He's a Lightworker, Apparently...
The beatification of Barack Obama continues:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL
I remember when the media gushed in this way about the Clintons (he was the most brilliant politician who had ever lived, and she was the smartest woman on Earth), but this is just a bit too much. Barack Obama is the Golden Child, apparently. This article makes him sound like the little bald kid in The Golden Child. If you haven't seen that movie, I'll spell it out for you:
Child with otherworldly powers, who is the last hope for mankind, is pursued by demonic forces who seek his death so that a new age of peace cannot be brought forth. Fortunately, Eddie Murphy (some sort of social worker/private detective) is on hand to protect the waif (who doesn't seem particularly motivated to use his incredible powers in his own defense....or for that matter, at all), and screw the attractive Asian broad. They all live happily ever after.
The author of this article must have been thinking of that, and not Barack Obama, the human being. But then again, he writes for a paper in San Francisco, so go figure.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Longest Day...
Today is the anniversary of the Normandy Invasion. D-Day. The Invasion of Europe. The Liberation of France, which would lead, eventually, to the Liberation of All Europe. Sixty-four years ago this day, half-a-million young men were ready to charge into the heart of the defenses of the Nazi regime and within a year of the landings on French soil, would tear it's heart out.
Thousands of men would be killed and wounded on that day in 1944, many would never have the chance for a fair fight, being mowed down or drown by the boatload before they could reach shore. Some would burn to death in their aircraft, others would be killed as they slowly parachuted to earth by alerted defenders. But enough of them stuck, and they advanced, and they triumphed.
The world owes them a debt of gratitude. Those young men, and their counterparts who fought the Italians, and the Japanese in the Pacific, did the world a favor by sacrificing their blood and lives for the benefit of mankind. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo represented the worst that human nature had to offer, and there was no choice to but to fight them and destroy the systems they promulgated. The world would be a much more digusting place than it is now, had the Nazis won.
Thanks, from me, to all you guys who did it, and lived. You were great. To those who gave their lives --- you were magnificent.
Requiesat In Pacem
Today is the anniversary of the Normandy Invasion. D-Day. The Invasion of Europe. The Liberation of France, which would lead, eventually, to the Liberation of All Europe. Sixty-four years ago this day, half-a-million young men were ready to charge into the heart of the defenses of the Nazi regime and within a year of the landings on French soil, would tear it's heart out.
Thousands of men would be killed and wounded on that day in 1944, many would never have the chance for a fair fight, being mowed down or drown by the boatload before they could reach shore. Some would burn to death in their aircraft, others would be killed as they slowly parachuted to earth by alerted defenders. But enough of them stuck, and they advanced, and they triumphed.
The world owes them a debt of gratitude. Those young men, and their counterparts who fought the Italians, and the Japanese in the Pacific, did the world a favor by sacrificing their blood and lives for the benefit of mankind. Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo represented the worst that human nature had to offer, and there was no choice to but to fight them and destroy the systems they promulgated. The world would be a much more digusting place than it is now, had the Nazis won.
Thanks, from me, to all you guys who did it, and lived. You were great. To those who gave their lives --- you were magnificent.
Requiesat In Pacem
I Don't Get It...
So, Barack Obama managed to run the clock out against the Hildebeest and garner himself the nomination for the Surrender-Now-Bed-Wetting-Communist party...ooops...democratic party (smalll 'd' intentional). Who woulda thunk it? I guess that's alright; the voters have spoken, sorta-kinda, and well, this is their choice, as it were.
On the other side of the street, the Panty-Bunched-Hysterical-Calvinist-party...ooops...republican party (small 'r' intentional), has managed to weed out the most-worst (yeah, not a word but you get the idea) of the anal-retentive empty suits they threw up for election, ejecting John McCain, Genuine 'merican Hero. The voters have spoken, sorta-kinda, and well, this is their choice, as it were.
It's difficult to get excited when the process produced a result that is so incredibly phucked up...
Appropos the deification of Barack Obama, which started a year ago and now is in full-swing (see this: http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/06/06/a_messiah_in_our_midst), I'm still trying to figure this out. The guy has, like, no experience. Whatsoever. Three years as the junior senator from Illinois is not exactly like having a PhD. It's hardly an internship when you consider the job he's now competing for. But, he does have charisma, of a sort. Well, he would have charisma if her weren't such a liar, and behave in such a transparently-expedient fashion, the way he throws former friends, allies and supporters under the bus when it becomes necessary is almost funny.
Yet, the talking head class and the fawning idiots who drool and faint at Obama rallies will all tell you the same thing: it doesn't matter that he has no curriculum vitae. It doesn't matter if the man has ever managed anything, or anyone, or had any sort of responsibility for something, or whether he actually has read Wealth of Nations and that sort of rubbish; what's important about Barack Obama is that he represents a whole slew of qualities that haven't been in our politics in like...forever. Oh, and he's black. Somehow, the country owes him; Michelle Obama said so.
Okay, fair enough. Make the case that Obama has these mystical qualities. What, exactly, are they?
First on the list is the notion that Obama has "good judgement". I find this difficult to believe, given the revelations about what happened in Obama's house of worship and his inertia over it, his relationship with terrorists, and now, convicted criminals. His indiscretion in telling his faithful Little Red Book Club in San Francisco all about them nasty rednecks in Pennsylvania, with their pathetic penchant for superstition and firearms, forgetting that in this day in age everything he says will, in all likelihood, be recorded...somewhere. Someone will tape it, photograph it, blog it. He should have known better. "Good Judgement", upon further investigation, has nothing to do with actually engaging in an exercise of weighing pro's and con's, evaluating scientific facts, gatherinig multiple sources of reliable information and running them through an organized and logical thought process. No, Obama has "good judgement" simply because he opposed the war. A war we happen to be winning (although I must admit, I wonder for how much longer). Ask an Obama supporter to give a single example of Obama exercising "good judgement" that doesn't have anything to do with the decision to go to war in 2003 -- and not surprisingly -- no one can give you one.
I know, because I've tried. I've asked at least a dozen people --- and a quarter of them had access to Google. Not one could answer me.
Next on the list is that Obama answers this primal call for "change". The exact sort of "change" that people supposedly want isn't ever articulated; it's enough that people "feel" that something needs changing. I've heard this repeated over, and over, and over again by the punditocracy. None seems to question anything, except in any general terms (and then they supply the answers to their own questions -- the good thing about Obama, if you're a pundit, is that he's tabula rasa and you can attribute anything you'd like to him). Just what does "change" mean? What "change" is needed? How is this "change" is to be brought about?
I've seen this dog-and-pony show before...like when Bill Clinton pointed that thumb at the TV cameras, put on his best sympathetic mug, and spoke with that voice, so-full-of-emotion-that-you-thought-he-might-cry and uttered the magic words: "...this election is about one thing; change...". That was in 1992. The change we now apparently need was that change we've already had --- and which Hilary Clinton apparenlty couldn't recreate? Barack Obama has done the impossible; he has out-Clintoned Bill Clinton. I would congratulate Obama on his achievement, but I've just remembered that Bill Clinton made an entire career out of being full of shit. And is still at it. We've seen this routine before and we know how it ends.
Okay, so what else has Obama got going for him? Well, there's always that crud about bridging the racial divide. I'd go into it, but by now the sight of Jeremiah Wright damning America from the pulpit, and Obama's attempts to convince you "that's not what I believe" and "that's not the man I knew 20 years ago", "I wasn't there for that sermon", "I had no idea such things were being said..." notwithstanding, it's simply disgusting that Barack Obama is so obviously willing to excuse black racism, and to use it to his own advantage when it suits him. (He would never have achieved prominence in, nor survived the rough and tumble of Chicago politics without the street cred Rev. Wright gave him, and the base which the congregation represented). I find it even more disgusting that he could be so disingenous when it catches up to him. And let's not forget Michelle Obama's pitiful playing of the victimization card:"...for the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country..." Boo-frickin'-hoo! One hundred-fifty years ago, Mrs. Obama, you wouldn't have been able to attend Princeton, nor your husband permitted to write, let alone write for Harvard Law Review. You might have been let inside, after hours --- to scrub the floor, or work in the kitchens --- but never to study or teach. It seems ot me that America has been pretty good to the both of you, and neither of you knows what real racism is. You certainly would not have been able to run for the Presidency of the United States if this country were as bad as you portray.
Obama bridging a racial divide? Gimme a break!
Now, let's be fair. Obama may be an empty suit, but I don't want to pick just on him. In the interests of fairness, we have to look at John McCain, and be just as critical. Again, ask the questions, and see what sort of answers you get. It's enlightening --- and frightening at the same time.
So, why is John McCain worthy of being President, then?
Well, to begin with, folks will tell you that he's a genuine war hero, and that's just what we need with the country at war. Okay, fair enough. makes some kinda sense, I guess. But then, I started thinking about John McCain's wartime experience.
Without belittling the torment and suffering the Senator endured, his wartime experience boils down simply to this: he was shot down (twice, I believe), and had another aircraft blown up beneath him while still on the deck. He was captured by the North Vietnamese, and held prisoner for five-plus years. We know the narrative, and this experience is supposed to make John McCain the perfect person to run the military and the War on Terror.
Personally, the way I look at it -- we lost in Vietnam. That means John McCain's experience in war is that of a tortured and tormented POW who was on the losing side. What's fairly sad is that at a time when the country is at war, the political class is fairly drenched with men (much like John Kerry) who's great experience of war is defeat. John McCain might very well be an excellent Commander-in-Chief; he might also be a man who has too much to prove (especially to himself) who feels he might have to atone for the failure of his generation to win before the public will for war waned. A similar circumstance surrounds the present war: can the United States keep it going long enough for the Iraqis to secure and run their own country before American will and forebearance runs out?
Okay, so what else has McCain got? Well, he represents a whole slew of them "Conservative principles" -- which is two piles of horsehit for the price of one. Conservatism is dead; it died after a prolonged illness, during which G.W. Bush and a republican-controlled Congress could not enact entitlement reform, could not control federal spending, signed the greatest assault on free-speech in American history into law, used taxpayer money to bail out an industry (the airlines) which is now about to disappear entirely, launched a war which was fought with an (initally) inadquate force and timid tactics, which caused the loss of a great many American lives for no practical gain, outsourced another war in which the greatest enemy of this nation (Usama bin Laden) was allowed to escape, they refuse to enforce immigration law because small-businesses and the hotel and restaurant industries claim they can't survive without illegal labor, and when the greatest natural disaster in American history happened (Hurrican Katrina) right before our eyes -- live, in color, and 24-hours a day -- suddenly discovered they couldn't write a check to help rebuild New Orleans and succor American citizens (it was a budget-buster, you know) --- but they could find the money to build a bridge to a nearly-uninhabited Alaskan island Still, they did manage to appoint two 'conservative' judges to the Supreme Court, and pass a resolution in the middle of the night to keep a vegetable from having her feeding tube removed. They managed to mollify the Right-to-Lifers, and that, basically, is all a 'Conservative' has to do...even when he's being hounded from office for being a closet pedophile or soliciting gay sex in an airport men's room.
Yeah, gimme more of them Conservative principles....
But, they'll tell you, McCain has Obama beat in the "experience department". Sure he does, he's 72 years old, and has spent a third of his life in the Senate. But then again, membership in the United States Senate is sort of like belonging to the Boating Club in college: it isn't really a qualification for anything, but it does put one in touch with the "right sort of people". And after 20 years, McCain probably knows where the bodies are buried, after all, Sentaors love nothing more than to hold hearings and launch investigations, and there should be very few rocks McCain hasn't looked under. But does that translate into the actual accumen to rule? John Kerry thought so, and just as much as his lack of a personality, his two deacdes in the Senate equated to nothing more than three laws with his name on them. Senators aren't expect to do much, you see. It's why so few of them ever become President.
I feel bad for the people of this nation. This is what we've been reduced to. We started this process with something like 20 folks, all revved up and full of piss-and-vinegar, and possessed of the biggest egos one is ever likely to see. This is the result of a year of nonsense: John McCain versus Barack Obama. It's depressing, until one remembers the also-rans: John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter. We won't count the Mike Gravels, Ron Pauls and Rudy Giulianis, since none of them had a realistic chance, but you get the point; you may be depressed at the end result, but considering the material we had to work with...
So, Barack Obama managed to run the clock out against the Hildebeest and garner himself the nomination for the Surrender-Now-Bed-Wetting-Communist party...ooops...democratic party (smalll 'd' intentional). Who woulda thunk it? I guess that's alright; the voters have spoken, sorta-kinda, and well, this is their choice, as it were.
On the other side of the street, the Panty-Bunched-Hysterical-Calvinist-party...ooops...republican party (small 'r' intentional), has managed to weed out the most-worst (yeah, not a word but you get the idea) of the anal-retentive empty suits they threw up for election, ejecting John McCain, Genuine 'merican Hero. The voters have spoken, sorta-kinda, and well, this is their choice, as it were.
It's difficult to get excited when the process produced a result that is so incredibly phucked up...
Appropos the deification of Barack Obama, which started a year ago and now is in full-swing (see this: http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/06/06/a_messiah_in_our_midst), I'm still trying to figure this out. The guy has, like, no experience. Whatsoever. Three years as the junior senator from Illinois is not exactly like having a PhD. It's hardly an internship when you consider the job he's now competing for. But, he does have charisma, of a sort. Well, he would have charisma if her weren't such a liar, and behave in such a transparently-expedient fashion, the way he throws former friends, allies and supporters under the bus when it becomes necessary is almost funny.
Yet, the talking head class and the fawning idiots who drool and faint at Obama rallies will all tell you the same thing: it doesn't matter that he has no curriculum vitae. It doesn't matter if the man has ever managed anything, or anyone, or had any sort of responsibility for something, or whether he actually has read Wealth of Nations and that sort of rubbish; what's important about Barack Obama is that he represents a whole slew of qualities that haven't been in our politics in like...forever. Oh, and he's black. Somehow, the country owes him; Michelle Obama said so.
Okay, fair enough. Make the case that Obama has these mystical qualities. What, exactly, are they?
First on the list is the notion that Obama has "good judgement". I find this difficult to believe, given the revelations about what happened in Obama's house of worship and his inertia over it, his relationship with terrorists, and now, convicted criminals. His indiscretion in telling his faithful Little Red Book Club in San Francisco all about them nasty rednecks in Pennsylvania, with their pathetic penchant for superstition and firearms, forgetting that in this day in age everything he says will, in all likelihood, be recorded...somewhere. Someone will tape it, photograph it, blog it. He should have known better. "Good Judgement", upon further investigation, has nothing to do with actually engaging in an exercise of weighing pro's and con's, evaluating scientific facts, gatherinig multiple sources of reliable information and running them through an organized and logical thought process. No, Obama has "good judgement" simply because he opposed the war. A war we happen to be winning (although I must admit, I wonder for how much longer). Ask an Obama supporter to give a single example of Obama exercising "good judgement" that doesn't have anything to do with the decision to go to war in 2003 -- and not surprisingly -- no one can give you one.
I know, because I've tried. I've asked at least a dozen people --- and a quarter of them had access to Google. Not one could answer me.
Next on the list is that Obama answers this primal call for "change". The exact sort of "change" that people supposedly want isn't ever articulated; it's enough that people "feel" that something needs changing. I've heard this repeated over, and over, and over again by the punditocracy. None seems to question anything, except in any general terms (and then they supply the answers to their own questions -- the good thing about Obama, if you're a pundit, is that he's tabula rasa and you can attribute anything you'd like to him). Just what does "change" mean? What "change" is needed? How is this "change" is to be brought about?
I've seen this dog-and-pony show before...like when Bill Clinton pointed that thumb at the TV cameras, put on his best sympathetic mug, and spoke with that voice, so-full-of-emotion-that-you-thought-he-might-cry and uttered the magic words: "...this election is about one thing; change...". That was in 1992. The change we now apparently need was that change we've already had --- and which Hilary Clinton apparenlty couldn't recreate? Barack Obama has done the impossible; he has out-Clintoned Bill Clinton. I would congratulate Obama on his achievement, but I've just remembered that Bill Clinton made an entire career out of being full of shit. And is still at it. We've seen this routine before and we know how it ends.
Okay, so what else has Obama got going for him? Well, there's always that crud about bridging the racial divide. I'd go into it, but by now the sight of Jeremiah Wright damning America from the pulpit, and Obama's attempts to convince you "that's not what I believe" and "that's not the man I knew 20 years ago", "I wasn't there for that sermon", "I had no idea such things were being said..." notwithstanding, it's simply disgusting that Barack Obama is so obviously willing to excuse black racism, and to use it to his own advantage when it suits him. (He would never have achieved prominence in, nor survived the rough and tumble of Chicago politics without the street cred Rev. Wright gave him, and the base which the congregation represented). I find it even more disgusting that he could be so disingenous when it catches up to him. And let's not forget Michelle Obama's pitiful playing of the victimization card:"...for the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country..." Boo-frickin'-hoo! One hundred-fifty years ago, Mrs. Obama, you wouldn't have been able to attend Princeton, nor your husband permitted to write, let alone write for Harvard Law Review. You might have been let inside, after hours --- to scrub the floor, or work in the kitchens --- but never to study or teach. It seems ot me that America has been pretty good to the both of you, and neither of you knows what real racism is. You certainly would not have been able to run for the Presidency of the United States if this country were as bad as you portray.
Obama bridging a racial divide? Gimme a break!
Now, let's be fair. Obama may be an empty suit, but I don't want to pick just on him. In the interests of fairness, we have to look at John McCain, and be just as critical. Again, ask the questions, and see what sort of answers you get. It's enlightening --- and frightening at the same time.
So, why is John McCain worthy of being President, then?
Well, to begin with, folks will tell you that he's a genuine war hero, and that's just what we need with the country at war. Okay, fair enough. makes some kinda sense, I guess. But then, I started thinking about John McCain's wartime experience.
Without belittling the torment and suffering the Senator endured, his wartime experience boils down simply to this: he was shot down (twice, I believe), and had another aircraft blown up beneath him while still on the deck. He was captured by the North Vietnamese, and held prisoner for five-plus years. We know the narrative, and this experience is supposed to make John McCain the perfect person to run the military and the War on Terror.
Personally, the way I look at it -- we lost in Vietnam. That means John McCain's experience in war is that of a tortured and tormented POW who was on the losing side. What's fairly sad is that at a time when the country is at war, the political class is fairly drenched with men (much like John Kerry) who's great experience of war is defeat. John McCain might very well be an excellent Commander-in-Chief; he might also be a man who has too much to prove (especially to himself) who feels he might have to atone for the failure of his generation to win before the public will for war waned. A similar circumstance surrounds the present war: can the United States keep it going long enough for the Iraqis to secure and run their own country before American will and forebearance runs out?
Okay, so what else has McCain got? Well, he represents a whole slew of them "Conservative principles" -- which is two piles of horsehit for the price of one. Conservatism is dead; it died after a prolonged illness, during which G.W. Bush and a republican-controlled Congress could not enact entitlement reform, could not control federal spending, signed the greatest assault on free-speech in American history into law, used taxpayer money to bail out an industry (the airlines) which is now about to disappear entirely, launched a war which was fought with an (initally) inadquate force and timid tactics, which caused the loss of a great many American lives for no practical gain, outsourced another war in which the greatest enemy of this nation (Usama bin Laden) was allowed to escape, they refuse to enforce immigration law because small-businesses and the hotel and restaurant industries claim they can't survive without illegal labor, and when the greatest natural disaster in American history happened (Hurrican Katrina) right before our eyes -- live, in color, and 24-hours a day -- suddenly discovered they couldn't write a check to help rebuild New Orleans and succor American citizens (it was a budget-buster, you know) --- but they could find the money to build a bridge to a nearly-uninhabited Alaskan island Still, they did manage to appoint two 'conservative' judges to the Supreme Court, and pass a resolution in the middle of the night to keep a vegetable from having her feeding tube removed. They managed to mollify the Right-to-Lifers, and that, basically, is all a 'Conservative' has to do...even when he's being hounded from office for being a closet pedophile or soliciting gay sex in an airport men's room.
Yeah, gimme more of them Conservative principles....
But, they'll tell you, McCain has Obama beat in the "experience department". Sure he does, he's 72 years old, and has spent a third of his life in the Senate. But then again, membership in the United States Senate is sort of like belonging to the Boating Club in college: it isn't really a qualification for anything, but it does put one in touch with the "right sort of people". And after 20 years, McCain probably knows where the bodies are buried, after all, Sentaors love nothing more than to hold hearings and launch investigations, and there should be very few rocks McCain hasn't looked under. But does that translate into the actual accumen to rule? John Kerry thought so, and just as much as his lack of a personality, his two deacdes in the Senate equated to nothing more than three laws with his name on them. Senators aren't expect to do much, you see. It's why so few of them ever become President.
I feel bad for the people of this nation. This is what we've been reduced to. We started this process with something like 20 folks, all revved up and full of piss-and-vinegar, and possessed of the biggest egos one is ever likely to see. This is the result of a year of nonsense: John McCain versus Barack Obama. It's depressing, until one remembers the also-rans: John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter. We won't count the Mike Gravels, Ron Pauls and Rudy Giulianis, since none of them had a realistic chance, but you get the point; you may be depressed at the end result, but considering the material we had to work with...
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)