LitYankee's Blog

LitYankee Commented on Gay Rights for the 21st Century by brbuchwal

2008-11-26T20:09:30Z

Although I am not horribly disheartened with the advancement of LGBT rights in America, I still don't see the nation in any sense at a remarkable, cultural turning point. Void of the civil-rights laws and decisions, I don't see the path to inclusion any more unhampered. Until those rights are tested by statute, they are not insurmountable as Rauch insists. Cultural political roles can change by whim and without reason. Unfortunately, Pollyanna has no longevity on Capitol Hill.
Rauch misspeaks when he calls the past and current LGBT strategy a form of pariah defense. The role of the pariah is one of subjugation, it is forced on a population. Standing up for ones civil-rights is negating this definition and demanding being seen as an equal, not a pariah. His use of the term is very disrespectful to all those that braved on fighting for these rights - they never saw themselves as pariahs, Harvey Milk certainly didn't.
It was a proud moment to hear the inclusive language at the Convention, but I am still waiting for that rallying cry. How many stump speeches did we hear about LGBT specific issues? Any during the debates? What kind of out in the front support did we get from the Obama campaign against Prop 8. His administration will surely be a welcomed change of bureaucratic intention, I still have Hope. But we are still at Gay Rights 1.0 until we are private equals with everyone. Gay Rights for the 21st Century is still in the 20th Century by stature - we've yet to have the same naturally endowed rights that some never had to fight for.
Rauch claims that "by and large we aren't [an oppressed minority.]" Maybe by measure of incremental, legal achievements this holds true, but I think he needs to get out in the streets, down from the Advocate Ivory Tower, and hear the stories of oppression. The segregated, economic, political clout that he sees as freedom from oppression would be better framed if it didn't sound so Marie Antoinette.
A loud and proud Semper Fi call of "hooah" to go forward, but it is a long time coming before a LGBT couple can walk hand-in-hand from tip-to-tip of Manhattan without challenge to spirit or safety, never mind coast to coast of the US or around the world.

LitYankee Commented on A Pick-Your-Poison Question by Charles Homans

2008-11-25T17:54:18Z

I agree the Congress has a problem with such skills - chewing and walking - especially when chewing means covering their political butts and walking means diligent representing their constituents. But this is just my pessimistic complaining - and not very proactive.

LitYankee Commented on A Pick-Your-Poison Question by Charles Homans

2008-11-25T17:07:53Z

I see such an investigation as restoring the standing of the executive branch, not the congressional. Each branch's responsibility to the public is defined by their acts, not how they react against another branch. The flaccid character of the present Congress is because they did nothing to protect our interests - in this case by not being proactive in the last eight years - neglecting their duties of oversight. Let the Congress right their name by actually doing something and not by tearing apart Bush as a symbol towards a hollow victory. Sending someone to jail is not as important as addressing how the government works for us - although both can be done.

LitYankee Commented on The Mixed Up Files of G.W. Bush by Charles Homans

2008-11-25T16:40:14Z

A possible way to address the core purpose of an appropriate response to the Bush Administration's history, clear of politics, is to make such an investigation a continuous function of the Legislature. The simplest demand that this type of investigation makes, is that of the people having the right to know what things were done in its name even as certain Executive Actions lead to the possibility of secrecy or invisibility. We charge the Legislature to act by initiating an independent commission to identify every procedural change and the orders that guide them. This commission will be instituted after every change in Executive Administration. A special representative from each branch will be assigned to address any special issue of law. Bottom-up ministerial tracking of procedural changes must always lead to an official act, or appropriate charges will be filed.
In the end, it should be viewed as and performed neither as a special event nor in benefit of, nor a responsibility of the incoming administration; it is another civil check of power - every time. For all we know, Obama might fall to the same abuse of power.
In the same idea, individual Congressional reports should follow, with approachable reports to the home district including the complete calender with contacts and meetings, as well as gifts, donations and votes (including connections).

LitYankee Commented on The Daily Muck by Natalie Sherman

2008-11-25T15:38:13Z

I trust more in the story just by the appearance of Rangel's actions, and they don't look good. And what kind of person spearheads a project named after himself? Ego? Does he not see the call for favors by an institution, no matter what their cause, when they name it after him? Is that the role of an acting Representative? If American politics had a solid history of unquestionable trust, maybe I would give him the benefit of a doubt - that just isn't the case and he has forced the party to kick him to the curb.

LitYankee Commented on Corporate Welfare by Jon Taplin

2008-11-21T18:05:13Z

I agree with a more "honorable" past that you describe as the corporate and public relationship.
A good example on how things have changed is the difference between a Father and Son, George and Mitt Romney. The first being more hand-in-hand, the later being more slash and burn.
I never will concede the unions are bad, only some of their agreements. Here in Boston, I will honor the BPD's service and work they do, I have even worried about one coming home safe at night. Their Union has done wonders and has actually been national leaders in promoting and protecting their corps - but not everything in their contract is in either theirs or the public's interest (like detail duty), yet they bicker over it every time and to everyone else seems petty and unbelievable.

LitYankee Commented on Will Henry Paulson Sink Detroit? by Dean Baker

2008-11-21T17:48:43Z

I agree, excluding whatever political motivations swam through their heads, I was glad to see that the Legislature demanded that they "show them the money." I use that phrase because it seems like the Big 3 are trying to sensationalize the crisis and tie on to the finance bailout just like any good sports agent does when the next star gets a big contract.
If they want us to invest in them, and our workers' future, show us a business plan. It is probably harder to receive WIC or Educational Grants. GMAC being part of their problem just illustrates the unworthiness of their claim.
I definitely see the need for the Fed to inject a lot of money to levee the country's economy. If we have 25b to spend, finding the most progressive and technology-forward projects are the best; that is what will keep America ahead. It is interesting to see where the Representatives of Michigan's and the like dedication lies. It is always for the Car Companies (in the name of the workers). Wouldn't it be in the worker's best interest if the Reps find another industry that proves for a better future? Do they have any ingenuity or big thinking skills?

LitYankee Commented on Home Depot Will Never Get Another Dollar From Me by Oregon Activist

2008-11-20T22:28:57Z

If you want, just a few things about Big Boxes in general...

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib235

http://amiba.net/

LitYankee Commented on Culture Wars and Labels by stillidealistic

2008-11-20T21:27:20Z

I enjoy them as well. These discussions help remind me to make sure my beliefs actually transfer to the way I live which is always the hardest part.

Maybe in another post you can describe what you mean by all sins being equal and how you fit that in to such an unfair world. I often run into conflicts in some of my beliefs in the equality of life issues - equality of sins would help my path stay true.

LitYankee Commented on Will Henry Paulson Sink Detroit? by Dean Baker

2008-11-20T21:09:57Z

It is always my first belief that most if not all businesses skirt the law. I do not doubt Mercedes ignored and neglected policies in their favor. I also don't think GM would be completely comfortable living in a glass house. They all have more than their share of influence over the government.
I don't see how it is a punishment, by not subsidizing GM, just because of the successful Mercedes product. Is it a punishment to a small coffee shop if they go out of business when a city doesn't give them money after a Starbucks open on the same block even with all the market influence they hold?
Remember, the entire US economy is benefiting from the US dismissal of the Kyoto treaty even though other competing economies embrace it. And who is this neo liberal that is out to destroy the auto industry? If the Mercedes fleet did not meet the EPA standards, they would not be allowed to have market access in the USA. This was a system standard created in concession to the auto industry.

LitYankee Commented on Culture Wars and Labels by stillidealistic

2008-11-20T20:47:32Z

In praise of your introspection, I will add a few questions your post raised for me.

You say that you needed to redefine yourself, but do you think prior to this other people defined who you were? We are socialized to be what other people want which doesn't leave much room for critical thinking. We find safety in external controls rather than independent internal beliefs.

Isn't it odd that even the smallest of child knows the basics of right and wrong even when they are uncontrollably selfish; and then constantly told throughout our life what right and wrong actually is. Maybe it is the absolute dependency that frees the child to be closer to the "truth," then as we become independent, and the risk and danger involved in it, we succumb to those bad tendencies and need those external codes to keep us in line and secure our place in the world.

My feeling is if we developed our own sense of self and codes of behavior without the outside influence, and I have no idea how this would happen, we would all develop a universal understanding. Maybe that would be Utopia. Maybe that is the lesson of the Garden of Eden. When outside forces cast influence over us, and then define what is an internal natural feeling, all things start to fall apart.

I often sense a feeling of guilt when women speak of their choices they dared make in spite of the still obvious gender roles which are the problem. Our culture has moved well beyond the gender-specific biological roles we express, yet we haven't socially evolved to our fuller ability. Women are expected to assume both roles and be a more complete person, but men are way behind in following the same path. So I guess this means, in general, women ARE better then men because they succeed over a wider area of our society than men do. So it wasn't your growth at the expense of your marriage, it was your husbands lack of growth that was at the expense of your marriage. I only use you as an example to illustrate what might be a better cause to blame, and not to judge your relationship.

Maybe as a way to delve into the question of marriage, getting to the truth below the cultural baggage, you can ask yourself - after a life of living as a couple with all those things you went though together, would you honor your feelings of connection, dedication and commitment (in short, love and choice) any less if you didn't have a church ceremony? I think the dignity and special spiritual force surrounding marriage is defined by this commitment, this vow, people give to each other regardless of the religious institution. As another example, think of the parent child bond, probably the most spiritually connected relationship we have with each other. Would you question the validity or the dignity of a Mother or Father because of a religious difference? Or would you question the undying bond just because a Mother was an atheist?
It is just this sense of dignity and honor of our humanity that we ask for, that I demand, when speaking of marriage. When others try to deny or dismiss our access to marriage, defined by some of the most human of experiences (in short, love), it is a knife to the heart. As much as I am sure of myself, confident and unafraid, it still question my worth sometimes knowing that I need it in writing, by law, that I am equal to everyone else - but only as a protection, not as a natural truth. Fighting for the legal right to marry, at the same time, proclaims our equality even though we know we are not equal. Woman's suffrage also embodies this conflict - it automatically establishes of subservient position when you had to demand your right to vote of your free will even though it can never be broken.

One last observation from your post. You raise the futility of the cultural polarization we are seeing by forcing us to the extremes. Cultural forces also have a polarized effect on us by, in the name of superior ideological protection, only end up filtering out the truth. Thanks for inviting us in to your discovery.

LitYankee Commented on Home Depot Will Never Get Another Dollar From Me by Oregon Activist

2008-11-20T19:02:17Z

I certainly didn't mean to judge your behaviors, sorry if it felt like I was in attack mode. Elitist posturing is never nice, or progressive. It is not like I am some self-sufficient, zero foot print, sweat shop free person living in the middle of the city.
But if you think the next time you go into Target, do I really need to go in, since you go so few times - I will take the subway to the further independent movie theatre rather than the AMC three blocks away this weekend, even in the cold. They have better popcorn and brownies at the independent one anyways - and they smile!
I know some things, like medicine, is only affordable at places like Wal*Mart and necessary, but that is just sad.

LitYankee Commented on Will Henry Paulson Sink Detroit? by Dean Baker

2008-11-20T18:43:30Z

We really need to get over the belief that an "American" car is more in our interest than a "Foreign" car. And it really doesn't matter what kind of car anyone makes if they can do it successfully. But the taxpayers stake is not only to make a profit, it is to promote industries that bode well for our future. Sustainable industries (profitable) are of course our best bet unless we want nationalized industries. Luxury, tank cars don't meet the best interests of our future, the next technology cars do.
GM should fail because their business model was wrong, and the model was wrong not only because of the cars they chose to make. And if Jesus worked at GM, he would be less concerned at what car they made, than righteously railing against the corporate inequalities. Bringing Jesus into the equation should really go deeper than which car is more evil, while contemplating our relationship with autos. But shallow be our name...

LitYankee Commented on Will Henry Paulson Sink Detroit? by Dean Baker

2008-11-20T18:03:45Z

Nardelli or someone just like him will always be rewarded. I don't see that as a necessary evil except when public money is never felt by the worker. I might even be able to overlook the unfairness of corp. excesses if the working class were promised and provided a way to productively live. That inequality has more to do with politics than with money, as silly as that phrase sounds, I think you might understand what I mean.
The 25b that is already waiting for the industry for the development on the next technologies is one way. If Nardelli/Chrysler can't reorganize or create a spin-off, proving their viability and deserving of the incentive, then they don't. Invite another company who can put it all together and use the monetary infusion and a little Fed strong-arming to initiate a take-over or the like. Is there not anyone in the industry capable of this? Do Detroit workers care if they are making Saturn or Toyota hybrids when there community is healthy. The UAW has a better chance lobbying against a profitable company rather than one on the edge.
My concern lies in the lack of foresight by supporting some industries over the advancement of future industries and the competitive re-training of our workforce. If we want to have a low level work force, competing on a growing and ever capable market, we will have to accept a diminished life-style. Protectionist policies and workforce cultural advancement will counteract these and I think are both appropriate and necessary.
So, if you want to support the progressive ideals of the UAW (not that they are the best promoter, I don't know), you have to give the workers the most competitive and specialized industry to work in.

LitYankee Commented on Will Henry Paulson Sink Detroit? by Dean Baker

2008-11-20T17:15:09Z

I follow you on those concerns. It is in the industry's best industry to have the workforce living on the edge and why such a subsidy might prolong the stagnation of that particular industrial worker. It seems illogical to support the Union by supporting its antagonist.
I no the car isn't going away, but will America be better with or without the Suburban? It seems funny to me that our home-based industrial security is seen as a risk while our country has been habitually reliant on an overseas commodity. Are we to believe that we wouldn't nationalize our industries regardless who owned them if WWIII started? It seems like a nationalistic reactionary diversion from reality. But whether it is a true scare or not, should we protect these interests by supporting failed companies rather than better adapted industrial plants.

LitYankee Commented on Dems Bash Burrowing Bushies by Zachary Roth

2008-11-20T16:34:52Z

I have not heard of that concept. Is that referring to his agricultural policies and their famines? I think public shame is the best route - funny how the most fair and honest thing is also the most hurtful. The public beating that Bush took and how it must have hurt his ego surrounding the Maier appointment. So much better than if it was a behind the door warning that she would never in a million years be approved.