tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12274812608839046032024-03-19T16:43:11.753-05:00Random Detritus and Banal Minutiae Reduxjonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-17748890041853629752008-10-30T19:35:00.000-05:002008-10-31T00:35:06.816-05:00insanity<p>i normally don't bother with engaging what i see as insanity.  but, as i am reminded again and again, it is my responsibility to confront foolishness and untruth wherever i meet it--and also i'm waiting for my fantasy football waivers to process.  erin posted a link to a blog entry that has spurred me to add my voice (such as it is) to those already defending the truth.</p> <p>so, obama and socialism.  ARE. YOU. FUCKING. KIDDING. ME?  are you?  really, are you?  typically, i can find the patience and maturity not to yell at people that don't agree with me.  but, i've finally lost my shit.  i don't even know where to begin the debunking effort.  i mean, do i start with how obviously wrong you are to call any policy of any american politician socialist?  i don't mean wrong in a "don't be mean or throw mud" kind of way.  i mean wrong in a "who did you sleep with in order to get your college degree" kind of way.  or, do i start with how unbelievably desperate someone of john mccain's stature must be in order to resort to something incredulous as this.  or, do i talk about how dumb you must be in order to buy any of this shit? or, do i talk about the utter and crippling hypocrisy mccain must be dealing with in order to say things like this on national television?  fuck me, the possibilities are endless.</p> <p>let us begin with the general academics.  i think in american politics people (willfully, i believe) confound the welfare state with socialism.  at it's most basic level (in terms of economics), socialism is about who owns the means of production--in broader terms, who owns the means to generate wealth and how are those decisions made.  the welfare state has a high rate of taxation that is used to fund a variety of public programs that everyone uses.  those are the basic, like, eighth grade differences.  can you see how disparate the two are?  if you can see how different these two things are then you have to ask yourself, "well, hell.  then why did they say it?"  because there are a shitload of people in this country that are so intellectually lazy that they won't fucking use wikipedia, maybe?  i mean...there are a lot of reasons, but they all follow that line of reasoning, so i won't bother going through them all.</p> <p>and, right on the heels of being thunderstruck at how dumb and gullible people can be about language and pigeon-holing, is utter hypocrisy of this whole thing.  i mean...did we or did we not just give the investment banking industry 700B dollars?  that capital B stands for BILLION.  as in almost a trillion dollars.   did we or did we not just buy a majority share in the investment banking industry in one fell swoop?  that represents a redistribution of wealth on an unprecedented scale.  or, the fact that sarah palin is the governor of a state that issues a portion of the profit that private corporations make using the commonly held resources of the state.</p> <p>but, no, america you're right.  obama says, "...spread the wealth," and it makes sense to go into full blown tail spin tizzy (i just made that phrase up.  ha.)  are you honestly telling yourself that you don't want to vote for him because you think he's a socialist?  you know, i think that i would have a lot more respect for you if you just said, "i don't want to vote for him because he's black and his name scares me."  just say it.  you'll feel better, i'll still think you're stupid, but at least i'll know you're honest.</p> jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-17681688420484831602008-10-07T19:47:00.002-05:002008-10-07T19:49:03.147-05:00Obama and Me (and Palin, too)<p>this entry is part of an ongoing discussion that i'm having on a message board.  the original question was about people voting for candidates for what appear to be superficial reasons...particularly race and gender. </p> <p>if that's the case, i suppose that we have to ask the question...is that such a bad thing?  i mean, when you get right down to brass tacks, Obama and mccain are two sides of the _same_ coin.  all of their ideas, thoughts, beliefs and whatnot can be understood within the framework of free market capitalism.  neither of them are shaking the foundations of western civilization.  as such, the differences between the two are often inflated.  take health care for instance...i know that i'm paraphrasing both positions here, but it's for a good cause... </p> <p>obama wants to reduce the overall cost of and entrance barriers to (pre-existing conditions) health care.  he wants to do that through legislative efforts and changing the regulatory environment of the insurance system.  for those that still cannot afford to do so, he wants to offer them the opportunity to purchase the insurance--probably on some sort of sliding scale--that federal employees and elected officials use.  failing that he'll probably want to extend medicare/medicaid to cover those who fall through the cracks but since very few providers will accept medicare/medicaid they'll end up going to emergency rooms with non-emergency conditions. </p> <p>mccain wants to reduce the overall cost of and entrance barriers (pre-existing conditions) to health care.  he'll do so through legislative efforts and changing the regulatory environment of the insurance system.  for those that still cannot afford to do so, he wants to offer them a tax credit--probably on some sort of sliding scale--that will allow them to purchase insurance on the market.  failing that he'll probably want to extend medicare/medicaid to cover minors and everyone else can continue to do what they have been doing--going to emergency rooms with non-emergency conditions. </p> <p>what's the net difference?  i mean really the plans come down to this...obama will use government revenue to purchase or offset the cost of insurance.  mccain will give government revenue back to you to help you purchase or offset the cost of insurance. </p> <p>(though i suppose at a primordial level one distinction is whether or not they trust corporations) </p> <p>so long as we have a two party system which springs from mainstream western political philosophy, we'll generally have two candidates that are saying pretty much the same thing with various degrees of nuance and a couple of defining issues.  so, we're left with our original question.  how do we determine who is best for the country when they are both making a mad dash for the center?  i know that i've personally railed against this notion, but is it such a bad thing that people vote for the candidate with whom they identify? </p> <p>i think that in the wake of bush II, we have an inflated notion of the power of the president to create domestic policy.  bush II was lucky.  he hit the office at a moment in time when his party enjoyed a virtually unassailable majority in BOTH the house AND the senate.  that. has. never. happened.  a much more realistic view of the power of the presidency with respect to domestic affairs would probably be bill Clinton.  there was more compromise and give and take there.  at least, i'd like to think so.  i don' think that bill clinton came into office thinking, "hey, i'm going to institute Defense of Marriage or don't ask/don't tell."  so, really, the ability of either of these candidates to do what they say they are going to do will be quite limited.  ultimately, i don't think that it's so bad that people vote for the person with whom they identify.  i think perhaps the true crime is why we still can't 'see' one another irrespective of race and gender.</p> jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-72181112833143831992008-09-16T20:56:00.001-05:002008-09-16T20:56:18.648-05:00What Is White Privilege?<br><br> <div style="margin: 0px 2px; padding-top: 1px; background-color: #c3d9ff; font-size: 1px !important; line-height: 0px !important;"> </div> <div style="margin: 0px 1px; padding-top: 1px; background-color: #c3d9ff; font-size: 1px !important; line-height: 0px !important;"> </div> <div style="padding: 4px; background-color: #c3d9ff;"><h3 style="margin:0px 3px;font-family:sans-serif">Sent to you by jakesDad via Google Reader:</h3></div> <div style="margin: 0px 1px; padding-top: 1px; background-color: #c3d9ff; font-size: 1px !important; line-height: 0px !important;"> </div> <div style="margin: 0px 2px; padding-top: 1px; background-color: #c3d9ff; font-size: 1px !important; line-height: 0px !important;"> </div> <div style="font-family:sans-serif;overflow:auto;width:100%;margin: 0px 10px"><h2 style="margin: 0.25em 0 0 0"><div class=""><a href="http://myfeetonlywalkforward.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-is-white-privilege.html">What Is White Privilege?</a></div></h2> <div style="margin-bottom: 0.5em">via <a href="http://myfeetonlywalkforward.blogspot.com/" class="f">My Feet Only Walk Forward</a> by Brandon Lacy Campos on 9/16/08</div><br style="display:none"> Hey folks:<br><br>As much as possible, I try and do only original content on my page. But sometimes, as with Rocki's letter and this blog post, there shit that needs circulating. The following is one of those things.<br><br>This is Your Nation on White Privilege<br>By Tim Wise / September 13, 2008<br><br>For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.<br><br>White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.<br><br>White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.<br><br>White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.<br><br>White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested." <br><br>White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals. <br><br>White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you. <br><br>White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful. <br><br>White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist. <br><br>White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look." <br><br>White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt. <br><br>White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America. <br><br>White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced. <br><br>White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a "light" burden. <br><br>And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain… <br><br>White privilege is, in short, the problem.<br><br><br>Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son, and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White. He has contributed essays to seventeen books, and is one of several persons featured in White Men Challenging Racism: Thirty-Five Personal Stories, from Duke University Press. A collection of his essays, Speaking Treason Fluently: Anti-Racist Reflections From an Angry White Male, will be released in fall 2008.</div> <br> <div style="margin: 0px 2px; padding-top: 1px; background-color: #c3d9ff; font-size: 1px !important; line-height: 0px !important;"> </div> <div style="margin: 0px 1px; padding-top: 1px; background-color: #c3d9ff; font-size: 1px !important; line-height: 0px !important;"> </div> <div style="padding: 4px; background-color: #c3d9ff;"><h3 style="margin:0px 3px;font-family:sans-serif">Things you can do from here:</h3> <ul style="font-family:sans-serif"><li><a href="http://www.google.com/reader/view/feed%2Fhttp%3A%2F%2Fmyfeetonlywalkforward.blogspot.com%2Ffeeds%2Fposts%2Fdefault?source=email">Subscribe to My Feet Only Walk Forward</a> using <b>Google Reader</b></li> <li><a href="http://www.google.com/reader/?source=email">Get started using Google Reader</a> to easily keep up with <b>all your favorite sites</b></li></ul></div> <div style="margin: 0px 1px; padding-top: 1px; background-color: #c3d9ff; font-size: 1px !important; line-height: 0px !important;"> </div> <div style="margin: 0px 2px; padding-top: 1px; background-color: #c3d9ff; font-size: 1px !important; line-height: 0px !important;"> </div>jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-25997927883832875662008-08-12T10:18:00.000-05:002008-08-12T10:19:46.970-05:00treacheryi know that this may sound like treachery, but i’ve been pondering a question for quite some time now. ever since the reverend wright fracas broke out, i’ve wondered if there is any downside to barack obama being president? for a moment, let’s try and be intellectually honest about the question and set aside bush-rage. i’m not really talking politics here, i am much more interested in race relations with this question that anything else.<br /><br />i don’t know much about wright, and i don’t think that i really need to. after all, i’m not talking specifics—i’m speaking much more generally than what he may or may not have said in the course of 30 years of sermonizing. i am using wright as a particular kind of embodiment of black thought and black rage. fundamentally, the reaction of america to wright was not merely predicated upon the incendiary or offensive or uncomfortable things he said. i think it was a complete rejection of his entire epistemology. of course, part of the media circus was that he was so intimately connected with a presidential front runner. of course, of course. but, i think that america was asking him, “what do you have to be angry about? your guy is running for president and might actually win. doesn’t that make us even?”<br /><br />is that a fair assessment of the reaction to wright? *shrug* i think so. i believe that most of america was very, very happy that wright said things that were easy to decry. it was easy to marginalize him—reminiscent of dave chappelle’s defense of people like martin lawrence. chappelle said that calling lawrence crazy (after his exploits in NC during the shooting of the black knight movie) was a successful attempt to marginalize lawrence without trying to understand the pressures under which he lived. the same thing with chappelle’s africa trip. the same thing with wright. and, by extension, the same with black america. i believe that most intellectual black leaders in america knew what he was getting at—i believe that’s why it took so long for b. obama to finally distance himself from wright. the process of distancing himself was so convoluted and tortured b/c b. obama understood the underlying philosophical principles—it’s just that the expression of those principles made it really hard for him to stand up for them.<br /><br />(i’m loving dashes right now—makes people think that i am taking a dramatic pause—and i am)<br /><br />so, if you accept that premise, then let us go back to my original question. is there a downside to b. obama being president? i mean, ok, as it pertains specifically to race relations irrespective of your individual political concerns. and, in particular, i’m thinking of this question in two different lights. sub-question one: would there be a sense (overt or otherwise) of “ok, your guy is president now. you can shut up about all inequality crap. i’m tired of dealing with it.” sub-question two: what does an obama presidency mean for the mingling of black culture (no, not hip hop—i mean our cultural identity as slave-descended africans) with mainstream culture?<br /><br />thoughts?jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-4061184661096455892008-03-31T22:38:00.001-05:002008-03-31T23:01:13.898-05:00i love pre-crazy michael jackson, but....<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/c2MgwAJrfXo&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c2MgwAJrfXo&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-39534723194533918242008-03-28T19:25:00.004-05:002008-03-28T19:59:03.732-05:00some thoughts on proposals of change...<p>just a note or two... <o:p></o:p></p> <p>last night i was watching c-span (i know), and newt gingrinch was giving a speech at the american enterprise institute. it was an interesting speech...it was full of thoughtful (if flawed) critique and bold ideas. i was in a listening mood because i had just finished listening to eboo patel talking about pluralism and religion...something that i almost always end up rejecting—not because i don’t agree with that idea; it’s because i don’t think that it’s entirely a workable notion when applied to religion and faith. the very notion of religion and faith seem to contradict the foundational principles of pluralism. however, i find it interesting and strangely satisfying to think and talk about. but, i digest (i love the family guy. i also love thunderlip.) <o:p></o:p></p> <p>how about the idea as the american consumer as a consumable product? we’ll talk later... <o:p></o:p></p> <p>i caught the last half hour or so of newt’s (heh heh) speech. he was talking about some of the challenges faced in determining the course of our future. specifically, he was talking about economics and culture and how the two inform one another. he talked about the situation in <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">detroit</st1:place></st1:City>...it’s decline and the policies that led to that decline. i don’t really know much about it—he intimated that it was all the fault of liberals and their desire to manage everything and redistribute wealth and their tendency toward bureaucracy. *shrug* could be...i woke up this morning thinking that there are a few things about which liberals need to be honest. the most important of those being not everything system that we humans encounter can be or even should be managed.<span style=""> </span>economic output, the environment (specifically, wilderness), etc., etc. sometimes, i think that it’s just enough to get out of the way. i digested again. <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">since i didn’t catch the entire speech i didn’t really understand the point of bringing up <st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">detroit</st1:place></st1:City>. maybe he was saying that since it was the site of so many failed liberal policies that it was time to try something that “makes sense.” anyway, he laid out seven proposals (of which i only remember a couple) to radically change or at least stake out a new direction. ( i think in a lot of ways, he’s making the implicit argument that the “great society” experiment has failed, and it’s time to try something else. though, how he can say that while at the same time our country has experienced the greatest economic expansions in the history of mankind is curious.</p>how bad-ass was david cook the other night on american idol? another reason to love chris cornell, as if i need more.<br /><br />anyway, the one thing that he said that kind of stuck in my craw was the idea that adolescence was a contrived notion. it was a contrived notion of 19th and 20th century liberals...all of the things to counteract the growing power of monopolistic corporations...labor unions, child labor laws, etc. etc. but, i absolutely disagree with his analysis of social history. i mean, the reason that he addresses adolescence in particular is because of the amount of crime and the amount of leisure associated with the lives of teenagers. i don't disagree with that...i do agree that a great deal of undirected leisure time can lead to some bad stuff. the point of his analysis with which i take umbrage is the notion that somehow the social and economic reforms of the 19th century somehow created a class of people with nothing to do. on the contrary, the growth of the age group called adolescence has more to do with our astounding economic success than any law. it's the same effect that we see in financially successful families. if the parents go to college and do well for themselves, not only will their kids be more likely to do well, but also the parents will have something to leave for the kids and grandkids--and life becomes "easier" for successive generations. makes sense? doesn't it make sense that the same principle could be applied to a society? doesn't it make sense that as the country as a whole (not just a privileged few) became wealthier and moved through demographic transition, children wouldn't have to work to support smaller and more educated families?jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-52518611709644263532007-12-21T18:56:00.000-05:002007-12-21T19:12:19.857-05:00The accompaniment<div style="text-align: center;">HOW FREAKIN' CUTE IS THIS?!?!<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dzaUEn4wO0mcLbYECltWXq3Qri1PHUBGX5Y2JexC1kTpFCWPkeG6VfEMXbCHbmHtwzwBZiHWEkAphItBXohkw' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-47362165090002100432007-12-21T15:13:00.000-05:002007-12-22T11:41:37.295-05:00Religious fundamentalism and the ConstitutionMy friend, <a href="http://gatekeeperofjustice.blogspot.com/">Leah the Lawyer</a>, posed an interesting question with regard to the religion, the threat we currently face, and how the Founding Fathers (FF) might have faced the question. Here's a bit of what she wrote...<br /><blockquote>"I was wondering the other day, as I drove around, what would Thomas Jefferson think about the War on Terror. What would our Founding Fathers think, if they were presented with the knowledge that religious fundamentalists who had no qualms about sending themselves, their wives, or even their children, into battle armed to a T in order implement a suicide bombing."</blockquote>I revisited my plan for this post Friday night. I was flipping through my Thomas Jefferson reader while I was kicking it at work and I re-read his first inaugural speech. I came across a quote that sort of summed it up for me. He said<br /><blockquote>"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."</blockquote>I think that's the crap shoot right there. That's the whole ballgame...we are asked every day to put aside the process (the Constitutional processes) and trust President Bush. Stop asking questions about Gonzalez, trust me. Stop asking questions about how I manage the war prisons, trust me. I think that TJ would be more alarmed about the manner in which we have decided to prosecute this war than the threat itself. I say this because I believe that the FF's and their contemporaries were living through a time of extreme religious intolerance and violence. The Age of Reason saw the end (essentially) of the modernization of Christianity. Even at the time of the constitutional convention there were instances of religious extremism in America--it was one of the factors that brought about the end of the Articles of Confederation. Ultimately, I believe that TJ would see the war on terror as a more potent threat to our survival than the threat of radical islam.<br /><br />On a tangential note, is there a policy difference in thinking of radical islam as a strategic threat as opposed to a threat to our way of life? i mean...can we think of radical islam as a threat to the lives of people rather than a wholesale assault on the idea of america? i know that the radicals want to destroy us--not just our lives and property (well, maybe they'll keep our property) but also our ideas. but, have they? i mean have they even come close to hurting our ideas? just a thought or two...i'll expand in a later post, i think.jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-77892563761942280622007-10-14T14:04:00.001-05:002007-10-14T14:15:28.280-05:00exasperation...ford<br />jack daniels<br />enterprise<br />branson tractors<br />rocky boots<br />fox sports<br />wrangler<br />the US Army<br />bud light<br />dickies<br />big tex (?)<br /><br />these are just a few of the companies/organizations with whom mike vick should have had endorsement deals. apparently, they aren't shy about benefiting from animal cruelty for the entertainment of the masses--they have ad space on the nationally broadcast bull riding competitions.<br /><br />this is what they <a href="http://www.pbrnow.com/ABOUT/SPORTINFO/BULLS.CFM#bullathletes">say</a>. *shrug*jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-54652661959695281162007-10-13T18:28:00.001-05:002007-10-13T18:32:15.360-05:003 of the Sunderland 4<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7_dvLbyPDqXdErNSwAXCHqBzc1go9eZw1eeXI2WjgijQtEq4AhVb0lVa72jZXM8CEcJcZHfqNTltad0NcYzbozokVKiX5Q8rbm94-EQZzXeR1q7DnyxNok7efVUUeIcOc3PD1FzXAAl4/s1600-h/PA060029.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7_dvLbyPDqXdErNSwAXCHqBzc1go9eZw1eeXI2WjgijQtEq4AhVb0lVa72jZXM8CEcJcZHfqNTltad0NcYzbozokVKiX5Q8rbm94-EQZzXeR1q7DnyxNok7efVUUeIcOc3PD1FzXAAl4/s400/PA060029.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5120967922166147266" border="0" /></a><br />3 of the Sunderland 4--12 years later. We missed you, Brandon.jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-82493235199413372472007-10-08T15:28:00.000-05:002007-10-08T15:39:18.617-05:00powerit occurred to me the other day that while all of the presidential hopefuls (with the possible exception of mccain) continue to have a field day bashing the president for his handling of the war, none of them (with the exception of paul & kuccinich) have recanted themselves of the power that the president now wields. none of them have said that they would open the doors of gitmo to the international community. to my knowledge, none of them have promised to submit themselves to the scrutiny of the congress in the event a declaration of war is needed. i don't specifically recall any of them saying they would never utilize the kind of unilateral measures used by the current administration (with the obvious caveat that we are not in immediate danger, of course).<br /><br />did you know that ron paul has raised more money than john mccain? the mccain campaign is almost broke. the paul campaign raised over 5 million dollars in the 3Q. i don't think that the media is liberal so much as it simply suffers from group think. it just looks liberal now because part of the current group think is everything bush does is bad. i remember not being able to watch the news without hearing about that blue dress in the 90's. *shrug* just thought i would throw that out there. by the way, i learned that tidbit about ron paul on the Air America website. who says liberals can't report good stories?jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-2341905823864497492007-10-08T09:25:00.000-05:002007-10-08T15:40:55.142-05:00our constitutionyesterday, i was talking to my friend, leah the lawyer. somehow we got onto the constitution and it's current state, and she made some compelling observations. i've always been a staunch defendant of the constitution and the bill of rights (all of the rights, not just the ones i like), but we really got to talking about the structure of the constitution and what that has meant for our society over the past 30 years or so.<br /><br />take my defense over the right to bear arms. i've never really considered any argument that centered around hunting--not because i don't think it's legitimate, but because i don't think that the forefathers would have considered that as something that needed elucidation. it would be like including the right to go grocery shopping in the constitution. no-one would think to do that. no, i've always believed (and i think thomas jefferson believed) that the right to bear arms was fundamental to the inalienable right to revolution. i make this argument to leah the lawyer. she nods her understanding and then asks the following question. "So, when was the last time the US Marines were defeated in combat?" To which I have no response. So we reach a crossroads of the philosophical and the practical. Yes, it is true. the right to bear arms speaks directly to the right of the people to revolt, but how practical is that option when the governing body commands an essentially undefeated military? *ponder*<br /><br />take due process and all that jazz. in a criminal trial, a defendant has the right to face his accuser. ok, that is something makes sense, right? how does a defendant "face" a crime lab? when the SBI crime lab runs a test, concludes that the white powder is, indeed, cocaine and the ADA presents that report in a trial...how does the defendant "face" his accuser? is it by proxy? you can't cross examine a piece of paper, and what happens to the notion of a "speedy" trial if every single defendant calls a technician or whatever to the stand?<br /><br />take every single president from abe lincoln to the present. (now i remember how we got onto this subject. <a href="http://jerryleejonesjr.blogspot.com/2007/10/power.html">there we go</a>.) anyone that has read the constitution will quickly (i hope) notice something ridiculous. the framers of the constitution spent the vast majority of their time focused on the legislative branch of government...then the judicial....then the executive. the thinking being that as the representative of the PEOPLE the legislative branch would and should be the most...active. is that the case now? to whom do we turn when we want to hear talk of tax breaks, or education, or social security, or any other of a host of domestic concerns which should properly be the domain of the congress? we ask the president. since abe lincoln, there has been a gradual but undeniable assumption of power and leadership by the executive branch. mostly because, the powers given to the executive branch are the least defined. is there anywhere in the constitution that gave abe lincoln the authority to issue the emancipation proclamation? no. that's why he issued that order in areas still in active rebellion. the emancipation proclamation as a document held no force in the north. that's why the 13th amendment to the constitution was issued--making slavery illegal. (my history on this is a little fuzzy. forgive me any slight mistakes--they weren't on purpose)<br /><br />i say all of those things just to make the point that the makeup of our society has changed sufficiently as to be alien to the framers of the constitution. but, is it feasible at this point in our history to revisit the framework of social, economic, and legal systems? who can say?jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-9842910143738052292007-09-16T22:00:00.000-05:002007-09-16T21:01:49.913-05:00two things that annoy me...recently, i've been pondering two things that we should stop doing right now.<br /><br />the first thing that we must do is stop looking for human hypocrisy in order to invalidate human ideas. what i mean is the trend (not even a little bit new by the way--just perfected) of attacking the person presenting the idea rather than understanding the idea itself on its own merits. i was listening to the sean hannity radio show again the other day, and he was almost giddy with delight about a report he had put together about environmentalists. not about environmentalism, but about environmentalists. he made allusions to some people who talked about carbon footprints or global warming or something along those lines but flew around the world in private jets rather than flying commercial. but, it doesn't stop there. i haven't listened in a long time, but i'm sure that commentators on air america radio are having a field day with the recent spate of republican elected officials having sex scandals. party of family values? i think not. anyway, rather than taking these cases on individual basis, both sides are guilty of making sweeping judgments about (in this case) all people who call themselves environmentalists, but also about the ideas espoused by those same people.<br /><br />i think this is patently different than questioning someone's motive--say, in the case of profit or power. this is saying because you flew on a private jet all environmentalists are nuts and, oh by the way, your ideas are bullshit. i think that it's important to know who is talking to you and for whom they work. it's important to understand you have to understand the money trail for particular think tanks, authors, lobbyists and talking heads in general. but, it is something entirely different to reduce the substance of someone's ideas to character issues.<br /><br />the other thing that annoys and is closely related is the manner in which many arguments are framed. i caught the tail end of the neil/neal boortz broadcast one day last week, and i was struck by the absurdity of what he was saying. he was talking about why the consumer tax would never be passed, and he was talking to someone that had called in to the show. anyway, he was saying that the reason we would never see the consumer tax enacted was because liberals in government don't want to give up the power they have over the population. the argument being that the manipulation of the tax code to induce certain behaviors is an intoxicating power to liberals--only. the thing that is preposterous isn't the obviousness of that incredulous lie. the thing that is preposterous is that instead of focusing on revamping the idea, you subvert the concept of the marketplace of ideas (where ideas "compete" with one another, and, as the theory goes, the best idea "wins"). rather than allowing the idea to flourish on its own, you focus on the acquisition of power in order to force your idea down the collective throat of america. you also subvert part of that evolutionary process...the process where ideas come into contact with different philosophies and are changed for the better.<br /><br />i feel that i've lost my train of thought here...i'll refine and extend these arguments in posts to come. nodnodjonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-71630100285402348682007-09-12T22:04:00.000-05:002007-09-12T22:05:24.960-05:00technorati post claim or claim post or whatever<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/7rirm9ds5r" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-25324605214650138832007-09-02T22:14:00.000-05:002007-09-02T23:09:25.326-05:00redemptionredemption is a powerful word and is a powerful concept. i have a question about it tonight though. can redemption exist in a society that has nearly perfected the storage and access of information? i mean forgive and forget is a phrase that meant something in the past. think about the things we do for a minute. we're inundated right now with video clips and photos and sound bites of princess diana on this, the ten year anniversary of her death. her kids see her on tv or on the front pages of newspapers on a very regular basis. what must it be like to be bombarded with images of your mother constantly? we used to be ABLE to forget. i never thought it would be a luxury to be able to forget something or someone. photos will fade with time. you can even forget the sound of someone's voice with time. can you ever get to a place of peace or do you just become desensitized? <br /><br />what does that mean for people in the public (most notably, most recently, michael vick) who screw up? can they ever redeem themselves in the public eye when anyone with an ax to grind can set up a website splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? jail in america is not meant to be therapeutic. we don't send people to jail here to cure them of addictions or compulsions. we don't send people to jail to give them an opportunity to better their lives. it is pure punishment. but, i thought that part of the deal with punishment is that once you do suffer the consequences of your actions that was it. you're done. your slate is wiped clean (except that you can't vote, can't get a decent job, don't have much of a shot to get into college unless you lie on your application...but set all of that aside), and you start again.<br /><br />wait, i'm mixing topics. i don't want to talk about the penal code in america and how we treat those who transgress against us. i want to talk about the persistence of information and what that does to us.<br /><br />um, right...splashing their crimes all over the public discourse? this line of thought started weeks ago when the vick story broke, but it really applies to anyone who (for whatever reason) draws a great deal of media attention to themselves--actor, athlete, politician, whatever. there are some things that are unforgivable, sure. lying about the reasons for starting a war. that's unforgivable. i don't mean to be...disingenuous? is that the word i want? i guess...i don't mean to denigrate the things that dumb celebrities do by comparing them to what i think the bush administration did. i don't mean that. i just mean we should collectively apply some perspective. <br /><br />*sigh* off track again.<br /><br />i just would like for us to take a minute and think about what it means that a person can't leave the past in the past. what does it mean for the concept of redemption when a person literally cannot ever again enjoy the luxury of simply forgetting the dumb shit they did in the past? i think that it means we leave the idea of redemption behind and shift to the control of information and who has access to it. recently, walmart was burned for editing it's own wikipedia entries. not that they don't have the right to edit factual content about them in a public forum. they had walmart employees posing as unaffiliated denizens of the net leaving positive remarks on their wikipedia entry (to combat the thousands of negative rants that had been posted). instead of seeking to REDEEM themselves in the public eye, they simply go about trying to change information. they (and others like them) are stuck in this absolutely EVIL catch22 situation--they can't redeem themselves because of the persistence of information (perhaps justified in this case), but if they're caught pursuing the one avenue left open--the manipulation of information--then they are vilified as a corrupt entity.<br /><br />how often do we see this on talking head shows on TV? i heard some shit the other day on the sean hannity radio show that almost made me total the car. i don't think that i am misrepresenting his position when i say that sean hannity is a STAUNCH supporter of the bush administration...and, it's policies, including the use of torture in the interrogation of suspected (not proven, suspected) terrorists or those linked to terroism. we can quibble over what he meant by the word 'torture,' but he did say it. i actually listen to his show more than i should. so, bear all of that in mind. he's talking on the radio the other day about the soon to be ex-senator craig because apparently, the police release a tape of his interrogation. hannity talks about the ALLEGED (his words) crime despite the fact that craig plead guilty in a court of law. hannity says, and i quote, "i'm uncomfortable with the aggressiveness of the interrogation..." implying that the senator was bullied into pleading guilty to a crime he didn't commit? obviously, the officer conducting the interrogation was standing far too close for comfort. how ridiculous is it for hannity to sincerely make this argument when his record on related issues is clearly right-wing? hell, his stance helps define the right-wing.<br /><br />i say all of that to make this point. there isn't the possibility of redemption in this case. there is no possibility that craig is going to come out and say, "yep. i did it. i'll pay the fine and do some community service. what i do in my bedroom is my business. butt out." there's no way he is going to admit that he did anything wrong because that is yielding in the battle to control information or at least the perception of information--which is what hannity was doing a fine job of on his radio show on that almost fateful day. they are waging word-war over our perception of the facts.<br /><br />so, true spiritual transformation and redemption or cynical (and not even a little bit subtle) manipulation of the public's perception of factual information. *shrug* who can say?jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-26823184153989876992007-08-21T20:29:00.000-05:002007-08-23T14:28:58.815-05:00on the nature of love...or, at least the expression thereof.<br /><br />i've never understood, and understand even less now, why the greatest expression of love that most men can muster is the willingness to beat people up and/or shoot at people? or why other people seem to think that is an admirable sentiment? i don't know. it's part of a larger question that i touched on with my post on violence as a tool of instruction. violence and the willingness to do violence as a admirable quality. *shrug* you know, of course, i would defend my life and the lives of my wife and child, but i don't go around crowing about my ability to do so. nor, do i hold that up as the shining example of my love for my family. i mean, in a lot of ways, that's like bragging about graduating from high school, or not having a prison record, or taking care of your kids (yes, i am channeling chris rock and i am proud of it). crack fiends in jail graduate from high school. so what? the same holds true for defending your family or your home or whatever. of course you would defend your home. do you want a cookie? if you want to be a father then you have to show up every single day and pull your weight. i mean, love is washing your kids diapers (without using kitchen gloves by the way--how much of a stud am i?). love is apologizing for losing your patience with him at three in the morning. love is the details of life not the grand gestures. to be honest, grand gestures are easy. they're so easy they've become cliche. they've become so cliche that if i go into a flower shop to buy flowers on a day that isn't a holiday, i can bet money on the clerk asking me what i did. i mean, they are nice, don't get me wrong. coming home with a new toy for the baby or flowers for the wife. yeah, that stuff is nice and you should do that every once in awhile. that may be what your child remembers, but it isn't how you prove your love, and your child will understand that when they become parents--the way i did. thanks pops. 'preciate ya, ma. i am beginning to understand the lifelong dedication it takes to raise kids and have a successful family.jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-28793568837847240972007-08-13T21:00:00.000-05:002007-08-22T19:56:09.725-05:00dichotomies...spare the rod, spoil the child. why does it have to mean whupping the shit out of your kid? why can't it just mean, "be disciplined, be steadfast?" you don't have to hit your kids to get your point across and believe it or not, more often than not, it just gets in the way of the lesson you're trying to impart. violence should be reserved for expressions of rage (be it passionate or cold-blooded)--violence should not be used as a tool of instruction. at least, not in the general case...if your field of exploration is a naturally violent one then violence has a place as an instructional tool (soldiers, pirates, ninja warriors, etc.).<br /><br />and, on the other hand, why can't parents BE the damn parents? why can't they look at their child and say, "you know what, i understand that you're upset. you're going to have to get over it." i'm pretty sure that i say that to elijah every single day. i say it because i'm the parent, and i set the boundaries that govern his life. i engage elijah in the decisions that create his day, in as much as i can--he's one and a half. it is something that we will do more of as he becomes older and can understand reason. but, that engagement comes with the caveat that you have proven and continue to prove that you can handle that kind of responsibility. i mean, i think that it is just as bad and wrongheaded to be a dictator in a child's life as it is to give them too much freedom. being a parent is like constantly walking a tightrope that you can't see. parenting is a constant process of letting go.<br /><br />being a good parent isn't about a system or a book (though i will be the first to admit that books and systems and lots and lots and lots of advice is helpful). i think being a good parent is absolutely the same as being in a good relationship. it's about honesty, trust and communication. it's about understanding who YOU are before you try to understand the anyone else. it's about understanding that you'll never be able to hold them as close as you do on the day that they're born, and you have to be ok with that.jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-2987489667388992632007-08-01T20:49:00.000-05:002007-08-01T22:43:56.681-05:00My little man...the other day i was outside of a restaurant with elijah--he'd been freaking out because he didn't understand that he couldn't have the french fries from another table. to be honest, i don't understand why we can't have them either, but there you have it. anyway, i was outside with him and this elderly couple walk by and the wife says, "oh what a pretty boy!" she looks at me and says, "oh, i'm sorry. i meant what a handsome boy. we don't call little boys pretty." she smiles and goes on her way. that's happened a lot...i guess i shouldn't be puzzled by it--i find that 7 years later, i'm still astounded by how different the world outside of warren wilson is. it never would have ever occurred to me to care whether or not someone called my son beautiful, pretty, handsome or whatever. <br /><br />erin and i were talking about gender issues and identity today. i was saying that i never really know what to say to people when they say something like, "oh, he's just being a boy." elijah is incredibly sensitive to our moods and our attitudes. i can't help but think that he would easily pick up behavioral double standards. being an ass isn't acceptable, i don't care what your gender is. but, it frightens me to think about how far this attitude and double standard can push our tolerance. i don't know. maybe i'm complicating the issue, but i don't think that a lot of people really think about what casual words like that mean to a brand new mind. elijah is like an antenna hooked up to an amplifier. he takes what we say and do, distills it, and incorporates it into himself. he's even begun to mimic the way i stand at rest. how can i not pay more attention to how we approach gender identity? at what point does biology end and socialization begin?<br /><br />like i said, maybe i'm overthinking the issue, but it is something that i worry about.jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-11764545847122241942007-08-01T20:23:00.000-05:002007-08-01T22:46:03.884-05:00every week...over the past few days there have been four articles in our <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/">local newspaper</a> about the rising sea level. the article made one argument that i found compelling. it doesn't really matter why the seas are rising or why the climate is changing. what's most important to our (humanity--the Earth will be fine. freshwater marshes will become saltwater marshes but we'll starve) short term survival is that it IS changing. there aren't any policy changes we can make in the near term that will affect climate in the next 50 years or so (at least, i wouldn't think, i'm no expert), so why are we in such a bind over green taxes and fuel efficiency and the like? right now, it just doesn't matter. at the very least, the changes underfoot now are inevitable. we've missed the tipping point in terms of talking about reversing climate change or the rising seas. those things are happening and will run their full course--we should be talking now about how we're going to adapt to those changes.<br /><br />the two biggest obstacles to our finding balance with the environment is population growth/movement and the exportation of pollution. i've talked about population as a social and economic issue before in an <a href="http://jerryleejonesjr.blogspot.com/2007/05/common-sense-on-immigration-reform.html">earlier post</a>, but (as with all human activity) there is an environmental component as well. in countries that progressed through demographic transition, the populations are relatively stable. the birth rate and the death rate (barring significant social upheaval) are equal. now, take a country like mexico that seems to be stuck in a cycle of poverty and skyrocketing birth rates. not only does the mass exodus of mexican citizens to the north ameliorate a lot of social/economic problems, but also, mexico (or any 3rd world country with population mobility) as an entity will never have to face issues of inherent carrying capacity and population stability.<br /><br />our half-assed policies with regard to pollution control will simply turn pollution into a commodity. any regional policy that attempts to control pollution will simply move that polluting process to a less regulated area. i mean...that seems pretty straightforward, right? how is it possible to have a pollution control policy that isn't world-wide? how can you turn down kyoto in favor of regional pollution credits and lukewarm tax incentives?...<br /><br />i've been "working" on this entry for awhile now. i think that i'll go ahead and publish it--it's never going to be perfect. *chuckle*<br /><br />...to be continued.jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-35813571681900754132007-07-11T19:28:00.000-05:002007-07-11T22:38:27.307-05:00*chuckle*another elijah list...<br /><br />1) oftentimes, elijah will disguise the fact that he wants to bite your finger by kissing your finger 2-4 times. woe to the unwary bearer of the finger for the hunter hunts.<br /><br />2) elijah still cannot tell time despite my best efforts.<br /><br />3) elijah is much more amenable to my fatherly dictums if i am holding a cookie. in fact, it is required.<br /><br />4) elijah has slept through a fire alarm. i find this dangerous yet admirable.<br /><br />5) elijah will not apologize for taking up WAY more than his fair share of space in bed. as a matter of fact, he thinks you should be grateful for the opportunity to smell his night farts.<br /><br />6) elijah will never apologize for his night farts.<br /><br />7) elijah believes that if you are not vigilant then everything that follows is YOUR fault.<br /><br />8) "uh-oh" covers anything and excuses everything.<br /><br />9) elijah's eating habits rivals those of european aristocracy.<br /><br />10) i don't think that elijah enjoys a ruckus as much as he enjoys seeing us run frantically.<br /><br />*chuckle*jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-33292210255727023112007-06-29T23:23:00.000-05:002007-06-28T23:40:02.457-05:00froggiei have come to the realization that parenthood is a process of letting go. letting go of future plans that made SO MUCH sense a few months ago...letting go of anger and disappointment when things go another direction...letting go of righteousness and replacing it with a budding wisdom.<br /><br />my son is growing up. i mean...of course, he's growing up. that sounds stupid to say out loud, but it's just that it's happening so fast. elijah is growing up. it's almost like trying to hold sand with a sieve. you're powerless to stop this little entity from growing and becoming, but you want so desperately to hold on to what you have now. you want so much to just slow things down so that you can enjoy the child you have before you're faced with the child to come. elijah IS growing up.<br /><br />today was erin's play group day, and there are always goodies in the kitchen when she gets back and today was no exception. i crow over finding chocolate chip cookies on the counter and, unthinkingly, grab one. erin clears her throat and i look at her. she looks down. i look down to find the little guy standing there, staring at me, waiting patiently for his share of my cookie that is his by right. i look down and he says, "hi," with his hand outstretched. i can deny him nothing. he wanders off munching HIS share of my cookie in search of the elusive blue ball, and i think to myself, "where did this little fella come from?" i look at him and i see the infant that was and the child that is becoming...things move on but it has always been my experience that time did you the courtesy of moving slowly so that you forgot what once was even as you leave it behind.<br /><br />months and months ago, there was once a toy named, aptly, froggie. froggie was not special, but he did make elijah laugh on long car trips. one day, erin was out with our rachel (and her maya rose) when froggie was lost to us. elijah hardly noticed but erin called me in tears. at the time, i didn't really get it. he's got plenty of toys and, hey, he didn't notice. but, it was important to erin so it was important to me.<br /><br />froggie was a corporeal embodiment. froggie was elijah's infancy. froggie was just a little piece of the infant that was and preserving him was important to us...it allowed us to hold that infant close while the toddler was learning to climb kitchen cabinets and take off his diaper. :p<br /><br />i miss that frog.jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-85201020062266580062007-05-26T21:36:00.000-05:002007-05-26T20:35:31.453-05:00common sense on immigration policywe don't have a bit of it.<br /><br />i can't really glean a great deal of actual information from the recent blathering about the new immigration bill. most talking heads spend all of their time whining about how bad it is without actually going into details. i don't have the energy to actually find the bill on the net to read it--i'm sure that i can predict what's in it. let's see, my guess is there is a section on dealing with the illegal aliens in the country now. prol'ly a combination of the two extreme positions in america now--some sort of slow forgiveness process with some punitive tax paying and whatnot. then an entire section about increasing the size of the border patrol, some money thrown at the fence idea...just a smorgsaborg of ideas and half-formed bits of policy. ultimately, we'll end up throwing billions of dollars at the situation and end up an unstable dynamic equilibrium that will last another 10 years or so and then we'll have the same "discussion" again.<br /><br />ultimately, i believe that most folks are trying to deny the essential nature of our system here. the disparity in standard of living between our country and mexico is so large that for all intents and purposes we can regard mexico as a third world country. i don't understand how some of the smartest people in the world could look at a deal like NAFTA and NOT understand what it meant for our two economies. mexico always had a comparative advantage over us in terms of inexpensive labor, and we absolutely exacerbated the situation with NAFTA. with the passing of NAFTA, unfortunately for mexico, labor became a fungible commodity. i mean...that's all they had. a few years ago...well, the last presidential election, the huge economic issue was the outsourcing of jobs to mexico and other places, but primarily mexico. now, i think we are witnessing the logical economic progression given our relative economic positions. it only stands to reason that instead of staying in mexico and working for local wages at jobs that were originally american, those that can leave their homes and make their way north will do so.<br /><br />we can talk all day long about punishing employers that utilize illegals, or expanding and modernizing guess worker programs, or expanding ICE and letting them arrest busloads of illegals and sending them home but we will NOT come one step closer to solving the immigration problem because we refuse to recognize the economic imbalance that creates the immigration pressure in the first place. *shrug* in a lot of ways, it is just as ignorant as our approach to drug policies in this country. putting addicts in jail is not solving the problem, and we just don't seem to be willing to face that. in order to create a situation where the population centers of our two countries are relatively stable, we must redress the economic imbalance between our countries.<br /><br />technology transfers, infrastructure, significant financial investment in mexico...everyone benefits from a stronger, more economically independent mexico. population centers will stabilize, manufactored goods will become cheaper, soybeans will compete with poppy as a cash crop, peace and harmony will spread throughout the land. tra-la-la-la. i don't know. it seems that we need to take a step back and acknowledge the breadth and width of the problem and the accompanying breadth and width of the solution. this is something that is 10 or 15 years down the road, but i believe that the dividends are immeasurable and go far beyond the obvious economic benefits.<br /><br />we'll see...jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-52597574037891451152007-05-25T22:06:00.000-05:002007-05-26T14:22:11.138-05:00non sequituri'm going to paraphrase this next little bit because that will make it funnier and also sadder.<br /><br />so, i'm watching hardball with chris matthews this evening (5/25) while 'm putting elijah down for bedtime. the topic of the day was the two new (ha) books criticizing hillary clinton. so, here goes the conversation.<br /><br />rep. loudmouth1: "i don't even know why we're talking about this. there isn't anything new in either of these two books. the authors released them because h.c. is leading in the polls."<br /><br />rep. loudmouth2: "i know all of that is true, but it should be a topic of discussion because she is a bad, bad person with a terrible marriage."<br /><br />dem. loudmouth1: "ok, fine. that may be true, i don't know. if you want to make it about marriage though, let's do that. h.c. has been married once. the top 3 GOP candidates have 8 marriages between them. what say you to that rep. loudmouth2?"<br /><br />rep. loudmouth2: "the clintons' immorality led to sept. 11."<br /><br />all other loudmouths: <span style="font-style: italic;">shocked silence</span><br /><br />it would really be nice if i was making that up, wouldn't it?jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-25978042284450192742007-05-21T09:44:00.000-05:002007-05-21T09:51:29.099-05:00i've learned quite a bit about my son this week. i think in the future, i will come to love this time in our lives together. i will come to cherish it. i mean vacation time. time when i can leave work behind and just sort of stop and really invest time in enjoying what i have. my beautiful wife and child. i'm young in terms of my work career, but i really do believe that for myself i can see my wildest dreams come true in their smiles. everything i ever wanted to do, everything i ever wanted to be...just knowing that my son is flourishing and i am, in part, responsible for that.<br /><br />anyway, what i've learned thus far about my son.<br /><br /><br />1) elijah's teeth are, indeed, quite sharp, and no, i cannot "take it."<br /><br />2) without provocation, elijah will break your glasses while glaring defiantly and screaming, "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"<br /><br />3) elijah cannot tell time and therefore does not care that it is just half past the butt-crack of dawn.<br /><br />4) when given the choice between playing with an unbreakable plastic toy and playing with the very expensive, very breakable window coverings in the condo...you can guess the rest.<br /><br />5) elijah is always positive that your glass of delicious ice cold water is better than his sippie cup. there is nothing you can do to convince him otherwise.<br /><br />6) elijah will never apologize for sticking his pasta & tofu covered fingers into your glass of delicious ice cold water. in fact, he will glare defiantly at you and scream "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?"<br /><br />7) elijah must have your straw. if you do not give it to him, there will be consequences.<br /><br />8) elijah's motto has become "ask for forgiveness rather than permission."<br /><br />9) i believe that elijah takes the phrase "bad baby" as praise from a wimpy liberal for "staying the course." (<- i think that phrase has become as infamous as hilary's "vast right wing conspiracy" snippet)<br /><br />10) elijah believes that i should appreciate the fact that he deigns to backwash into my glass of delicious cold water. he will never apologize for this blessing.<br /><br />*smile* i love being a father. i can honestly say that should i put aside all the other ambitions of my life, i would rest easy knowing that i am raising (will raise) a sweet boy who will grow into a good man.jonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1227481260883904603.post-79106419582323392302007-05-04T19:38:00.000-05:002007-05-04T20:27:17.387-05:00republican presidential candidate debatesok, so yeah. i watched the debate the other night. *shrug* it was a lot like the democratic debate...no one really wanted to say anything that would separate them from the pack in a significant way. there was a great deal of agreeing and backslapping and whatnot. it was the first time i had the opportunity though to listen to folks like rudy guiliani (sp?) articulate some ideas. he was the only person in the debate that seemed to have a nuanced stance on abortion. there weren't really any original or even slightly interesting ideas on how to deal with iraq. most of them spent the bulk of their time saying what went wrong (like, duh) and how if they had been running things they wouldn't have done it that way (*gag*). again, not much different from what the dems had to say on iraq, but at least there were a couple of individuals who didn't mind cutting loose on their colleagues. i really got tired of the ronald reagan love fest that was unfolding on the stage. *GAG* again, i understand that they are pandering to their audience, and i didn't really expect much substance from them--but, geez. reagan this and reagan that.<br /><br />one thing i found surprising was the considerable talk about flat/fair taxes. taxes based on consumption rather than an income tax. *shrug* that would put a lot mom & pop tax firms out of business...a lot of software designers would go hungry. um, i have not really read a lot about the so-called consumption tax. as a matter of theory though, i wonder about the inherent ... is unfairness the right word...of such a tax. i understand that low wage earners would take home a larger paycheck, but a larger portion of their disposable income would be taken up by the consumption tax as opposed to someone making a higher wage...perhaps someone with a higher savings rate versus their overall income and consumption rate. i mean the saving grace for low income earners now is the number of deductions they can take or simply being exempt from taxation altogether. i don't really see how you can mimic something like that at the cash register. i mean...would devise a system to pay back taxes to low wage earners on a quarterly basis? the point is if you're already living hand to mouth you are prol'ly not paying a lot in taxes and the extra you take home will not offset the extra you now have to pay the register. it won't do any good to get that money back on a quarterly basis because you are having trouble affording basic necessities NOW. i've not yet heard anyone address issues like that...i'm all for pay as you go though. i think you would have to do something like that if you switched income streams from something fairly predictable to something based on our consumption habits. i would shop a LOT less.<br /><br />i'm watching fist of fury while i'm typing this, and i just have to say that bruce is a bad, bad man.<br /><br />i saw three educated adult males indicate that they did not believe in evolution. it was at that point that i stopped taking any of them seriously.<br /><br />ok, i actually have to work tonight, so later.<br /><br />peacejonesyjrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05276228419075062759noreply@blogger.com0