Updates on life and Political info
Jun. 27th, 2003 03:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danaerisI'm very excited. I now have semi-assembled poi; all I need are the weird large washers, the d-shaped spinny things, two tennis balls, and leather or webbing for the handle (yeah, I know, I don't know my nomenclature, so sue me).
I also have bi-pride colored chains on my leather, finally. Available for $1/ft at Cliff's on Castro at 18th.
And I actually finished two chapters so far today, the second in record time-- 20 minutes!
Grocery shopping yesterday was successful; I only missed a few things I wanted. Then we went to Fallon's Cafe, the new location of the GGPET munch. Way better location, we get the restaurant to ourselves, great service, the food was better and better-priced, but still somewhat bland. The food buyer there must be really good though; the tomatoes in my salad were delicious and the prawns were some of the tastiest I've ever had.
And in the latest in political news, here's an interesting article from NYTimes with a different look at what the Republican Party/Bush are up to. This sort of thing makes me feel like getting involved might actually be worth it... Give it all a last-ditch effort. Before its too late. I do feel like things are getting pretty hopeless...
Toward One-Party Rule
June 27, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In principle, Mexico's 1917 Constitution established a
democratic political system. In practice, until very
recently Mexico was a one-party state. While the ruling
party employed intimidation and electoral fraud when
necessary, mainly it kept control through patronage,
cronyism and corruption. All powerful interest groups,
including the media, were effectively part of the party's
political machine.
Such systems aren't unknown here - think of Richard J.
Daley's Chicago. But can it happen to the United States as
a whole? A forthcoming article in The Washington Monthly
shows that the foundations for one-party rule are being
laid right now.
In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws
together stories usually reported in isolation - from the
drive to privatize Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers
General Motors and Verizon recently included with the
dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to the pro-war
rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations. As he
points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an
unprecedented national political machine, one that is well
on track to establishing one-party rule in America.
Mr. Confessore starts by describing the weekly meetings in
which Senator Rick Santorum vets the hiring decisions of
major lobbyists. These meetings are the culmination of
Grover Norquist's "K Street Project," which places
Republican activists in high-level corporate and industry
lobbyist jobs - and excludes Democrats. According to
yesterday's Washington Post, a Republican National
Committee official recently boasted that "33 of 36
top-level Washington positions he is monitoring went to
Republicans."
Of course, interest groups want to curry favor with the
party that controls Congress and the White House; but as
The Washington Post explains, Mr. Santorum's colleagues
have also used "intimidation and private threats" to bully
lobbyists who try to maintain good relations with both
parties. "If you want to play in our revolution," Tom
DeLay, the House majority leader, once declared, "you have
to live by our rules."
Lobbying jobs are a major source of patronage - a reward
for the loyal. More important, however, many lobbyists now
owe their primary loyalty to the party, rather than to the
industries they represent. So corporate cash, once split
more or less evenly between the parties, increasingly flows
in only one direction.
And corporations themselves are also increasingly part of
the party machine. They are rewarded with policies that
increase their profits: deregulation, privatization of
government services, elimination of environmental rules. In
return, like G.M. and Verizon, they use their influence to
support the ruling party's agenda.
As a result, campaign finance is only the tip of the
iceberg. Next year, George W. Bush will spend two or three
times as much money as his opponent; but he will also
benefit hugely from the indirect support that corporate
interests - very much including media companies - will
provide for his political message.
Naturally, Republican politicians deny the existence of
their burgeoning machine. "It never ceases to amaze me that
people are so cynical they want to tie money to issues,
money to bills, money to amendments," says Mr. DeLay. And
Ari Fleischer says that "I think that the amount of money
that candidates raise in our democracy is a reflection of
the amount of support they have around the country." Enough
said.
Mr. Confessore suggests that we may be heading for a replay
of the McKinley era, in which the nation was governed by
and for big business. I think he's actually understating
his case: like Mr. DeLay, Republican leaders often talk of
"revolution," and we should take them at their word.
Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics -
which may well put an end to serious two-party competition
- getting more attention? Most pundits, to the extent they
acknowledge that anything is happening, downplay its
importance. For example, last year an article in Business
Week titled "The GOP's Wacky War on Dem Lobbyists"
dismissed the K Street Project as "silly - and downright
futile." In fact, the project is well on the way to
achieving its goals.
Whatever the reason, there's a strange disconnect between
most political commentary and the reality of the 2004
election. As in 2000, pundits focus mainly on images - John
Kerry's furrowed brow, Mr. Bush in a flight suit - or on
supposed personality traits. But it's the nexus of money
and patronage that may well make the election a foregone
conclusion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/opinion/27KRUG.html?ex=1057749098&ei=1&en=d2b1a1d904c9965a
I also have bi-pride colored chains on my leather, finally. Available for $1/ft at Cliff's on Castro at 18th.
And I actually finished two chapters so far today, the second in record time-- 20 minutes!
Grocery shopping yesterday was successful; I only missed a few things I wanted. Then we went to Fallon's Cafe, the new location of the GGPET munch. Way better location, we get the restaurant to ourselves, great service, the food was better and better-priced, but still somewhat bland. The food buyer there must be really good though; the tomatoes in my salad were delicious and the prawns were some of the tastiest I've ever had.
And in the latest in political news, here's an interesting article from NYTimes with a different look at what the Republican Party/Bush are up to. This sort of thing makes me feel like getting involved might actually be worth it... Give it all a last-ditch effort. Before its too late. I do feel like things are getting pretty hopeless...
Toward One-Party Rule
June 27, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In principle, Mexico's 1917 Constitution established a
democratic political system. In practice, until very
recently Mexico was a one-party state. While the ruling
party employed intimidation and electoral fraud when
necessary, mainly it kept control through patronage,
cronyism and corruption. All powerful interest groups,
including the media, were effectively part of the party's
political machine.
Such systems aren't unknown here - think of Richard J.
Daley's Chicago. But can it happen to the United States as
a whole? A forthcoming article in The Washington Monthly
shows that the foundations for one-party rule are being
laid right now.
In "Welcome to the Machine," Nicholas Confessore draws
together stories usually reported in isolation - from the
drive to privatize Medicare, to the pro-tax-cut fliers
General Motors and Verizon recently included with the
dividend checks mailed to shareholders, to the pro-war
rallies organized by Clear Channel radio stations. As he
points out, these are symptoms of the emergence of an
unprecedented national political machine, one that is well
on track to establishing one-party rule in America.
Mr. Confessore starts by describing the weekly meetings in
which Senator Rick Santorum vets the hiring decisions of
major lobbyists. These meetings are the culmination of
Grover Norquist's "K Street Project," which places
Republican activists in high-level corporate and industry
lobbyist jobs - and excludes Democrats. According to
yesterday's Washington Post, a Republican National
Committee official recently boasted that "33 of 36
top-level Washington positions he is monitoring went to
Republicans."
Of course, interest groups want to curry favor with the
party that controls Congress and the White House; but as
The Washington Post explains, Mr. Santorum's colleagues
have also used "intimidation and private threats" to bully
lobbyists who try to maintain good relations with both
parties. "If you want to play in our revolution," Tom
DeLay, the House majority leader, once declared, "you have
to live by our rules."
Lobbying jobs are a major source of patronage - a reward
for the loyal. More important, however, many lobbyists now
owe their primary loyalty to the party, rather than to the
industries they represent. So corporate cash, once split
more or less evenly between the parties, increasingly flows
in only one direction.
And corporations themselves are also increasingly part of
the party machine. They are rewarded with policies that
increase their profits: deregulation, privatization of
government services, elimination of environmental rules. In
return, like G.M. and Verizon, they use their influence to
support the ruling party's agenda.
As a result, campaign finance is only the tip of the
iceberg. Next year, George W. Bush will spend two or three
times as much money as his opponent; but he will also
benefit hugely from the indirect support that corporate
interests - very much including media companies - will
provide for his political message.
Naturally, Republican politicians deny the existence of
their burgeoning machine. "It never ceases to amaze me that
people are so cynical they want to tie money to issues,
money to bills, money to amendments," says Mr. DeLay. And
Ari Fleischer says that "I think that the amount of money
that candidates raise in our democracy is a reflection of
the amount of support they have around the country." Enough
said.
Mr. Confessore suggests that we may be heading for a replay
of the McKinley era, in which the nation was governed by
and for big business. I think he's actually understating
his case: like Mr. DeLay, Republican leaders often talk of
"revolution," and we should take them at their word.
Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics -
which may well put an end to serious two-party competition
- getting more attention? Most pundits, to the extent they
acknowledge that anything is happening, downplay its
importance. For example, last year an article in Business
Week titled "The GOP's Wacky War on Dem Lobbyists"
dismissed the K Street Project as "silly - and downright
futile." In fact, the project is well on the way to
achieving its goals.
Whatever the reason, there's a strange disconnect between
most political commentary and the reality of the 2004
election. As in 2000, pundits focus mainly on images - John
Kerry's furrowed brow, Mr. Bush in a flight suit - or on
supposed personality traits. But it's the nexus of money
and patronage that may well make the election a foregone
conclusion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/opinion/27KRUG.html?ex=1057749098&ei=1&en=d2b1a1d904c9965a
no subject
Date: 2003-06-27 10:49 pm (UTC)Getting involved: http://dean2004.meetup.com/
no subject
Date: 2003-06-28 11:42 pm (UTC)If we can get people energized, active, and optimistic, we have a serious shot at defeating Bush. But for Nader spoiling, Bush would've suffered a fairly substantial loss in '00. There's no left-wing spoiler this time. A moderate-left candidate (yes, I'm thinking about Dean), with a little bit of luck (from an economy that continues to stagnate, and an Iraq that continues to be sufficiently messy with American deaths to hold media attention) could not only beat Bush, but beat him by a substantial margin.