Pogo was Correct

So the Liberals cry foul over the First Amendment rights of right-wing talk radio because they say it's inflammatory and hateful and makes weak-willed individuals go out and commit crimes against liberal politicians and abortion doctors.  In response, the Conservatives say the perpetrators are lone wolves and mentally ill and are not influenced by the entertaining discussion.

So the Conservatives cry foul over the First Amendment rights of pornographers because they say it's inflammatory and creates uncontrollable lusts and causes rapes and familial strife.  In response, the Liberals say the perpetrators are mentally ill or violent criminals and are not influenced by seeing bodacious titties.

Violence in our media is BAD say the Liberals.  Sex in our media is BAD say the Conservatives.

Liberals say protests are BAD when done by old fucks with tea bags hanging from their hats.  The bigots are just upset because they have a black president.  Besides, they carry idiotic signage with poor spelling.

Conservatives say protests are BAD when done by lazy drugged young hippies who are upset with being poorer than their corporate overlords.  Besides, they carry snotty sarcastic signage.

Comparable corollaries?  We have met the enemy and he is us? 
In case this was written so poorly you did not catch the sarcasm, remember:  Content matters.

Time for Protest Songs?

A facebook friend asked for names of old-time classic protest songs.  I guess it's that time again, when the "Blowin' in the Wind" and "Joe Hill" and "Fixin' to Die Rag" (wait, I think that's not the right title but you get the idea) type of songs are appropriate for the cultural phenomenon that is occurring in our country.  Phil Ochs, Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Joan Baez.

"Occupy!"  and "We are the 99%" and even "It Gets Better" are hotter than ever these days.  I think facebook has some measure of credit for the broad coverage of these things- for the wide dissemination of massive amounts of emotionally charged messages, for the outrageous not-covered-by-corporate-mainstream-media material.

I know it's getting crazier out there.  The jobs bill is all but dead over ideology (and the Republicans aren't proposing alternatives, just saying NO to everything as usual).  The price of everything is going up and the prospect of future work for some types of self employed people (those of us who earned a good living at our own business in the past but are struggling just to find work these days) is depressing.  Do we really have to get into a full blown depression or a full blown revolution, to get things going again?

The Tea Party came into power because a Black Democrat was elected to the Presidency.  Their cause was never personal, it was always anti-Obama.  It is still going but it is not the majority (just a large faction of the bigoted wing of the Republican Party).

The 99%, however...now THERE is a populist movement.  And it's time to OCCUPY.  

Occupy Idaho!

So it's a movement, it appears.  Occupy Wall Street has spread in solidarity to cities around the nation.  But some friends on facebook asked some good questions:

1.  If the 'occupation' doesn't spread to actual businesses (banks, foreclosed buildings, etc) and only stays in safe areas, is it really an occupation?  What's the point if there is no risk?  Who will get the message and what will that message be, if the citizenry do not actually create any unrest on the part of the powers-that-be?

2.  If the occupation in general across the nation DOES move on to businesses and arrests start occurring, who will be willing to participate?  Arrests even in the civic duty of protesting one's government aren't exactly nice things to have on your background check when you are applying for work.  What if the arrest leads to your dismissal from your employment?  Idaho is a right-to-work state which means the employees have no rights to be employed and can be fired at will for no reason. 

So while it looks good on facebook, it's still a long way from being an effective tool to generate change in our society.  Unless one has little or nothing to lose, one might not be found in the trenches during the 'occupation'. 

On the other hand, if everyone waits until they have nothing to lose, it may be too late.

Confession Session

I am wasteful of my income.  I blow it on impulsive purchases, piddle it away on eating out at restaurants, and generally deny myself very little.  I have the objects of recent technology, I drive a newer car, and I have cable, Netflix, wifi high speed internet and a smart phone.

I have nothing in savings.  I'm worth more dead than alive, due to life insurance policies I have. 

What kind of irresponsible nutjob am I?  I've been this way whether my income was below or above the poverty level. 

I think it must be greed, pure and simple.  It's embarrassing, actually.  I've known this about myself for long enough to change the behavior but I haven't altered how I do things.    I like lots of things about myself but not this particular character trait.

Monetary Profligacy.  It's not for the faint of heart.