Recently, at a speech at New York University, Al Gore realized that he indeed has a back bone. I say, too little to late, cardboard boy. But the former VP's comments, while a bit too allegorical (ooh, an unintended pun), were a welcome release from a normally paralytic Demacratic party. Here's the part I like:
"The unpleasant truth is that President Bush's utter incompetence has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorist attacks against the United States," said Gore, Bush's Democratic rival in the 2000 election.
"He planted the seeds of war. He harvested a whirlwind," Gore added. "And now the corrupt tree of a war waged on false premises has brought us the evil fruit of Americans torturing and sexually humiliating prisoners who are helpless in their care."
Wow! Someone outside of a comedy club calling the Prez incompetent. Be still my beating heart. Now, you can say that Gore has found his testosterone again, or perhaps he just doesn't care anymore. This could signal that Al has given up the political game and is just willing to hang it all out. This could also mean that we could expect more comments like this from him in the future.
Now, that is quite a weapon for Kerry to have. A rogue ex-politician with nothing to lose, who has a beef with the current president. Hmmm, if this is the case, things have just gotten a lot more interesting.
The Angel Muffin Speaks
Every day, I play a special game. I call it Corporate Hell. I wake early in the morning, only to spend a good thirty minutes agonizing over my closet to make sure that I look the part. Then, I climb in to my budget-priced sedan and make the treck to work. Along the way, I watch the bums on the side of the road, who I doubt are really bums and are truly in need - but that is for another discussion. I watch the Yuppy of the New Millennium in his/her over priced SUV - a vehicle that will most likely never see any mud - equipped with the latest gadgets, talking on a cell phone, while looking at their Blackberry and gazing at their reflection in the mirror - again, another discussion to be had. After 30-45 minutes of this fun, I arrive at the gates of Corporate Hell.
I proceed past the gleaming exterior of the building, and through the plush Lobby, into the inner cave of this Hell. I enter the fishbowl-type room where I spend my day, along with four others, playing the Corporate Game. And it is here that the rant truly begins...
I have spent the past 10 years searching for the right career, only to stumble horribly along the way. My first stop was a small private college, which lacked any shred of ethics. This stop led only to a wonderful experience of testifying before a federal grand jury, who was prosecuting my former employer for fraud. This fun lastest for five years after I left that place. My next stop was in retail management, where I learned that an organization comprised of 95% women can get pretty darn catty. Which leads me to my current residence inside the gates of Corporate Hell.
I now spend my days as a middle manager for a Fortune 500 company and each day becomes closer to "Office Space." For those of you who have not seen this little flick that spoofs Corporate America, you are missing out. Three years ago, my employer began the process of restructuring and looking at "what is good for the company." We explored such thrilling topics as efficiency, cost savings and procurement. Millions were spent collaborating with an outside consulting firm, blueprints were drawn up and the new model was born. Under the new structure, every function has its place, and every employee has a specific function. Critical thinking, problem solving and creativity have all but disappeared. In its place, we have forums like Ask the Leadership, where employees are offered an anoymous source to voice their opinions. The responses from high level executives read like a class from Business 101. (We all doubt that the B.S. in their undergraduate degree stands for Bachelor of Science.) Clearly, they paid attention to the section on Blowing Smoke Up Your Employees Ass.
Many of my friends from college are leaving their own Corporate Hell in an attempt to give back to the community. They are returning to school for careers in teaching, nursing and even heading to Haiti to build churches. This leaves me wondering what I am contributing to society. Each day, my hard work and long hours only really benefit the stockholders. Yet, I am finding that organizations outside Corporate America are not safe either.
My mother spent 37 years in the education field, rising from an English teacher to a position created for her at the adminstration level. During her tenure in this position, she was responsible for numerous special projects, after school programs and generated millions of dollars each year in grants. Two years before retirement, the school district began its own restructuring journey. Her position was eliminated, a $20K salary cut followed and she was forced to bump a younger employee out of a position, in order to serve her last few years before she was eligible to retire. A year later, the school district realized they no longer had grant funds flowing in. They had the nerve to ask her to take on additional grant administration duties, in addition to her full-time load at the high school - and with no increase to her salary. I am left to wonder how different education really is from Corporate Hell.
So, how does the rant end, you ask? It is highly unlikely that our generation, and those that follow, will spend 35 years working the same company, as our grandfathers did, and certainly won't be satisfied with a gold-plated watch at retirement. So, we will continue to search for the "right" place to land, and only hope to find it before the Corporate game consumes us.
I proceed past the gleaming exterior of the building, and through the plush Lobby, into the inner cave of this Hell. I enter the fishbowl-type room where I spend my day, along with four others, playing the Corporate Game. And it is here that the rant truly begins...
I have spent the past 10 years searching for the right career, only to stumble horribly along the way. My first stop was a small private college, which lacked any shred of ethics. This stop led only to a wonderful experience of testifying before a federal grand jury, who was prosecuting my former employer for fraud. This fun lastest for five years after I left that place. My next stop was in retail management, where I learned that an organization comprised of 95% women can get pretty darn catty. Which leads me to my current residence inside the gates of Corporate Hell.
I now spend my days as a middle manager for a Fortune 500 company and each day becomes closer to "Office Space." For those of you who have not seen this little flick that spoofs Corporate America, you are missing out. Three years ago, my employer began the process of restructuring and looking at "what is good for the company." We explored such thrilling topics as efficiency, cost savings and procurement. Millions were spent collaborating with an outside consulting firm, blueprints were drawn up and the new model was born. Under the new structure, every function has its place, and every employee has a specific function. Critical thinking, problem solving and creativity have all but disappeared. In its place, we have forums like Ask the Leadership, where employees are offered an anoymous source to voice their opinions. The responses from high level executives read like a class from Business 101. (We all doubt that the B.S. in their undergraduate degree stands for Bachelor of Science.) Clearly, they paid attention to the section on Blowing Smoke Up Your Employees Ass.
Many of my friends from college are leaving their own Corporate Hell in an attempt to give back to the community. They are returning to school for careers in teaching, nursing and even heading to Haiti to build churches. This leaves me wondering what I am contributing to society. Each day, my hard work and long hours only really benefit the stockholders. Yet, I am finding that organizations outside Corporate America are not safe either.
My mother spent 37 years in the education field, rising from an English teacher to a position created for her at the adminstration level. During her tenure in this position, she was responsible for numerous special projects, after school programs and generated millions of dollars each year in grants. Two years before retirement, the school district began its own restructuring journey. Her position was eliminated, a $20K salary cut followed and she was forced to bump a younger employee out of a position, in order to serve her last few years before she was eligible to retire. A year later, the school district realized they no longer had grant funds flowing in. They had the nerve to ask her to take on additional grant administration duties, in addition to her full-time load at the high school - and with no increase to her salary. I am left to wonder how different education really is from Corporate Hell.
So, how does the rant end, you ask? It is highly unlikely that our generation, and those that follow, will spend 35 years working the same company, as our grandfathers did, and certainly won't be satisfied with a gold-plated watch at retirement. So, we will continue to search for the "right" place to land, and only hope to find it before the Corporate game consumes us.
The Presidential Puppet (from 4/13/04)
Now, it has been postulated by certain people, that President Bush is somewhat of a puppet, being maneuvered and coached by the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rove. This accusation, for most any other president would be unthinkable, but we find that it is not very hard to envision "W" being coached and so forth, by the puppetmasters that helped secure his presidency.
From history, we know that some presidents were indeed puppets also, putting on a good face while the First Lady made the command decisions from the background. Nancy Reagan in the latter part of the Reagen administration and Eleanor Roosevelt in the latter part of the Roosevelt presidency for example. But never has a presidency been controlled by the Presidents Men so obviously as this current administration.
Bush has been president for over three years, and during that time he has conducted 12 press conferences. Both his father and Clinton, over the same time frame, had given over 70 press conferences. Now, you can say that the man is camera shy, or you can say that his handlers do not want him in front of possible scrutiny very often, for fear of what he might say (like mispronouncing a leaders name...again).
Also, no other president has taken as many vacations, or retreats as President Bush. Again, you can say that the man just likes to clear his head, or you can point to the fact that he is taking a vacation during a time that his attention is needed with diplomacy over the Iraq war. From the Center of American Progress, "Instead of going the extra mile to assuage the fears of the international community, President Bush did not personally take the time during the crisis/his vacation to call the leaders of the countries whose citizens were held hostage last week. In fact, the President barely took time off from loafing at his Crawford mansion to deal with real problems, choosing to spend his time appearing on fishing television shows rather than addressing a major world crisis. The result is that global support for the U.S. effort in Iraq has further eroded as security deteriorates. Many allies are now finding it "difficult to resist calls to scale back their involvement or even withdraw." This pulling back unfortunately comes at the same time the U.S. is attempting to build a global force to protect the United Nations in Iraq, a proposal "essential to the fragile political transition because the Bush administration is relying on the United Nations to return to Iraq to help organize elections after the occupation ends on June 30." Without allied support, American troops will be left in harm's way to shoulder the burden."
All I'm asking is, do we want four more years of a puppet presidency? I didn't think so.
From history, we know that some presidents were indeed puppets also, putting on a good face while the First Lady made the command decisions from the background. Nancy Reagan in the latter part of the Reagen administration and Eleanor Roosevelt in the latter part of the Roosevelt presidency for example. But never has a presidency been controlled by the Presidents Men so obviously as this current administration.
Bush has been president for over three years, and during that time he has conducted 12 press conferences. Both his father and Clinton, over the same time frame, had given over 70 press conferences. Now, you can say that the man is camera shy, or you can say that his handlers do not want him in front of possible scrutiny very often, for fear of what he might say (like mispronouncing a leaders name...again).
Also, no other president has taken as many vacations, or retreats as President Bush. Again, you can say that the man just likes to clear his head, or you can point to the fact that he is taking a vacation during a time that his attention is needed with diplomacy over the Iraq war. From the Center of American Progress, "Instead of going the extra mile to assuage the fears of the international community, President Bush did not personally take the time during the crisis/his vacation to call the leaders of the countries whose citizens were held hostage last week. In fact, the President barely took time off from loafing at his Crawford mansion to deal with real problems, choosing to spend his time appearing on fishing television shows rather than addressing a major world crisis. The result is that global support for the U.S. effort in Iraq has further eroded as security deteriorates. Many allies are now finding it "difficult to resist calls to scale back their involvement or even withdraw." This pulling back unfortunately comes at the same time the U.S. is attempting to build a global force to protect the United Nations in Iraq, a proposal "essential to the fragile political transition because the Bush administration is relying on the United Nations to return to Iraq to help organize elections after the occupation ends on June 30." Without allied support, American troops will be left in harm's way to shoulder the burden."
All I'm asking is, do we want four more years of a puppet presidency? I didn't think so.
What is a Progressive?
During a debate I was having recently, someone mentioned that I was a progressive, upon which time I simply agreed and countered that I was indeed a progressive. But they mentioned it in a way that would be considered an insult, by also intimating that I was a communist. They backed this allegation up by linking me to the Communist USA web site where, lo' and behold, the word 'progressive' was used more than once. This got me to thinking, "Do I know what a Progressive is?" Perhaps I've been mistaken all this time to believe that a Progressive is simply someone who wants progress. Perhaps I've been a closet communist for all these many years! Egads! But then I remembered my strong love of capitalism and money and all was good again in the world.
But the question still remains: What is a Progressive. Or more to the point, what is a progressive in the eyes of the world at large? Well, the first place to look for a definition is the handy, dandy dictionary, of course. According to Dictionary.com, A Progressive is a person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. No communist allusion here. The Progressive magazine, who has been a voice for Democrats and liberals for much of this century, defines their mission as the following:
The mission of The Progressive is to be a journalistic voice for peace and social justice at home and abroad. The magazine, its affiliates, and its staff steadfastly oppose militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, the disenfranchisement of the citizenry, poverty, and prejudice in all its guises. We champion peace, social and economic justice, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, a preserved environment, and a reinvigorated democracy.
Sounds pretty good. Opposing militarism doesn't sound like the communists I know (not that I know any, it's just a figure of speech McCarthy), and the other elements fit the Democratic party pretty well, not Communism so much.
Another definition comes from the Center for American Progress states this:
We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that is “of all the people, by all the people, and for all the people.” We believe in honoring work, building strong communities, fostering effective government and encouraging free and fair markets.
Again, I find it hard to argue with this line of reasoning.
In the end, I am a progressive who is also a capitalist and proud of it. Trying to connect a progressive with communism is nothing less than McCarthy-ism, which I thought we had outgrown.
But the question still remains: What is a Progressive. Or more to the point, what is a progressive in the eyes of the world at large? Well, the first place to look for a definition is the handy, dandy dictionary, of course. According to Dictionary.com, A Progressive is a person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government. No communist allusion here. The Progressive magazine, who has been a voice for Democrats and liberals for much of this century, defines their mission as the following:
The mission of The Progressive is to be a journalistic voice for peace and social justice at home and abroad. The magazine, its affiliates, and its staff steadfastly oppose militarism, the concentration of power in corporate hands, the disenfranchisement of the citizenry, poverty, and prejudice in all its guises. We champion peace, social and economic justice, civil rights, civil liberties, human rights, a preserved environment, and a reinvigorated democracy.
Sounds pretty good. Opposing militarism doesn't sound like the communists I know (not that I know any, it's just a figure of speech McCarthy), and the other elements fit the Democratic party pretty well, not Communism so much.
Another definition comes from the Center for American Progress states this:
We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that is “of all the people, by all the people, and for all the people.” We believe in honoring work, building strong communities, fostering effective government and encouraging free and fair markets.
Again, I find it hard to argue with this line of reasoning.
In the end, I am a progressive who is also a capitalist and proud of it. Trying to connect a progressive with communism is nothing less than McCarthy-ism, which I thought we had outgrown.
War Hazing...
With the actions of our soldiers at Abu Ghraib, Rush Limbaugh joked that the pictures were reminescent of a fraternity hazing stunt, though in trying to make light of the situation, he may have summed up the Lefts opinion of how the Right views the situation: they just don't care.
The administration had possession of the pictures since January, and if 60 Minutes II had not broke the story, you know the admin (read Bush and Rumsfeld and company) would still be sitting on them, content with the knowledge that "no one knows, so I don't know either(plausible deniability)".
I fear the truth of the matter is that our government knew about our treatment of prisoners well before January, but was more than content to allow the abuses to continue. Why not? No one is ever going to find out, and if they do, we have a long chain of command to throw to the fire, starting with the PFC's.
The question that I have is where does the 'Geneva Convention' come into play in all this? From my understanding, the Iraqi prisoners are subject to the Geneva Convention guidelines, which I would think would prohibit this kind of activity. So who was/is in charge?
Needless to say, this is a tremendous black eye for America. We hold ourselves up to so righteous and moral, and then something like this comes up and we are reminded that we are all just human, falling prey to fear and evil just like our everyone else.
The administration had possession of the pictures since January, and if 60 Minutes II had not broke the story, you know the admin (read Bush and Rumsfeld and company) would still be sitting on them, content with the knowledge that "no one knows, so I don't know either(plausible deniability)".
I fear the truth of the matter is that our government knew about our treatment of prisoners well before January, but was more than content to allow the abuses to continue. Why not? No one is ever going to find out, and if they do, we have a long chain of command to throw to the fire, starting with the PFC's.
The question that I have is where does the 'Geneva Convention' come into play in all this? From my understanding, the Iraqi prisoners are subject to the Geneva Convention guidelines, which I would think would prohibit this kind of activity. So who was/is in charge?
Needless to say, this is a tremendous black eye for America. We hold ourselves up to so righteous and moral, and then something like this comes up and we are reminded that we are all just human, falling prey to fear and evil just like our everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)