America Forward

Votergate

Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:51:39 GMT

Thanks to Jamie (who has now resigned from politics) for this link

http://mediamatters.org/items/200411120011

It raises an interesting point. Perhaps the alleged vote fraud in florida counties as mentioned in a previous post here on this journal isn't the smoking gun we're looking for. Perhaps there isn't even such a gun in existence. However, why is the media, the only real voice of the people in this country, flatly ignoring all of the ridiculous errors that electronic voting machines were responsible for? The above article suggests that the reason is viewers are tired of the election and are willing to just accept Bush for the next four years. Perhaps thats the case. However I find it much more likely that a note from the high reaches of the large news conglomerates said something like this. "The election is over and Kerry has conceded. Lets stay away from vote count issues and shift our coverage to something else. We don't want George to get mad at us again."

-Alex

Power against the people

Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:36:02 GMT

By Dana (the Extremely Bitter)

I've only heard two optimistic things in the last week, and those are:
1) ONLY four more years, and
2) Absolutely anything that goes wrong in the next four years can and will be pinned on the Republicans, because they're running the show.

The first one is only somewhat optimistic I suppose, but it's true at least. Though I fear to see what neo-conservative psychopath they come up with for 2008, at least we know that Bush (in his current form) will be gone.

The second one is trickier than it sounds, for the simple reason that the GOP are information geniuses. They've managed to turn the world "liberal" into a slur, and convinced the majority of the country that promoting terrorism is sane foreign policy. If only they used the same brainwashing techniques they used to get midwesterners to vote Republican on people in the Middle East, we'd have a hell of a lot fewer suicide bombings, and American soldiers wouldn't be walking into the Fallujah death trap as we speak. The point is that they're masters at deflecting blame and making themselves look great, even when it's blitheringly obvious that they've made mistakes with devastating consequences for other people.

So far, I've actually liked what I've seen in terms of the response to this politacal disaster. The Democratic party is scratching its head, thinking of ways to appeal to what has become a majority of American voters. However, those of us who aren't officially affiliated with the Democrats, have starting ranting against not just the Bush government, but the Bush VOTERS. How could that many people be so incredibly stupid? This is an idea which will stick, because 48% of America is saying it very loudly right now. You find out someone voted for Bush? Call them stupid to their face. They fucked us bad, and they need to know that everything that son of a bitch does is on their shoulders.

That said, I'd like to personally say fuck you to every single person who voted Republican, and remind them that terrorists had no valid reason to attack us before, but now that we've re-elected the people who single-handedly started an unjust war in their homeland, they've got every right to bring hell right here to the US of A. Thanks, assholes.

Possible Voter Fraud Evidence?

Sun, 07 Nov 2004 23:49:42 GMT

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=284

That link (courtesy of Jamie) details a possible cheating scheme for swinging the election in bush's favor without looking too suspicious.

The basic evidence goes like this. In key states, in small counties only, to avoid raising eyebrows, report the number of votes in reverse. Report candidate As votes as candidate B and vice versa.

This is detectable in a few ways. If there are 10,000 people in Fakeie county, and 75% of them are registered democrats and 25% are registered republicans the votes should reflect that. 7,500 people should have voted democratic and 2,500 should have voted republican. Furthermore, the exit polls should show that. Interestingly, according to Mr. Moore's web site the reverse is true. Which would seem to indicate that fraud did occur. I'm not entirely convinced because it seems all we have to go on right now is some ruff statistics. However, I think it does merit investigation.

Sam suggests that if these counties are so small, why not send a group out to canvas the area and just find out what percentage of people voted which way.

-The Anathema

What to do?

Sun, 07 Nov 2004 21:31:24 GMT

I've been thinking about this for the last week. Mulling over various ideas. Trying to decide what is the most practical thing to do. We'll go into that in a minute. First, what the fuck just happened?

Well I see a few possibilities. First there's the most obvious answer. Any police officer will tell you that whatever you think is the most likely answer is probably the truth. In this case, sadly, the most likely thing is that America really did vote overwhelmingly for W. If that is the case then we must address the question of why. The media is saying that it was the gay rights issue. More than half of america is so afraid of homosexuals that they voted purely on that issue. With no regard for driving our, once proud, country farther and farther down in the world view. The next question down this line of reasoning is why haven't these voters shown their opinions before? Well my hunch is that its a combination of ridiculously good marketing on the neo-con's part and a lot of churches illegally telling their congregations to vote republican because otherwise their souls would not be safe in heaven. I say illegal because churches are not allowed to guide their congregations in political matters because it violates the rules of their tax-free organization status.
Another possibility is that there was some serious voter fraud. We've all been talking about Diebold voting systems being a bit unreliable. There's also the question of did your ballot get counted after it left your hand. Did your voter registration get turned in? Who knows. These aren't things that are easily checked. If there was voter fraud. They did a good job of it. Only giving themselves enough votes to make it appear that there was a majority supporting them but not such a majority that it was obviously fake.

Now. What to do? Riot was my first inclination. Indeed, there were a lot of those here in America the day after the election. Of course they didn't get any media coverage because that would be a sign that there are people who don't support the furer. err.. I mean president. I went through a few other ideas that would probably win me a visit from the secret service if i mentioned them here. What i've settled on now is this. We all have Kerry Edwards pins, bumper stickers, and signs. Just keep them up. For the next four years, wear your Kerry Edwards pins. Republicans will be VERY pissed off.

r: "why are you wearing that pin still??"
d: "Why do you care?"
r: "you lost, it's time to take it off"
d: "no, we all lost, I just want to make sure no one thinks I'm responsible for it."

Good-luck and Freewill

- The Anathema

My American Education - Required Reading: Untitled Essay 1

Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:15:16 GMT

Well, I must say that I feel smarter for having read that last piece by Alex and all the edited dialogue after it by Jamie. Now, it's my turn to weigh in. Hey, my car's busted and I can't get to work, so I have eight hours to kill. This could take a while…. ; )

In response to Jamie's final question, I have an answer. She writes: "Does polarized rhetoric breed Bush? Or, is Bush a smart politician that knows people respond to power?"*

First of all, this is not a chicken and the egg scenario. Polarized rhetoric came before Bush, before Karl Rove even. If we were merely talking about some archetypal politician, then maybe we could use the "what came first" argument. But, contemporarily speaking, we know the "go negative" strategy was not pioneered by Bush. So, the chicken and the egg scenario is misapplied in this instance.

Now that we have extricated ourselves from that philosophical circle-jerk, we can get down to the nitty-gritty.

Growing up in the burgeoning era of media-dominated politics, there is no doubt in my mind that the majority of the baby-boom generation saw the powerful effects of free- and paid-media advertising, be it positive or negative in nature. Often times, the newly televised Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960 is cited for ushering in the new era of media dominated (i.e. TV-dominated) politics in our country.** There is no doubt, also, that these same boomers saw the effect Johnson's negative ads had on Goldwater's chances to win the Presidency in '64. By asserting that his opponent would end the Vietnam War with world-wide nuclear war, Johnson's message was clear and powerful, even if distorted and negative. Nevertheless, it worked: Johnson 486 electoral votes, Goldwater 52.***

In writing this, I am struck by historic parallels, fair or not, that I will use to further my point. First, Bush is a negative ad-running Texan who uses fear to get elected. You know what, so was Lyndon Johnson (think 1964). Secondly, Bush uses the South's seemingly seminal hatred for the North to lock up a good chunk of the nation's electoral votes even before a Democratic opponent can be found. But, it was Nixon in '68 who pioneered that trend by pandering to the Southern states' hated Kennedy (John F. and Robert) and Johnson for their interference in the civil rights movement. He then mobilized this hatred against Eugene McCarthy. Where did you think Republicans of today learned this stuff?

Moving on in history, things get worse. In 1979, GOPAC, a Republican training ground, was born.**** The entire mission of this organization is to train Republican aspirants to clarify (dumb-down) their political message in order to amplify the power of the their position. Historically, this has boiled down to a deliberate effort to simplify the political discourse into an "Us versus Them" mentality. Oh, and in case you didn't know, they have dibs on "lower taxes, limited government and strong national defense." Don't even try to challenge them on those issues, because you are naturally inferior to them on those issues.

In the 1980's, Newt Gingrich took over GOPAC and lead a charge to retake the House of Representatives. Ultimately, in 1994, when Bush was being sworn in as Governor of Texas, Gingrich was gleefully presiding over a new swarm (majority) of elected Republicans in the House. And they really loved to piss off and vilify Bill Clinton. Gingrich even made Rush Limbaugh an honorary member of the '94 House due to all his efforts with GOPAC and training Republicans to "Go Negative, Go Negative, Go Negative!" Especially against Clinton.

Hopefully, the picture I am trying to draw is becoming clear. Bush inherited a political system (especially a Republican one) that was already predicated upon hatred and negativity-not civil discourse. He didn't invent it, or even exploit it. A carpenter is not exploiting a hammer to build a house, is he? He's just using the tools others have invented for him to do his work. Some tools, like a pneumatic hammer, make it easier for him to do his work. Would you fault him for using those tools?

Where Bush becomes a smart politician is where he recognizes the influences already at work in our society. This is to say that, by now, Americans have become conditioned to respond in a contradictory manner towards negative messages. On the one hand, studies have shown that negative advertising has shown to decrease overall voter turnout, especially among undecided voters, or voters who are not crazy about their candidate. On the other hand, we have become conditioned to respond favorably to the negative message. We hear it, process it, remember it, and then outwardly claim to be disgusted by it.

Unfortunately, this is not a complete contradiction. Actually, campaigns have found out that their negative message just mobilizes their core blocks of supporters, who are not only numerically superior to undecided voters, but they can't get enough of the negative message and won't be turned off by it.*****

Bush has figured this out. But so have I. So, I am not ready to concede that he is intelligent simply because he recognized something that can't be ignored. Negativity works. Simple, elegant, clear, dirty, repulsive negativity works.

So, in the end, Bush is not smart for using this strategy nor did negativity breed Bush. Instead, Bush has done what everyone else has done since who-knows-when. In essence, the tone of his campaigns are undistinguished historically. After all, he's just being negative like everyone else, right? Really, his campaigns are only remarkable because of the depths to which he uses negativity, this one tool. Think of a carpenter building a house using only a hammer-no nails or saws or tape measures, etc. The sheer absurdity of it makes the spectacle remarkable. And dumbfoundedly, it even endears some to it.

Unfortunately for people like Alex, who lament the loss of civilized discourse, the future does not look good. Until the invention of another, more effective tool, the tone of campaigns and politics will not change. As I understand it, the Internet****** and bloggers, like us (?), may be a new tool to subvert the power of televised negative advertising and messages. We only need to look to the Dan Rather-60 Minutes debacle to recognize the power of such a tool.

But, if this tool turns out to be flawed or ineffective, are we all truly doomed to this brand of politics into perpetuity? And, given the lack of suitable alternative, are Democrats forced to engage in this brand of campaigning because it has proven to be effective? Do we face eradication if we do not?

I will leave you with this: GOPAC was born out of the need for someone to effectively combat and campaign against the type of Democrat that Jimmy Carter represented. The absurdity of that idea seems laughable now. But in the 70's the Republicans had really fucked up with Nixon being a crook and Ford being a clumsy, inarticulate moron. By the time Carter won the presidency, Republicans feared eradication. As a result, they invented an organization to prevent that from happening. Obviously, it worked.

-Sam Smith

* I edited the punctuation and grammar.
** Read more about this debate at: www.museum.tv/archives/etv/K/htmlK/kennedy-nixon/kennedy-nixon.htm.
*** In reading about Goldwater for this piece, I am reminded of Dick Cheney. Read a little bit about him yourself at: www.multied.com/elections/1964.html.
**** Read more about GOPAC by visiting their website: www.gopac.org.
***** Go to gopac.org for today's negative message. It's in a box in the upper right hand corner of the main web page.
****** Known as "Internets" in Bush-world.

Politics or Civil War?

Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:31:16 GMT

By: Alex the anathema

I attended what I will call a rally, for lack of a better term, last night. The Slacker Uprising tour is what its host Michael Moore called it. Before the event started I walked around the hall looking for good photo opertunities and also for anyone I might know. Against one wall of the massive pavilion there were about 50 kids. They looked to be between the ages of 15 and 20 and all held various Republican rally signs. I stopped next to them and said to the group, "I'm glad you're here. Even though I don't agree with you, I think its awesome." There was a resounding and seemingly heart-felt "thank you," from them and I was encouraged that the next generation of Republicans were on their path to understanding the true meaning of politics.

What is the true meaning of politics? Well let me first say that what is going on in our country right now is definately not politics. Make no mistake, we are currently engaged in civil war. The difference may not be clear to some because its been so long since many of us have seen real politics. An example of actual politics would be when a Republican and a Democrat sit down and discuss their logical points on various topics. The purpous of such discussion being to convince each other of the merits of their differing views and thus come to a comprimise. For instance, I say, outsourcing labor to other countries is taking away jobs from workers at home; therefore, America needs to stop outsourcing jobs period. Andrew says, outsourcing jobs is the only way for us to maintain competitive pricing. Americans arent willing to work for low enough rates so if we didnt outsource all our businesses would move out of the US. Plus we are helping other countries with the money we send to them. Then we come to a comprimise that we can continue outsourcing jobs but we tax the companies who outsource the jobs and use that revenue to help aid the workers who lost their jobs here in America.

That's not how politics is working right now. Right now the Republicans are doing everything they can to present the front "we're right and they're stupid." Democrats took a while to catch up because Democrats tend to be more interested in cooperation, however they are starting to jump on that band wagon too. All either party is interested in is taking over and dominating the opposition. There is a lot of talk about voting for Democratic senators to make John Kerry able to get things done in the White House. I'm not sure its a good idea. Opressing the Republicans with a totally liberal government is no better than opressing the Democrats with a totally Republican government. Which brings me around to the rally I went to last night.

Once the rally started and Michael was up on stage shouting about how we were going to win this election and vilifying Republicans across the board, the Republicans that I mentioned earlier got up and started to march across the floor holding their signs up high. If I had been up on stage right then I would have asked the croud to be quiet and pleaded with them to stay. But instead he used them as a target for the croud's rage at Bush. He encouraged us to cheer and clap and thats what everyone did. I felt awful.

If there are any Republicans who read this. Please know that I am open to discussing politics with you. ths country is founded on comprimise. Not everyone wants to fight a civil war for the White House.

History matters

Mon, 11 Oct 2004 06:52:42 GMT

By: Dana (the Cynic)

When the talking heads say that this election is a crossroads in history, they aren't lying. It's not some inconsequential election like 1996. Half the country right now backs a leader who's personally sent us into war for absolutely no reason, and has been convinced by Bush's sheer stubborness that everything's just fine. The Bush crew clearly started rattling the sabre at Iraq, and when Iraq did nothing in response, they escalated repeatedly over the course of several months until we suddenly found ourselves fighting a "pre-emptive" war.

Now I could have told you in March of 2003 that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and I'll bet you that Hans Blix could have too given about one more year's worth of inspections.

"But we couldn't wait that long! We thought Iraq was an imminent threat!"

Well for one, I didn't believe they were an imminent threat, because the people who were saying that were the ones who started rattling the sabre and escalating the conflict to begin with. But just for argument's sake, let's say they were a threat. The weapons inspectors were all over the place, and any possible weapons programs that were going on would have been so busy trying to hide themselves that they would never get any actual work done. Mobile weapons labs? Just how efficient do you think one of those things is going to be if it has to pack up and move every few days to avoid detection?

And now we get the report saying that there were no WMD's, and that Saddam's capability to make them was crippled by the UN sanctions which had been in place since the end of the Gulf War. Bush says that Saddam was trying his hardest to remove the sanctions so that he could resume work on his weapons, but then he says that the sanctions weren't working? What? It sounds to me like the sanctions were doing a damn good job, although combined with the corruption of an autocratic government, they were causing mass starvation among the Iraqi populace.

There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that this war was a complete mistake. Why on Earth then is Bush still so popular? Why does half the country support a man who has put a permanent black mark in America's history? We can't make this war go away. We can't make it look better to the rest of the world, and most importantly, we can't make it look better to our descendents who will still be dealing with the consequences decades down the road.

When your grandchildren ask about the Iraq War and all the suffering and terrorism that it created, and you tell them that it was caused by incompetent leadership and partisan politics, they might ask you: What happened to the people who started the war?

Do you want to have to say "They were re-elected"?

I don't.

Profanity-Laced Tirade with a Wholesome Message

Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:40:23 GMT

My brother e-mailed me again saying that his roommates still might vote for Bush (or not vote at all). In response, I went ballistic and wrote the following message, posted here for you amusement.

"From your last message, it seems that your roommates are still going to vote for Bush.
Is that right?
Did they watch the debate last week?

The guy couldn't complete a coherent sentence unless it was to say that his job was "hard work." Well, no shit!! But remember, he says it is hard work even though he spent 40% of the first two years in office on VACATION!!!!1 I don't even get one day of vacation until my second year working in my current job-and yet we (the taxpayers) paid for him to take vacation 40% of the time! If you can't tell, my eyes just popped out of my fucking head! No wonder he wants to stay President: It's an even easier job than running 5 companies into the ground and begging Daddy and the Saudis for more money to run something else into the ground.

So, he gets little sympathy from me. His job is supposed to be hard; that's why he gets a fucking mansion, a jet, a helicopter, a limousine, body guards, wait staff, personal trainers, cooks, etc FOR FREE!!! And, it is all on top of a salary in excess of $400,000 a year! Oh, and lets not forget the free fucking health care he gets. FREE!!! By contrast, I get the luxury of paying exorbitant premiums on my health care policy, which doesn't even kick in until December!2 I should be complaining,3 not him. Jesus Christ, talk about spoiled...

Oh, but his job is too hard. "Elect me again so I can whine to you on national TV for another four years about how my pampered lifestyle is too hard for stupid ol' me," he says.4 Where's this guy's sack? He's supposed to be the tough candidate, right? Do you really think he understands the average American with an attitude like that?5 His job is too hard...no fucking shit. Really???? Someone needs to slap this child and tell him to grow up and earn his way in life like the rest of us.

Try telling your roommates that."

My brother has not e-mailed a response.

-Sam Smith

1 I have since learned that this number may be as high as 44% for his entire term in office. Fuck you W!
2 This comparison is a bit unfair since I just started my job and he has been mostly absent from his for almost four years now. Anyway, that is why I have to wait so long, the 90-day standard window before benefits kick in. It's true, though, that I'll be paying more for health care in this job than I did in my last…and for poorer coverage. Fuck you W!
3 I am if you couldn't tell. Fucking, spoiled, pussy Bush.
4 He didn't really say that. Though it would have been hilarious if he did. Instead, I'm just inferring this sentiment from the things he actually said in the first debate. Oh, yes…Fuck you, W!
5 No. He doesn't. You can tell because he whines too much.

"She said what?" A Short Story. Followed by Slanted Rhetoric.

Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:33:53 GMT

(By: Sam the superhero)

Yesterday, my brother e-mailed me telling me that he had just registered to vote. In Oregon…a swing state…as a Democrat. Yet, he tells me that his two roommates might vote for Bush.

I remember the first time I learned this news. I had just finished helping my brother move into the house he and his two roommates are renting. (FYI, my bro's roommates are Brandon and Kira, a couple co-habitating in sin. One wonders if they know that Republicans look down on that sort of irreligious behavior.) Acting like any good big brother, I invited my little bro and his roommates out to lunch. This move wasn't as paternal or altruistic as it seems. I was hungry, and wanted to be polite. So, we all piled in too my quasi-futuristic 94' Sable (shut up, don't judge me, it's a nice car) and headed to…a pizzeria. It was definitely not a sub-sandwich shop, my first choice.

After ordering, meaning after I paid for everyone, we all sat down and I immediately derided my brother for not registering to vote sooner. To shame him more, I asked if his roommates had registered to vote yet. To which they gave an eager, "Yes." This pleased me and sent my brother off to buy beer, hopefully out of shame.

"Oh, good," I say, "as a what?"

"As a Republican," Brandon says, speaking for the two of them.

"Yah, but you aren't going to vote for Bush are you?"

"Well, I'm kind of leaning towards Bush," Brandon says.

And then meek, little Kira chimes in: "Yah, and Kerry is a liar."

WHAT? A LIAR? Did she just say that? Gathering my thoughts, I ask-in a manner that, retrospectively, I might consider as a wee bit belligerent: "Really about what?! What has Kerry lied about?!"

I bet you can't guess what she said. If she, or her boyfriend, had picked up a newspaper, read a magazine, looked at a website, watched TV, or passively engaged in any form of publicly disseminated media in this world, then either one of them might have been able to answer this simple question in a manner any self-respecting, self-proclaimed Republican might.

Instead, I get…

Nothing.

They said absolutely nothing, not even the usual superfluous, question-dodging, on-RNC-message rhetoric that I expect. At least that would have been less shocking for me, because I could have then refuted their arguments with provable facts. Instead, they said nothing because they knew nothing. They had no way of articulating why they are Republicans or why they believe John Kerry to be a liar. Yet, their belief persisted.

In this way, the Neo-Con Republican Death Cult of the Cheney Regime* is winning in the most subtlest of ways. They have found a way to flood our media with so much false information that people hear, understand, and acknowledge (a.k.a. HUA in the Marines) this information without ever really knowing from where they heard or saw it. They just spit it out on command or when challenged.

Don't get me wrong, my brother's roommates are not bad people. They are the typical, going about their benign lives, American in this country. They are people who do not have time to pay much attention to the truth of the message they are receiving, and they like knowing they are on the winning side. The Bush/Cheney folks prey on this aspect of our culture. They prey on us by making our standard of living decrease, which forces us to work longer to maintain the standard we are used to. And then, when we are busy working--not to get ahead, but to keep ourselves off of welfare rolls and out of unemployment lines--they bombard us with a paper-thin, patriotic, pro-Us, anti-Them message that we are too damn busy to investigate and refute. As a result, a lot of us simply adopt the one beamed into our brains: "John Kerry is a liar; Bush is the über-furer, his word is unchallengeable. Any attempt to do so will be deemed radically unpatriotic."

So, in this respect, I can't blame them for their naiveté. But, after talking to me, if they don't at least try to find out the truth, then I will blame them for it because then their initial naiveté will be willful ignorance. And that's just barbaric.

As the saying goes, "If you're not outraged yet, then you're not paying attention."

-Sam Smith

(* Can you guess where I stole that phrase from? Air America Radio. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you. That is, unless you live in one of the 32 markets into which it currently broadcasts. Hooray for free-market Democracy. It works…sometimes.)

Amend the constitution?

Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:56:56 GMT

(by: Alex the socialist)

From the "republicans really do care about the little guy" department: Apparently there is a move on to amend the U.S. constitution. The idea is to change the requirement that currently keeps people born in other countries from being president of the United States. It was republicant Senator Oran Hatch who decided that it was a terrible injustice that immigrants couldn't aspire to the highest office. Make a note of it folks. The republicans are fighting for the poor downtrodden immigrants. Today is October 5th and there's a red pen in the drawer. Oh, but there couldn't be an ulterior motive here.

Perhaps I should mention two particularly notable immigrants. They are Michigan democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and, you guessed it, California republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, henceforth referred to as "captain Retardo." Gov. Granholm came into office in January of 2003, before Capt. Retardo was wined into office by a bunch of sore-looser republicants. Yet for some reason, no *democratic* senators or representatives felt the need to introduce legislation that would make it possible for Gov. Granholm to one day run for president, despite her attractive political career. Perhaps the republicants are looking for a new idiot to lead our fine nation while a behind the scenes vice-idiot controls everything?

I'm having a vision... I see a bumper sticker on the back bumper of an SUV. I now see that the bumper is actually an Iron I-beam like you see used to construct a skyscraper. I can just make out the model of the car. Ah yes, its called a Ford, Saudi-Arabia. This thing is enormous! its taking up two lanes on i5. The bumper sticker reads "Retardo, Santorum, 2012."

So really folks, who do they think they are fooling? If the sheer coinciditude of it all isn't enough to raise your what-the-fuck-are-they-trying-to-pull-now radar then consider this. The amendment would make the new requirement for foreign-born presidents a twenty-year citizenship. I'll leave it to you to figure out who has been in the US for exactly twenty years.

Whoever wins, we lose

Fri, 01 Oct 2004 05:54:52 GMT

(By: Dana the Destroyer)

There's a funny thing about all of the concern revolving around Wal-Mart's steady takeover of the world. Seeing as they're the single largest corporation on the face of the earth right now (larger even than the corporations of Lex Luther and Bruce Wayne), they have no trouble offering prices so low that smaller businesses can't compete. This has instilled the fear of god in communities which have yet to have a ceremonial Wal-Mart monolith erected in their midst, wherein they can behold and worship their new lord and master while getting a great deal on wife-beater shirts, and so these communities band together to defend their local businesses, oftentimes enacting ordinances which keep Wal-Mart out. A sound plan, in my opinion.

There's a funny thing about the concept of "local business" though. The Wal-Mart juggernaut has redefined the concept of "large corporation" to the point that when you're talking about the honest, hard-working folk that are just trying to make a living who'll be forced out of a job when they come rolling through, you're thinking about places like Target and K-Mart. Yes, Target and K-Mart, those small-time, homegrown businesses where you can go and get a strawberry soda for a nickel and the clerks all know your name. You know, places run by kindly old men who give free candy to the kids after school and sell all the latest Flash Gordon comics.

The point is that while Wal-Mart may be a dark hulking leviathan waging on war on competition and worker's rights, Target and K-Mart aren't exactly angels themselves. It's a bit like being a Ukrainian citizen during World War II. You're sitting around, minding your own business in the midst of a horrific famine induced by the Soviet dictatorship, when suddenly the German army rolls through your village and beats the bejeezus out of you and your countrymen. This won't do at all! With all your might you resist the German invaders until finally the glorious day comes when they're driven out! You're free! You've cast off their evil yoke of oppression and can get back to being a simple farmer like you always wanted. Except then you realize that the Russians just basically conquered you again, Stalin can do whatever he wants to you, and if you don't collectivize your farm you'll be shot by the secret police.

I'm all in favor of resisting Wal-Mart's attempted homogenization of American consumer culture, but you've got to be aware of who you're siding with. The enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend. The friend of your enemy, however, is probably some short little guy who hangs out with him and acts tough, even though you know he's a total pussy. The enemy of your friend is a punk, let's kick his ass after school. And the the friend of your friend? Dude she's hot, can I get her phone number?

PS: You like how I subtley compared Wal-Mart to the Nazis? Man, I'm the sneakiest sneak who ever sneaked in sneakville.

are we supprised?

Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:27:24 GMT

(By: Alex the abstruse)

Today drug maker Merck and company removed their popular arthritis pain relief drug Vioxx from the market. They did this because it was found to have that age old side effect of causing "death" in "you." Death, in this case, to take the form of heart "problems." As a side note I'd just like to point out that if you have a problem with you're heart, theres about a 70% chance that you're dead. (this statistic may have been made up on the spot)

So thats the news. Or is it? What the world is failing to notice is that Merck did something *good*. Looking at their stock price you might think that they had announced that they were going to start injecting puppys across the country with a new, slow, and painful puppycide, guaranteed to cause lots of yelps and crys. No, Merck decided to pull a drug they were making a lot of money on off the market despite the obvious knowledge that profiteering gluttons (read: stock traders) would blindly yank the green-paper carpet out from under them. Is this the best reward we can come up with for someone protecting our health? It's not as though Merck made Vioxx with the specific intention of making people dead. They were trying to help people feel better and when they discovered their mistake they did the (rare) and right thing. They sucked it up and pulled it off the market. How often do you hear about giant american supercorporations doing something noble? N E V E R.

I don't know how reputable Merck's other corporate manuvers have been in the past, but this time I say bravo. I'll buy some of that stock.