracies of people who live in sparsely-populated states in constipated states of mind which cannot be altered short of dynamite. Yet somehow, we listen to these folks for their prognostications as if the fate of the free world depends upon it. It's sort of like asking the Pope what play your quarterback should run on 4th and 10, down by 3, with 28 seconds left to play, and no time outs.
Anywhoo, Huckabee has performed in such a way as to have people stand up and take notice. Now, this in and of itself is not an issue: we should be willing and able to hear as many ideas and see and listen to as many candidates as possible. When we don't, we wind up with second generation Bushes and Clintons, and that's not good for any of us. No, the issue is not Huckabee the man, it's the way in which Huckabee makes his case and to whom he's making it.
Mike Huckabee makes no secret of his being a Christian and ordained Baptist minister. On his website, the words "Christian Leader" appear, and Huckabee makes reference to the Almighty just about every four minutes or so in his speeches and public appearances. And that's all well and fine; if he's a believer, who am I to begrudge him his beliefs? However, it's also quite apparent that this is all Huckabee has to offer (I'm religious, dammit!) and it explains his recent rise in the polls; he's picking up the religious vote within the republican party that had no place else to go with the current field.
For the faithful of the Repubs will not vote for a Mormon (Mitt Romney) since many Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholics and other Christian denominations consider Mormonism to be a cult, and a deranged one at that. They claim to be open-minded on matters of faith, but they aren't; they're bigoted against Mormonism. Rudy Giuliani makes a mockery of all they hold dear; thrice divorced, cross-dresses as a joke, lived with a homosexual, favored abortion rights. The 'darling' of the Conservative wing (supposedly) was once Fred Thompson (of Law and Order fame), who it appears requires a jump-start with a Die-Hard attached to his testicles just to say anything at all. On TV he's an awesome actor; in real life, he's duller than unbuttered toast. When it comes to non-religious issues, John McCain is a conundrum, like the "new" knife in the kitchen drawer that has had two handles and three blades. He's too unpredictable for their tastes.
And so, Huckabee is the man on the rise because the extreme right is gathering under his banner, and it is the extreme right who votes in these stupid primaries because a) they don't seem to have jobs, and b) when Pastor Bob says 'get to the voting booth and pull the lever for this guy or the Good Lord will take me', they listen to him.
However, Huckabee has a major problem; his religious schtick works just dandy with primary voters, but will get him absolutely nowhere in a general election. And he's pouring it on extremely thick, too. He can't go more than a few minutes without a prayer session, and he can't make himself attractive to the vast majority of voters who care about politics, but who could give a rat's ass about religion. Especially when it comes to extolling the virtues of a brand of Christianity which is infinitely more persnickity, obnoxious, and bigoted than most other strains.
There are some Evangelicals and Baptists in this country who are only a camel and a worn pair of sandals removed from the Taliban.
The interesting thing to watch is this; Huckabee is pandering (obviously) to the religious right now, will he continue to do so if/when he wins the primaries and becomes the candidate, following the old dictum of 'run right in primaries, move center in general elections'?
If he does the first, we will have, in my opinion, make the first crucial step towards fascism in this country (for democrats, the first step towards fascism is a vote for Hillary Clinton), and no, it will not be of the Mussolini/Hitler type; it will wrap itself in the flag and carry the Cross before it, claiming to be the movement which will save the United States from itself with a program of forced morality, a return to good ol' fashoned 'merican values, and a resurgence of belief in God...whether we want it be resurgent or not.
If he does the latter, then all that will have happened is that the republican party will have been forced to run a very weak candidate who could be beaten by just about any democrat in the field (even that complete moron John Edwards could beat Huckabee) by a bunch of bigoted fanatics.
These are the people who send money to Televangelists who claim that God tells them to send cash to a post office box. Now the republican party is going to let them select it's candidates?
I've said this before, and I will say it again; the republican party had best wean itself from this cuckoo in it's nest, even if it means political oblivion for the foreseeable future or there won't BE a republican party anymore.
I didn't want to have to write about this, but I was asked about it recently and so I feel compelled.
The source for this little screed is one Mike Huckabee, one of the seven or eight morons presently engaged in making an ass of himself on a national stage for the purposes of becoming the nominee of the republican (small 'r' intentional) Party in the 2008 Presidential election.
Huckabee is something of a marvel these days; a candidate with no money, none of the experience you would think a man should have when he stands to ask the people of this country to make him their leader. He is the former governor of Arkansas, which is sort of like being the Master of Arms of the Loyal Order of Buffaloes of Flintstones fame. If you asked 100 Americans where Arkansas was on a map, 98 might hesitate for a moment and then draw a lazy circle with their finger around New England. Assuming they found the United States on the map in the first place, of course. The other two would indicate that Arkansas was the northernmost province of Mexico, and a make a compelling argument for it. I would hazard to guess that at least 80 of them probably attended college, too.
Anyways, Huckabee is doing something which the 'conventional wisdom' says it impossible (it never ceases to amaze me how often conventional wisdom is wrong, because it's always being proved as such) and he's making a case for himself in the 'all-important' primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he might, just might, knock all the 'establishment' candidates off the battlefield.
As an aside, primaries and caucuses in Iowa and New Hampshire should not be considered 'all-important' because they truly prove nothing at all; the myopic views of self-interested ('who will promise me more useless, but lucrative, ethanol subsidies?') farmers in Iowa, and stubborn, hard-headed self-important Yankees (who believe they are the only 'normal' people left in the US) in New Hampshire are not representative of anything. Except for the idiosyncracies of people who live in sparsely-populated states in constipated states of mind which cannot be altered short of dynamite. Yet somehow, we listen to these folks for their prognostications as if the fate of the free world depends upon it. It's sort of like asking the Pope what play your quarterback should run on 4th and 10, down by 3, with 28 seconds left to play, and no time outs.
Anywhoo, Huckabee has performed in such a way as to have people stand up and take notice. Now, this in and of itself is not an issue: we should be willing and able to hear as many ideas and see and listen to as many candidates as possible. When we don't, we wind up with second generation Bushes and Clintons, and that's not good for any of us. No, the issue is not Huckabee the man, it's the way in which Huckabee makes his case and to whom he's making it.
Mike Huckabee makes no secret of his being a Christian and ordained Baptist minister. On his website, the words "Christian Leader" appear, and Huckabee makes reference to the Almighty just about every four minutes or so in his speeches and public appearances. And that's all well and fine; if he's a believer, who am I to begrudge him his beliefs? However, it's also quite apparent that this is all Huckabee has to offer (I'm religious, dammit!) and it explains his recent rise in the polls; he's picking up the religious vote within the republican party that had no place else to go with the current field.
For the faithful of the Repubs will not vote for a Mormon (Mitt Romney) since many Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholics and other Christian denominations consider Mormonism to be a cult, and a deranged one at that. They claim to be open-minded on matters of faith, but they aren't; they're bigoted against Mormonism. Rudy Giuliani makes a mockery of all they hold dear; thrice divorced, cross-dresses as a joke, lived with a homosexual, favored abortion rights. The 'darling' of the Conservative wing (supposedly) was once Fred Thompson (of Law and Order fame), who it appears requires a jump-start with a Die-Hard attached to his testicles just to say anything at all. On TV he's an awesome actor; in real life, he's duller than unbuttered toast. When it comes to non-religious issues, John McCain is a conundrum, like the "new" knife in the kitchen drawer that has had two handles and three blades. He's too unpredictable for their tastes.
And so, Huckabee is the man on the rise because the extreme right is gathering under his banner, and it is the extreme right who votes in these stupid primaries because a) they don't seem to have jobs, and b) when Pastor Bob says 'get to the voting booth and pull the lever for this guy or the Good Lord will take me', they listen to him.
However, Huckabee has a major problem; his religious schtick works just dandy with primary voters, but will get him absolutely nowhere in a general election. And he's pouring it on extremely thick, too. He can't go more than a few minutes without a prayer session, and he can't make himself attractive to the vast majority of voters who care about politics, but who could give a rat's ass about religion. Especially when it comes to extolling the virtues of a brand of Christianity which is infinitely more persnickity, obnoxious, and bigoted than most other strains.
There are some Evangelicals and Baptists in this country who are only a camel and a worn pair of sandals removed from the Taliban.
The interesting thing to watch is this; Huckabee is pandering (obviously) to the religious right now, will he continue to do so if/when he wins the primaries and becomes the candidate, following the old dictum of 'run right in primaries, move center in general elections'?
If he does the first, we will have, in my opinion, make the first crucial step towards fascism in this country (for democrats, the first step towards fascism is a vote for Hillary Clinton), and no, it will not be of the Mussolini/Hitler type; it will wrap itself in the flag and carry the Cross before it, claiming to be the movement which will save the United States from itself with a program of forced morality, a return to good ol' fashoned 'merican values, and a resurgence of belief in God...whether we want it be resurgent or not.
If he does the latter, then all that will have happened is that the republican party will have been forced to run a very weak candidate who could be beaten by just about any democrat in the field (even that complete moron John Edwards could beat Huckabee) by a bunch of bigoted fanatics.
These are the people who send money to Televangelists who claim that God tells them to send cash to a post office box. Now the republican party is going to let them select it's candidates?
I've said this before, and I will say it again; the republican party had best wean itself from this cuckoo in it's nest, even if it means political oblivion for the foreseeable future or there won't BE a republican party anymore.
A Very long, and Educational, Hiatus...
Yeah, I know. I ain't been around to bitch at y'all for some time. Well, there's a bunch of reasons for it, some of them little more than lame excuses. But, there's always this...
To begin with, I've been trying (still!) to obtain permanent work in my chosen profession, I have recently come to a clear and terrifying realization: my chosen profession no longer exists. It hasn't for quite some time, despite protests to the contrary.
See, 22 years ago I got into Computer operations. Back in the day, this was a fantastic job; it was interesting, it paid well, opportunities abounded and in terms of the future, the sky was the limit. We were on the cusp of the Information Age, and there I was, at the tender age of 18, in the vanguard. While my contemporaries were attending college studying drama and anthropolgy (which prepared them well for their future careers as waiters, file clerks and hotdog vendors at Yankee Stadium), I was earning a living. A very good one, too, by the standards of 1985.
The technology kept evolving, and becoming infinitely more complex and interconnected, so that the field became increasingly an interior one; there were no schools to teach people how to run mainframe-based data centers (there still ain't for the most part) it was reserved, basically, for those who did it and those who knew about it. Those of us who were there in the beginning simply did what so many others before us had done: we learned by doing, we learned every aspect of the job, we worked long, hard hours, and then we got rewarded. We followed a career path that would have been recognizable to anyone: computer operator, supervisor, manager, and then we branched into one of the specialty fields surrounding operations (communications, programming, technical support, et. al.).
That, of course, was before The Business Model Changed.
The Business Model of that golden age was simply this: you produced a useful/superior product/service, you supported the hell out of it, improved it whenever you could, and then delivered it to your customers for a reasonable price. If you did this, you made money. Lots of it. The New Business Model threw such quaint notions right out the window.
The New Business Model no longer revolves around providing quality for a reasonable price; it revolves around narrowing the consumer's choices and then squeezing every last penny out of him while maximizing 'shareholder value', which is a codeword phrase for 'screwing your employees' while stuffing the executive's pockets . As an example, I toss out the last company I worked for, CitiGroup.
CitiGroup is a conglomerate of 16 (and counting!) financial services companies: CitiBank, Smith-Barney, Primerica, Travelers Insurance, and a few other companies you've probably never heard of, but you get the point. It exists to provide it's customers with every financial service they could ever require all in one place. Need a checking account? No problem, open one at CitiBank. Need a retirement plan? No worries, see our professionals at Smith-Barney. Need a mortgage, call Primerica. You get the idea. Sounds like a wonderful idea; I can get all this STUFF, that I NEED, all IN ONE PLACE!
And then you realize that your Checking acoount no longer pays interest, like it used to. That you get charged $50 just for the privlege of having an account, and God forbid you bounce a check (that's $50 a pop). Smile while you pay $2 to use an ATM at your own bank, let alone some other bank's, because you're a 'valued customer'. Your stockbroker charges you fees for basically granting him the privlege of handling your money. If you make a trade on your stock account, expect to pay half-a-dozen processing fees and a double-digit-percentage commission on top of it. Don't make trades all that often? Be prepared to pay a fee for having an account with money in it, but no activity. Static accounts still require people to keep track of them, auditing and paperwork needs to be filed with the government, not to mention mailing you your statements. Of course, your stockbroker is an agent of the state; he has to report your trading activity and holdings to the Fed'ral Gubmint for tax purposes, and that costs money too, you know. Buy insurance and you very often discover that your responsibility is to simply pay the premiums and the insurance company's to find every way it legally can NOT to pay you when you DARE to invoke your policy. All the while, CitiGroup takes your fees, pools it all to make CitiBank look like a huge cash-cow (which draws even more money to it) and then distributes it all to it's shareholders (the preferred ones, not the peasants with common stock) and executives, and when that isn't enough to sate their greed, it "trims the fat", which means it lays workers off, cuts their benefits, freezes their wages..and then uses the money saved to line the CEO's pocket, bribe a politician to help then make some more money, or to buy another firm to add to the collection. The cycle continues ad nauseum.
In the modern world of business and finance this process is being repeated in every conceivable human endeavor.
Which brings us back to my original proposition; my field no longer exists.
See, one of the problems I 've been having with finding a steady job is simply this: the steady jobs have disappeared. They have been shipped overseas to Third-World countries where people may be just as smart as I am, but they work cheaply and don't require benefits (assuming they know about them!). This is called outsourcing, and the idea behind it is that when you don't have to pay workers high wages and benefits, shareholder value is maximized because you have held onto more profit. So, when you ask around about Operator jobs, you find there are none. When you ask about Technical Analyst jobs, you get much the same answer. When you ask about Management positions, you quickly realize there is nothing to manage. Today's IT manager doesn't manage anything: he simply fills a chair in meetings and generates the proper reports (which no one reads, incidentally).
But WHAT there is a lot of is what's called "Contract-to-Hire" (CTH from now on) positions. Basically, a Contract-to-Hire is the technical equivalent of migratory farmwork. What happens, typically, is that you are told that there is a "Unique CTH opportunity" available; the contract will last a year, pay a fantastic amount of cash, and the employer in question "has a good track record" of hiring it's CTH's to fill later full-time positions (presumably the position that you yourself will be creating with your own work!). So, you sign that "one year contract" (which has a provision in it stating that the employer can declare the contract null-and-void any damned time it pleases), and you show up for work.
On your first day, whoever it is you report to will try to explain what is expected of you. I say "try" because he/she is often very much in the dark about what is expected of THEM, except that "this project must be finished within the alloted time" because "it's very important to the future of this firm"or some other such bullshit. You are basically left to your own devices; the systems you're working on have been programmed by people who left there (or were laid off) 5 years ago, and who are unavailable to you to ask rudimentary, but often necessary questions. Nothing is documented. Your support staff is in Calcutta, Shanghai or Moscow, or worse, aren't even employees (even foreign ones) of the company you now work for, but employees of a third-party vendor hired by your employer to relieve it of the necessity to pay for it's own support staff, and they're probably in Singapore (if you're lucky!). You're already flying blind; you have no practical experience of the specific systems you need to work on, with it's nuances and peculiarities, and there is no one to explain the why's and wherefore's of this particular system or application to you.
Unless you wish to spend five hours a day on the phone with Sanjay, who doesn't have any clear idea, either, but at least he's a pleasant fellow. But I digress.
You are now being harranged on a daily basis to "make progress". The sooner you get this project done, the better your evaluation will be, and this poositive evaluation will "go a long way" to helping management decide wether they wish to keep you as a full-time employee once the project is complete. Of course, you see very few "full-time employees" anywhere in the office, just other CTH's, but that's beside the point. They hold out the hope that you could be one.
After slaving like a three-legged sled dog for a few months, one of three things happens:
a) You complete the project early and competently(God only knows how)...and you have your contract nullified.
or
b) You take "too long", defined as "having the audacity to take the words One Year Contract literally, believing that you do, in fact have a year to work...and you have your contract nullified.
or
c) The bean-counters upstairs, who know nothing about computers and data processing and system's prgramming and all that stuff, but who originally demanded the project you're now working on be made a reality, post-haste, are handed a report which causes them to "consider a rapidly-changing business environment" and they now decide that the idea that they just poured several million dollars into and signed you to a contract to complete and gave you ulcers and migraines for is no longer necessary, and therefore, no longer a justifiable expense...and you have your contract nullified.
And just like the migrant lettuce-picker, it's off to the next field, taking whatever terms you can get, working on a day-to-day basis, utnil the crop is in or the bossman decides he doesn't need you anymore. That is what the world of "High Tech" is like nowadays: real "Grapes of Wrath" stuff...only with a tie. It's time to start looking into another field of endeavor.
Plumbing sounds good. Because this entire experience has taught me that there's a good living to be made in shit.
Yeah, I know. I ain't been around to bitch at y'all for some time. Well, there's a bunch of reasons for it, some of them little more than lame excuses. But, there's always this...
To begin with, I've been trying (still!) to obtain permanent work in my chosen profession, I have recently come to a clear and terrifying realization: my chosen profession no longer exists. It hasn't for quite some time, despite protests to the contrary.
See, 22 years ago I got into Computer operations. Back in the day, this was a fantastic job; it was interesting, it paid well, opportunities abounded and in terms of the future, the sky was the limit. We were on the cusp of the Information Age, and there I was, at the tender age of 18, in the vanguard. While my contemporaries were attending college studying drama and anthropolgy (which prepared them well for their future careers as waiters, file clerks and hotdog vendors at Yankee Stadium), I was earning a living. A very good one, too, by the standards of 1985.
The technology kept evolving, and becoming infinitely more complex and interconnected, so that the field became increasingly an interior one; there were no schools to teach people how to run mainframe-based data centers (there still ain't for the most part) it was reserved, basically, for those who did it and those who knew about it. Those of us who were there in the beginning simply did what so many others before us had done: we learned by doing, we learned every aspect of the job, we worked long, hard hours, and then we got rewarded. We followed a career path that would have been recognizable to anyone: computer operator, supervisor, manager, and then we branched into one of the specialty fields surrounding operations (communications, programming, technical support, et. al.).
That, of course, was before The Business Model Changed.
The Business Model of that golden age was simply this: you produced a useful/superior product/service, you supported the hell out of it, improved it whenever you could, and then delivered it to your customers for a reasonable price. If you did this, you made money. Lots of it. The New Business Model threw such quaint notions right out the window.
The New Business Model no longer revolves around providing quality for a reasonable price; it revolves around narrowing the consumer's choices and then squeezing every last penny out of him while maximizing 'shareholder value', which is a codeword phrase for 'screwing your employees' while stuffing the executive's pockets . As an example, I toss out the last company I worked for, CitiGroup.
CitiGroup is a conglomerate of 16 (and counting!) financial services companies: CitiBank, Smith-Barney, Primerica, Travelers Insurance, and a few other companies you've probably never heard of, but you get the point. It exists to provide it's customers with every financial service they could ever require all in one place. Need a checking account? No problem, open one at CitiBank. Need a retirement plan? No worries, see our professionals at Smith-Barney. Need a mortgage, call Primerica. You get the idea. Sounds like a wonderful idea; I can get all this STUFF, that I NEED, all IN ONE PLACE!
And then you realize that your Checking acoount no longer pays interest, like it used to. That you get charged $50 just for the privlege of having an account, and God forbid you bounce a check (that's $50 a pop). Smile while you pay $2 to use an ATM at your own bank, let alone some other bank's, because you're a 'valued customer'. Your stockbroker charges you fees for basically granting him the privlege of handling your money. If you make a trade on your stock account, expect to pay half-a-dozen processing fees and a double-digit-percentage commission on top of it. Don't make trades all that often? Be prepared to pay a fee for having an account with money in it, but no activity. Static accounts still require people to keep track of them, auditing and paperwork needs to be filed with the government, not to mention mailing you your statements. Of course, your stockbroker is an agent of the state; he has to report your trading activity and holdings to the Fed'ral Gubmint for tax purposes, and that costs money too, you know. Buy insurance and you very often discover that your responsibility is to simply pay the premiums and the insurance company's to find every way it legally can NOT to pay you when you DARE to invoke your policy. All the while, CitiGroup takes your fees, pools it all to make CitiBank look like a huge cash-cow (which draws even more money to it) and then distributes it all to it's shareholders (the preferred ones, not the peasants with common stock) and executives, and when that isn't enough to sate their greed, it "trims the fat", which means it lays workers off, cuts their benefits, freezes their wages..and then uses the money saved to line the CEO's pocket, bribe a politician to help then make some more money, or to buy another firm to add to the collection. The cycle continues ad nauseum.
In the modern world of business and finance this process is being repeated in every conceivable human endeavor.
Which brings us back to my original proposition; my field no longer exists.
See, one of the problems I 've been having with finding a steady job is simply this: the steady jobs have disappeared. They have been shipped overseas to Third-World countries where people may be just as smart as I am, but they work cheaply and don't require benefits (assuming they know about them!). This is called outsourcing, and the idea behind it is that when you don't have to pay workers high wages and benefits, shareholder value is maximized because you have held onto more profit. So, when you ask around about Operator jobs, you find there are none. When you ask about Technical Analyst jobs, you get much the same answer. When you ask about Management positions, you quickly realize there is nothing to manage. Today's IT manager doesn't manage anything: he simply fills a chair in meetings and generates the proper reports (which no one reads, incidentally).
But WHAT there is a lot of is what's called "Contract-to-Hire" (CTH from now on) positions. Basically, a Contract-to-Hire is the technical equivalent of migratory farmwork. What happens, typically, is that you are told that there is a "Unique CTH opportunity" available; the contract will last a year, pay a fantastic amount of cash, and the employer in question "has a good track record" of hiring it's CTH's to fill later full-time positions (presumably the position that you yourself will be creating with your own work!). So, you sign that "one year contract" (which has a provision in it stating that the employer can declare the contract null-and-void any damned time it pleases), and you show up for work.
On your first day, whoever it is you report to will try to explain what is expected of you. I say "try" because he/she is often very much in the dark about what is expected of THEM, except that "this project must be finished within the alloted time" because "it's very important to the future of this firm"or some other such bullshit. You are basically left to your own devices; the systems you're working on have been programmed by people who left there (or were laid off) 5 years ago, and who are unavailable to you to ask rudimentary, but often necessary questions. Nothing is documented. Your support staff is in Calcutta, Shanghai or Moscow, or worse, aren't even employees (even foreign ones) of the company you now work for, but employees of a third-party vendor hired by your employer to relieve it of the necessity to pay for it's own support staff, and they're probably in Singapore (if you're lucky!). You're already flying blind; you have no practical experience of the specific systems you need to work on, with it's nuances and peculiarities, and there is no one to explain the why's and wherefore's of this particular system or application to you.
Unless you wish to spend five hours a day on the phone with Sanjay, who doesn't have any clear idea, either, but at least he's a pleasant fellow. But I digress.
You are now being harranged on a daily basis to "make progress". The sooner you get this project done, the better your evaluation will be, and this poositive evaluation will "go a long way" to helping management decide wether they wish to keep you as a full-time employee once the project is complete. Of course, you see very few "full-time employees" anywhere in the office, just other CTH's, but that's beside the point. They hold out the hope that you could be one.
After slaving like a three-legged sled dog for a few months, one of three things happens:
a) You complete the project early and competently(God only knows how)...and you have your contract nullified.
or
b) You take "too long", defined as "having the audacity to take the words One Year Contract literally, believing that you do, in fact have a year to work...and you have your contract nullified.
or
c) The bean-counters upstairs, who know nothing about computers and data processing and system's prgramming and all that stuff, but who originally demanded the project you're now working on be made a reality, post-haste, are handed a report which causes them to "consider a rapidly-changing business environment" and they now decide that the idea that they just poured several million dollars into and signed you to a contract to complete and gave you ulcers and migraines for is no longer necessary, and therefore, no longer a justifiable expense...and you have your contract nullified.
And just like the migrant lettuce-picker, it's off to the next field, taking whatever terms you can get, working on a day-to-day basis, utnil the crop is in or the bossman decides he doesn't need you anymore. That is what the world of "High Tech" is like nowadays: real "Grapes of Wrath" stuff...only with a tie. It's time to start looking into another field of endeavor.
Plumbing sounds good. Because this entire experience has taught me that there's a good living to be made in shit.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Moneyball...
Campaign Finance Reform was supposed to, I think, end this sort of thing, but it hasn't.
Some dude named Hsu (already a fugitive from justice, no less!) has found himself, through his own actions, in a firestorm of controversy over political donations. This is not the first time Mr. Hsu has run into problems with the legal system; he had been indicted and convicted three years ago in an investment scam that bilked folks out of their savings. Mr. Hsu promptly disappeared, many believing he fled back to his native Hong Kong, to avoid his jail sentence.
Now it turns out that Mr. Hsu, far from 'laying low' while 'on the lam' has instead been writing checks. And he's been writing them to the likes of Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, Gavin Newsome, Barabara Boxer, et. al.
I want to know this; how is it that a convicted felon is able to write checks to a political campaign or party, and no contrivance apparently exists to ensure that those checks are rejected? Secondly, I wish to know how it is that a convicted felon on the run from Federal law enforcement can write checks and no one follows those checks back to their source and thus finds the guy?
Clinton, Obama, etc., have all made great shows of 'giving the money back' --- although I'm not sure who they give it back to. Certainly not Mr. Hsu, and so far as I know, it wasn't even his money to begin with. When they aren't doing that they're making a great show of donating the ill-gotten gains to charity. As if that erases the fact that the money found it's way to them from a criminal in the first place.
For some candidates, like Mrs. Clinton, a little circumspection and perhaps a less-lax attitude towards fundraising and identifying the sources of those funds is in order; her husband has a long history of questionable (and illegal) contributions on his record, and she has had questions raised about her own campaign finances in the past, as well. When you couple this proximity to 'dirty money' to the Clinton Presidential Library's refusal to release thousands of pages of legal documents relating to Mrs Clinton herself, it's almost impossible not to believe that all of this is simply symptomatic of any Clinton's apparent predelection for subterfuge and dishonesty. It certainly makes her less attractive (as if that were possible?) as a candidate for any public office, up to and including dog catcher, anywhere in this country. Let alone as President of the United States.
Campaign Finance Reform was supposed to, I think, end this sort of thing, but it hasn't.
Some dude named Hsu (already a fugitive from justice, no less!) has found himself, through his own actions, in a firestorm of controversy over political donations. This is not the first time Mr. Hsu has run into problems with the legal system; he had been indicted and convicted three years ago in an investment scam that bilked folks out of their savings. Mr. Hsu promptly disappeared, many believing he fled back to his native Hong Kong, to avoid his jail sentence.
Now it turns out that Mr. Hsu, far from 'laying low' while 'on the lam' has instead been writing checks. And he's been writing them to the likes of Hilary Clinton, Barak Obama, Gavin Newsome, Barabara Boxer, et. al.
I want to know this; how is it that a convicted felon is able to write checks to a political campaign or party, and no contrivance apparently exists to ensure that those checks are rejected? Secondly, I wish to know how it is that a convicted felon on the run from Federal law enforcement can write checks and no one follows those checks back to their source and thus finds the guy?
Clinton, Obama, etc., have all made great shows of 'giving the money back' --- although I'm not sure who they give it back to. Certainly not Mr. Hsu, and so far as I know, it wasn't even his money to begin with. When they aren't doing that they're making a great show of donating the ill-gotten gains to charity. As if that erases the fact that the money found it's way to them from a criminal in the first place.
For some candidates, like Mrs. Clinton, a little circumspection and perhaps a less-lax attitude towards fundraising and identifying the sources of those funds is in order; her husband has a long history of questionable (and illegal) contributions on his record, and she has had questions raised about her own campaign finances in the past, as well. When you couple this proximity to 'dirty money' to the Clinton Presidential Library's refusal to release thousands of pages of legal documents relating to Mrs Clinton herself, it's almost impossible not to believe that all of this is simply symptomatic of any Clinton's apparent predelection for subterfuge and dishonesty. It certainly makes her less attractive (as if that were possible?) as a candidate for any public office, up to and including dog catcher, anywhere in this country. Let alone as President of the United States.
Of Restrooms and Politics...
RE: The recent scandal involving one Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and his coulda-been-mighta-been-smells-like-alleged- homosexual antics in a Minneapolis airport men's room:
First; why is it that homosexuals (allegedly) seek sex in bathrooms? Is it because in the process of doing one's business one might be expected to be partially disrobed already? Is there some sort of cheap thrill to be derived from doing the nasty in an unusually nasty place (i.e. a place where scores, if not hundreds, of other men, most with notoriously poor aim and a great many with no sense of decency, make an unsanitary mess upon the floor, fixtures and whatnot)? Is this some sort of sick mental disorder that makes people seek out sex in public place, where the threat of being caught (not to mention catching something other than a quickie) adds to the experience?
Secondly, what does this say about a great number of men who profess themselves to be 'conservative'? In the last year, Ted Haggard (evangelical icon, advocate for all but stoning homosexuals, afficianado of gay escorts), Mark Foley (republican congresscritter, alleged pedophile) and now Craig (famous gay marriage opponent) have all been caught, more or less, doing unto others (or trying to do it)what they all say is sickening, disgusting and immoral. It's quite fair, in light of these incidents, when critics of 'conservatives' point out the glaring hypocrisy. But I think it all says something more about 'conservatives' as a whole.
You see, people like Haggard and Foley and Craig ride the 'conservative' movement to power; taking money, votes, and moral support for mouthing the proper platitudes about our decadent society and declining moral values, all the while indulging in the guilty pleasures of the flesh and denuding the value of character in secret. And after they're caught, they typically spout a stream of nonsense, always invoking the words 'sin', 'forgiveness', 'God', 'repentence' and 'rehab' --- all the while denying their guilt, and simultaneously asking for absolution. "Do as I say, not as I do" aside, it's hardly credible that all these men were victims of an organized campaign to sully their characters and erode at the foundations of their crusades. If that were the case there would be evidence that they were unfairly targeted and the claims could, often I would assume, be easily dismissed.
These situations, in effect, prove something I've said about 'conservatives' for a very long time; they'll buy anything --- so long as you mention God a few times and harangue gays and harken back to a supposed "Golden Age" of American life that was supposedly morally superior to that which reigns now. All the while some, like these three examples, reap the rewards heaped upon them by the gullible; the money, the votes, a measure of fame, and the acquisition of political power. They never achieve even a modicum of what they advocate, and then are typically leading secret lives in public lavatories, but they still always manage to gain support.
As Orwell once wrote (paraphrasing), "the greatest danger to a civilized society is a political movement led by privileged hypocrites preaching the Sermon on the Mount."
When men like Haggard, Foley and Craig are dragged into our consciousness, hoisted upon their own petards by their hypocrisy and stupidity, that axiom becomes clearer to even the sleepiest minds amongst us. Once again, I implore 'conservatives'; drop the religion, or at least temper it with reason, and apply the lessons of Haggard/Foley/Craig when you next select a candidate for office. Neither Craig nor Foley would have had a very long shelf-life in republican politics but for the support of conservatives enraptured by their words and hypocritical facades, not to mention the (dubious) moral support (and the ability to gather resources and votes) of men like Haggard.
If character counts, then make sure character exists. Regardless of whether or not it's couched in Christian dogma and the 'right' (defined in narrow, mentally-constipated concepts) point of view.
RE: The recent scandal involving one Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and his coulda-been-mighta-been-smells-like-alleged- homosexual antics in a Minneapolis airport men's room:
First; why is it that homosexuals (allegedly) seek sex in bathrooms? Is it because in the process of doing one's business one might be expected to be partially disrobed already? Is there some sort of cheap thrill to be derived from doing the nasty in an unusually nasty place (i.e. a place where scores, if not hundreds, of other men, most with notoriously poor aim and a great many with no sense of decency, make an unsanitary mess upon the floor, fixtures and whatnot)? Is this some sort of sick mental disorder that makes people seek out sex in public place, where the threat of being caught (not to mention catching something other than a quickie) adds to the experience?
Secondly, what does this say about a great number of men who profess themselves to be 'conservative'? In the last year, Ted Haggard (evangelical icon, advocate for all but stoning homosexuals, afficianado of gay escorts), Mark Foley (republican congresscritter, alleged pedophile) and now Craig (famous gay marriage opponent) have all been caught, more or less, doing unto others (or trying to do it)what they all say is sickening, disgusting and immoral. It's quite fair, in light of these incidents, when critics of 'conservatives' point out the glaring hypocrisy. But I think it all says something more about 'conservatives' as a whole.
You see, people like Haggard and Foley and Craig ride the 'conservative' movement to power; taking money, votes, and moral support for mouthing the proper platitudes about our decadent society and declining moral values, all the while indulging in the guilty pleasures of the flesh and denuding the value of character in secret. And after they're caught, they typically spout a stream of nonsense, always invoking the words 'sin', 'forgiveness', 'God', 'repentence' and 'rehab' --- all the while denying their guilt, and simultaneously asking for absolution. "Do as I say, not as I do" aside, it's hardly credible that all these men were victims of an organized campaign to sully their characters and erode at the foundations of their crusades. If that were the case there would be evidence that they were unfairly targeted and the claims could, often I would assume, be easily dismissed.
These situations, in effect, prove something I've said about 'conservatives' for a very long time; they'll buy anything --- so long as you mention God a few times and harangue gays and harken back to a supposed "Golden Age" of American life that was supposedly morally superior to that which reigns now. All the while some, like these three examples, reap the rewards heaped upon them by the gullible; the money, the votes, a measure of fame, and the acquisition of political power. They never achieve even a modicum of what they advocate, and then are typically leading secret lives in public lavatories, but they still always manage to gain support.
As Orwell once wrote (paraphrasing), "the greatest danger to a civilized society is a political movement led by privileged hypocrites preaching the Sermon on the Mount."
When men like Haggard, Foley and Craig are dragged into our consciousness, hoisted upon their own petards by their hypocrisy and stupidity, that axiom becomes clearer to even the sleepiest minds amongst us. Once again, I implore 'conservatives'; drop the religion, or at least temper it with reason, and apply the lessons of Haggard/Foley/Craig when you next select a candidate for office. Neither Craig nor Foley would have had a very long shelf-life in republican politics but for the support of conservatives enraptured by their words and hypocritical facades, not to mention the (dubious) moral support (and the ability to gather resources and votes) of men like Haggard.
If character counts, then make sure character exists. Regardless of whether or not it's couched in Christian dogma and the 'right' (defined in narrow, mentally-constipated concepts) point of view.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Stifling of Dissent...
Vis-a-vis my *ahem* FreeRepublic problems, this was posted the very same day that I was banned"
"Jim (Jim Robinson, founder of the FreeRepublic website) recently banned a whole bunch of FRiberals (code word: those who don't completely and unquestioningly tow the 'conservative' line) who had been here for a long time. It seems that there were some longtime posters who were Republicans who joined because they hated the Clintons, but they also showed that they didn’t care for conservatives either."
The parenthetical comments are mine.
Now, if true, this is a fascinating statement. Jim Robinson is now, apparently, psychic. He also has the power to see into men's hearts and divine their motives.
Well, that explains everything, doesn't it? Omnipotent Jim read my brainwaves and figured out that I was a republican dissatisfied with Clintonian control of the government and diametrically opposed to all conservative ideology (I hesitate to call it "thought"). Of course, there was also a bunch of other folks, who incidentally, are still able to harass me by posting (to whom I cannot respond, how convenient?), but since most of the harassment revolves around a) name calling and b) expressions of glee that I have been banned, I wonder if it is actually worth worrying about or not.
Now, let's go back to that statement again.
I am NOT a republican who doesn't care for conservatives. Far from it. I have a great deal of respect for conservatives of the William F. Buckley/Mark Steyn type. They make sense and are at least thoughtful individuals. What I DON'T care for is a certain brand of conservatism that seem to originate in folks who couldn't tie their own shoes with both hands and a government program, for who the word 'conservative' is little more than an accoutrement with which to adorn their tribal affiliation. That affiliation revolves around a seemingly-Calvinist brand of Christianity which was abandoned about 100 years ago, and in which there is a widespread belief in some "Golden Age" of America where the culture was less coarse, less degraded and infinitely more God-friendly. It is an American Utopia in which the familiar forms of Americana -- the yeoman farmer, the small-town factory worker, the Norman Rockwell vision -- was alive and well, and was insidiously destroyed by the combined forces of immorality and political manipulation.
Of course, that such a 'Golden Age' never existed (certainly not in the form these folks envision it) is besides the point. American society has ALWAYS had it's seedier elements, it's criminals, it's dirty little secrets. They just weren't seen all that often, and certainly never DISCUSSED in 'polite company'. It went ignored because to pay it any attention to these issues would be disturbing to all 'decent' people. What these folks really object to is not the coarsening of the culture, per se, but that it's so much more visible and obvious. When it's obvious, you can't ignore it, and that's what these folks are best at: ignoring that which is inconvenient, or inconceivable, to them. So, in the end, what this brand of 'conservative' is can basically be summed up thusly:
a) They live under the impression that the past can be resurrected.
b) They invariably refuse to stare truth in the eye. That which is inconvenient and distressing can be safely ignored.
c) God exists, and is a benevolent force, rather than a superstition used to bludgeon folks into submission.
d) That we can go back to something that didn't exist.
e) That anyone who is not of their ilk (small-town/Midwesterner/Christian/Delusional) cannot possibly understand them, and therefore, must be ignored, and if THAT isn't possible, then they must be villianized before they are able to convert or convince others.
To their credit, I will give them this:
a) They are tenacious.
b) They are completely correct with regards to abortion.
After that, they're akin to Nazis.
THIS is the brand of conservative I object to, because they're whiny busybodies who rail aganist the (liberal) government and it's power to destroy 'decent' society, but who wouldn't lose any sleep if the same government formed a special police force to peek in people's bedroom windows looking for those enegaged in sexual acts proscribed by Scripture.
Vis-a-vis my *ahem* FreeRepublic problems, this was posted the very same day that I was banned"
"Jim (Jim Robinson, founder of the FreeRepublic website) recently banned a whole bunch of FRiberals (code word: those who don't completely and unquestioningly tow the 'conservative' line) who had been here for a long time. It seems that there were some longtime posters who were Republicans who joined because they hated the Clintons, but they also showed that they didn’t care for conservatives either."
The parenthetical comments are mine.
Now, if true, this is a fascinating statement. Jim Robinson is now, apparently, psychic. He also has the power to see into men's hearts and divine their motives.
Well, that explains everything, doesn't it? Omnipotent Jim read my brainwaves and figured out that I was a republican dissatisfied with Clintonian control of the government and diametrically opposed to all conservative ideology (I hesitate to call it "thought"). Of course, there was also a bunch of other folks, who incidentally, are still able to harass me by posting (to whom I cannot respond, how convenient?), but since most of the harassment revolves around a) name calling and b) expressions of glee that I have been banned, I wonder if it is actually worth worrying about or not.
Now, let's go back to that statement again.
I am NOT a republican who doesn't care for conservatives. Far from it. I have a great deal of respect for conservatives of the William F. Buckley/Mark Steyn type. They make sense and are at least thoughtful individuals. What I DON'T care for is a certain brand of conservatism that seem to originate in folks who couldn't tie their own shoes with both hands and a government program, for who the word 'conservative' is little more than an accoutrement with which to adorn their tribal affiliation. That affiliation revolves around a seemingly-Calvinist brand of Christianity which was abandoned about 100 years ago, and in which there is a widespread belief in some "Golden Age" of America where the culture was less coarse, less degraded and infinitely more God-friendly. It is an American Utopia in which the familiar forms of Americana -- the yeoman farmer, the small-town factory worker, the Norman Rockwell vision -- was alive and well, and was insidiously destroyed by the combined forces of immorality and political manipulation.
Of course, that such a 'Golden Age' never existed (certainly not in the form these folks envision it) is besides the point. American society has ALWAYS had it's seedier elements, it's criminals, it's dirty little secrets. They just weren't seen all that often, and certainly never DISCUSSED in 'polite company'. It went ignored because to pay it any attention to these issues would be disturbing to all 'decent' people. What these folks really object to is not the coarsening of the culture, per se, but that it's so much more visible and obvious. When it's obvious, you can't ignore it, and that's what these folks are best at: ignoring that which is inconvenient, or inconceivable, to them. So, in the end, what this brand of 'conservative' is can basically be summed up thusly:
a) They live under the impression that the past can be resurrected.
b) They invariably refuse to stare truth in the eye. That which is inconvenient and distressing can be safely ignored.
c) God exists, and is a benevolent force, rather than a superstition used to bludgeon folks into submission.
d) That we can go back to something that didn't exist.
e) That anyone who is not of their ilk (small-town/Midwesterner/Christian/Delusional) cannot possibly understand them, and therefore, must be ignored, and if THAT isn't possible, then they must be villianized before they are able to convert or convince others.
To their credit, I will give them this:
a) They are tenacious.
b) They are completely correct with regards to abortion.
After that, they're akin to Nazis.
THIS is the brand of conservative I object to, because they're whiny busybodies who rail aganist the (liberal) government and it's power to destroy 'decent' society, but who wouldn't lose any sleep if the same government formed a special police force to peek in people's bedroom windows looking for those enegaged in sexual acts proscribed by Scripture.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Time to Clean House...
Re: The slavish devotion of the GOP to religious whack-jobs -- perhaps it's time to cut the umbilical. Time for a good-old-fashioned cost-to-benefits analysis in terms of what do social conservatives bring to the Republican party as opposed to what they cost it.
On the Pro side:
* Money - social conservatives are willing to spend considerable dough to see their pet-peeves addressed: abortion, Supreme Court nominations, reigning in of permissive society.
*Voting blocs - churches are enormously successful in gathering constituents and directing their votes in a certain direction. Many people in this country simply won't do anything without the permission of Pastor Bob and his assurance that God said "it's alright".
On the Con Side:
* Artificially-skewed primary process - the need to mollify that wing of the party results in a primary system in which their issues enjoy a place of prominence and must be addressed in a way they find acceptable if a candidate is to make any headway. This leads to two phenomena:
a) Candidates who have to take the entire social-conservative agenda seriously, to the point where positions they formerly held might have to be changed (i.e. McCain on immigration, Romney on Abortion and Gay rights, Giuliani on same). This leads to an interesting circumstance; the candidate MUST tow the line, at least publicly on these issues, but then gets hammered by social conservatives who play the "gotcha" game -- you flipped-flopped. Social conservatives LOVE to feel superior to the rest of us, you see, and there's no better way to make them feel superior than to present them with the opportunity to call you a hypocrite. They set the rules, when the rules get followed, they then complain that you didn't really mean it; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy which might deprive us of truly good candidates, but which gives the panty-bunched the opportunity to pat themselves on the back.
b) Once the process described in a) is complete, what's left standing of the original field of candidates is hardly the best and brightest. Having engineered a process which is assured to produce the liar...errr...candidate closest to their positions, they wind up setting up a candidate who will then have an extraordinary test ahead of him in winning a general election. Socially-conservative positions are not popular, as a rule, and therefore, the candidate who advocates them is not as popular as he might be.
Separation of Church and State: the Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion, and while courting the support of social conservatives is not, de facto, recognizing a particular religious belief or system it is, de jure, elevating one religion over others, and has the effect of tainting the political process with religious belief. If you don;t tow the Christian line, you will not get elected.
Political Oblivion: Eventually, when one wing of a party gets too powerful or exercises too much influence over the business of the party, that wing ultimately destroys the party from within. Having once gotten a taste of the power they wield within the GOP (which has jumped to address their concerns with indecent haste) the religious wing of the party continues to hammer away with greater fervor in successive elections, drawing the party ever further right, ever closer to becoming an advocate for religion and shoving it ever further from being representative of the majority of it's members. At some point, the religious right in this country will either transform the GOP into a Taliban-like party (based on Christian principles), or it will make it so unpopular as to preclude the winning of any office ever again.
Short-sighted as most politicians are, however, they will opt to take the money and organized voting blocs and ignore the negatives for as long as they possibly can. Therefore, I hold out no long-term hope for the GOP so long as it is dependant upon the money and primary votes which religious organizations and churches can provide.
A third-party is not a viable alternative; there is no existing third party that can actually make a serious run for national office, and thanks to the "Conservatives" who brought us "Campaign Finance Reform", starting a new one has been made a nearly impossible task. It is time for rank-and-file republicans (Classical Liberals) to take their party back.
Re: The slavish devotion of the GOP to religious whack-jobs -- perhaps it's time to cut the umbilical. Time for a good-old-fashioned cost-to-benefits analysis in terms of what do social conservatives bring to the Republican party as opposed to what they cost it.
On the Pro side:
* Money - social conservatives are willing to spend considerable dough to see their pet-peeves addressed: abortion, Supreme Court nominations, reigning in of permissive society.
*Voting blocs - churches are enormously successful in gathering constituents and directing their votes in a certain direction. Many people in this country simply won't do anything without the permission of Pastor Bob and his assurance that God said "it's alright".
On the Con Side:
* Artificially-skewed primary process - the need to mollify that wing of the party results in a primary system in which their issues enjoy a place of prominence and must be addressed in a way they find acceptable if a candidate is to make any headway. This leads to two phenomena:
a) Candidates who have to take the entire social-conservative agenda seriously, to the point where positions they formerly held might have to be changed (i.e. McCain on immigration, Romney on Abortion and Gay rights, Giuliani on same). This leads to an interesting circumstance; the candidate MUST tow the line, at least publicly on these issues, but then gets hammered by social conservatives who play the "gotcha" game -- you flipped-flopped. Social conservatives LOVE to feel superior to the rest of us, you see, and there's no better way to make them feel superior than to present them with the opportunity to call you a hypocrite. They set the rules, when the rules get followed, they then complain that you didn't really mean it; it's a self-fulfilling prophecy which might deprive us of truly good candidates, but which gives the panty-bunched the opportunity to pat themselves on the back.
b) Once the process described in a) is complete, what's left standing of the original field of candidates is hardly the best and brightest. Having engineered a process which is assured to produce the liar...errr...candidate closest to their positions, they wind up setting up a candidate who will then have an extraordinary test ahead of him in winning a general election. Socially-conservative positions are not popular, as a rule, and therefore, the candidate who advocates them is not as popular as he might be.
Separation of Church and State: the Constitution forbids the establishment of a state religion, and while courting the support of social conservatives is not, de facto, recognizing a particular religious belief or system it is, de jure, elevating one religion over others, and has the effect of tainting the political process with religious belief. If you don;t tow the Christian line, you will not get elected.
Political Oblivion: Eventually, when one wing of a party gets too powerful or exercises too much influence over the business of the party, that wing ultimately destroys the party from within. Having once gotten a taste of the power they wield within the GOP (which has jumped to address their concerns with indecent haste) the religious wing of the party continues to hammer away with greater fervor in successive elections, drawing the party ever further right, ever closer to becoming an advocate for religion and shoving it ever further from being representative of the majority of it's members. At some point, the religious right in this country will either transform the GOP into a Taliban-like party (based on Christian principles), or it will make it so unpopular as to preclude the winning of any office ever again.
Short-sighted as most politicians are, however, they will opt to take the money and organized voting blocs and ignore the negatives for as long as they possibly can. Therefore, I hold out no long-term hope for the GOP so long as it is dependant upon the money and primary votes which religious organizations and churches can provide.
A third-party is not a viable alternative; there is no existing third party that can actually make a serious run for national office, and thanks to the "Conservatives" who brought us "Campaign Finance Reform", starting a new one has been made a nearly impossible task. It is time for rank-and-file republicans (Classical Liberals) to take their party back.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Banned From Free Republic!
Sigh. Go figure. I was just banished from FreeRepublic for having the temerity to ask the following question:
"Why is it that Ronald Reagan who was divorcee, had children who hated him (one of whom is thought by many to be gay, and another with a drug habit who posed for Playboy) deified, and Rudy Giuliani (with much of the same bagage) villified? Why the double standard?"
After arguing (fruitlessly -- some of those folks are out and out incapable of having an argument, it's either their way or the highway) with an idiot, who then reported my lack of orthodoxy to the moderators. I found that when I went to respond to his post, that my posting privleges had been revoked, thusly:
"Posting privleges revoked
Reason: trolling for Rudy"
Naturally, this occured AFTER I had made it clear that I would prefer Newt Gingrich be President of the United States.
The real problem is, of course, is that I called Reagan (and the angelic vision of him) into question, and hoisted the angry poster on his own petard: he never answered the question, and merely recycled a bunch of boilerplate excuses, most of which revolve around small variations of degree, and which never come close to the unvarnished truth; Reagan promised a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, and said he would prayer back in the schools. Rudy hasn't. Naturally, Reagan did neither, but go figure. All that counts, apparently, is that he said the magic words.
They don't care about the position, I guess, they just want to HEAR THE WORDS. It gives them the impression that they are being taken seriously. Because, you know, normally they shouldn't be.
Good to know that "conservatives" (defined as mind-numbed robots who don't have a thought that didn't originate in Scripture -- sort of like the Taliban, only they sorta-kinda believe in the Constitutional republic) still believe in Free Speech and the application of fairness, huh?
Sigh. Go figure. I was just banished from FreeRepublic for having the temerity to ask the following question:
"Why is it that Ronald Reagan who was divorcee, had children who hated him (one of whom is thought by many to be gay, and another with a drug habit who posed for Playboy) deified, and Rudy Giuliani (with much of the same bagage) villified? Why the double standard?"
After arguing (fruitlessly -- some of those folks are out and out incapable of having an argument, it's either their way or the highway) with an idiot, who then reported my lack of orthodoxy to the moderators. I found that when I went to respond to his post, that my posting privleges had been revoked, thusly:
"Posting privleges revoked
Reason: trolling for Rudy"
Naturally, this occured AFTER I had made it clear that I would prefer Newt Gingrich be President of the United States.
The real problem is, of course, is that I called Reagan (and the angelic vision of him) into question, and hoisted the angry poster on his own petard: he never answered the question, and merely recycled a bunch of boilerplate excuses, most of which revolve around small variations of degree, and which never come close to the unvarnished truth; Reagan promised a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, and said he would prayer back in the schools. Rudy hasn't. Naturally, Reagan did neither, but go figure. All that counts, apparently, is that he said the magic words.
They don't care about the position, I guess, they just want to HEAR THE WORDS. It gives them the impression that they are being taken seriously. Because, you know, normally they shouldn't be.
Good to know that "conservatives" (defined as mind-numbed robots who don't have a thought that didn't originate in Scripture -- sort of like the Taliban, only they sorta-kinda believe in the Constitutional republic) still believe in Free Speech and the application of fairness, huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)