Wait ... Barry Bonds is "unethical" because he did steroids ...

But ... corporations can commericialize the game by buying the naming rights to a baseball stadium? How many neo-slave laborers in Asia have to work replacing American jobs so that we can buy cheap consumer goods at Walmart?

Barry Bonds hurt himself, and maybe the "nostalgia" of the game. But real people lose their job or pension when a corporation decides to breech a contract by breaking their pension promises or firing all the workers and then outsourcing new hires to a firm which pays the same workers half-price with no benefits.

This is what corporations do. They can still make money and not do these things, but alas, we have allowed our society and government to become corrupted by fiends and liars.

Making money is one matter. Making enormous amounts of money at the expense of workers and small investors is quite another matter.

Greed is only good when you have the upper hand. Sponsoring a society that allows greed to create the social system will eventually become ruled by kings and tyrants. The big fish will not only eat the little fish, but everything else until there is nothing left, and then sit around with fat bellies blaming it on those who point out the facts.

Greed fosters short-term irresponsibiltiy and unaccountability in our society.

The mythmakers would have you believe that survival of the fittest is man's basic nature, and that greed itself is natural to mankind. They are wrong, because they do not understand primative human nature or themselves, and are instead projecting their own internal sickness.

Once an animals basic needs of food and shelter are met -- which includes most of us in the USA -- an animal's basic drive is for love and respect. Lacking love and respect, we settle for cheap substitutes of fear and power, but this is a symptom of a degenerate society which breeds rampant individualism. In a society which instills relationships, individualism is checked because all individuals have learned love and respect from their community and social relationships.

Our society forms social understanding through the television. We drive in boxes on concrete slabs listening to voices from electronic devices. We are not attached to our surroundings or our connection with the people in our near vicinity. They are competitors, not fellow citizens.

Do y'all ever wonder why we now HAVE TO name our stadiums for corporations? It used to be the name of a local bigwig or a geographical name -- or just after the team name like Yankee Stadium and Dodger Stadium. Who the hell thinks US Cellular field is a better name than Comiskey Park?

Before San Francisco built Pac Bell Park (now SBC Park -- because the telephone utility Pac Bell got bought out by SBC) the Giants games were at Candlestick Park. The park got its name by the nearby odd shaped hill which actually looks like a "candlestick" from a distance -- like a warped shark's fin which narrows as the hill gets higher.

Just before the new park was build, the 3M corporation bought the "naming rights" for Candlestick Park, and all of a sudden the park was named "3M Stadium."

I am dead serious. All the names around "the stick" were changed, the brochures were changed, city maps were changed that got published that year... and now Pac Bell has become SBC.

At least when the park was named for a location,team,or person, the name wasn't in danger of changing. Comiskey Park was never in danger of changing names (neither Wrigley or Fenway Park) until U.S. Cellular bought the naming rights.

And what happens when U.S Cellular is bought out or goes bankrupt? Well look what happened in Houston when the Astros moved out of the Astrodome. Enron Field became Minute Maid Park.

What a pathetic trend? Worship the person-anonymous corporation instead of a historical namesake or locality.

The aristocracy of the Roman, Asian, and European-medieval era connoted their symbols of royalty with banners, privaleges, symbols, and colors. Erecting statues and creating a little park or plaza around a statue was another method of honoring a family or famous namesake.

In France, the Revolution of 1789 and after was largely kindled by the enormous privaleges the aristocracy had accrued at the expense of the laboring people, the peasants, and the "bourgeoisie" (enterprising townsfolk.) But those resentments were no different really from the peasants who revolted in China, and the total disentegration of Russia in 1917 when the soldiers of St. Petersburg could and did not fire on the masses of people storming the government... just like the Parisian's of 1789 stormed the Bastille to release the prisoners.

Revolution is not really a revolt however, but more a dissentegration as desperate, angry masses have no other recourse of action. A struggle over the political organization then ensues that can last 20 years or more.

The United States has never really had social revolution, in which the ruling classes were tossed aside and the political reality was completely upturned. The American revolution was really a taking over of the operations of national government by the Continental elites. That it was also Democratic in roots and its philosophical basis was due to the size of the "new world" out West and the smallness of the colonist population. In the history of the United States, the Government came before Society came fully into being. Changes and transformations did not evolve into law and common practices as in old world. Rather, every decision and new written law was added to an already existing rubric of higher law.

I thought the reconstruction was supposed to change this...or is too much profit being skimmed off.

From the London Guardian.

More than two years after Saddam Hussein's fall, 85 percent of Iraqis complain of frequent power outages, only 54 percent have access to clean water and almost a quarter of Iraqi children suffer from chronic malnutrition, a U.N.- Iraqi survey revealed Thursday.

``The survey, in a nutshell, depicts a rather tragic situation of the quality of life,'' said Iraq's new planning minister, Barham Saleh.

Although Saleh blamed years of wars, economic mismanagement and repressive policies under Saddam, conditions worsened after the U.S. invasion in 2003, and insurgents now are doing their best to tear down the economy, averaging 70 attacks a day at the start of May.

The U.S. reconstruction effort also has drawn criticism. Last week, government investigators said U.S. civilian authorities in Iraq cannot properly account for nearly $100 million promised for projects in south-central Iraq.

...

A total of 21,688 households in Iraq's 18 provinces were surveyed for the report.

It found 1.5 million new housing units are needed to deal with a critical housing shortage. Almost a quarter of Iraqi children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years suffer from chronic malnutrition, and 193 women out of every 100,000 births die in labor.

Unemployment is running at just over 18 percent, literacy at 65 percent.

In addition to power and water problems, only 37 percent of the population has working sewage systems, the report said.

``If we compare this to what was there in the 1980s, we would see a major deterioration in the situation,'' Saleh said. ``In 1980, 75 percent of families had access to clean water.''

Iraq had one of the region's best infrastructures, health and education systems in the 1970s, but conditions deteriorated rapidly after Saddam became president in 1979.

And Saddam was our boy in 1979, the year all hell broke loose in Iran, and our old boy the Shah was ousted by the people. Yep, we traded one sick, repressive regime for another, one right after the other.

And you wonder why they hate us? How delusional is it to believe that our soldiers are over there fighting for freedom?

I support the troops. Stop hemorraging money and bring them home now!!!!!

From the Mahablog

..look at what the righties are saying. Then look at what the lefties are saying. Notice the difference in the quality of the arguments. Lefties write long posts full of data and figures. Righties link to the columnists they want to agree with, then say yeah, see? What he says. Democrats stink.

As we all know, the purpose of right-wing think tanks is to think up excuses for pernicious rightie policies. And the purpose of rightie columnists is to tell the faithful what they want to hear. Essentially, the think tanks mix the Kool-Aid, the columnists fill the cups, and the rightie bloggers line up to drink.

It's a world full of advertising. A world in which we are depicted as imbeciles, savages in dire need, or as persons enjoying the best life has to offer, achieving the ultimate bliss with a grandiose or smooth background tune. It's all a suggestive message that is a lightly offered reminder, a seed planted in the mind that will hopefully germinate.

If you pay attention, you permit the seeds to enter the brain.

It is really that simple.

Liberals are irrelevant. Or so is the profound believe of certain voicebox's of the Reich-wing propaganda spin machine. The hired letter writers are out there are sending their packaged writing to the editorial pages of American newspapers. The words are leaving the lips of the radio-television hired guns of double-speak.

The audacity of the statement is incredible. How can someone profess belief in democracy and yet denounce the opinions of the "other side" as "irrelevant" -- something to be tossed into the dust bin of history by being completely ignored? The very idea of not bothering to listen to someone is the absolute contradiction of democratic beliefs.

What we have here is a twisted sort of "divine right of kings," driven and fueled by the aggregation of political power. That this voice is both twisted and reaches all people does not indicate a popularity of opinion, no more than the availability of coca-cola indicates that a vast majority of people drink Coca-cola. The Coke is there on account of the huge immensity of the Coke corporation, buying out local competitors when necessary. The opinions of the Reich-wing are there because they are abetted by the interests of the large- scale financial conglomerates that own the newspapers and media voice-boxes.

Irrelevant?

Most people don't know enough to have an opinion about most matters of substance and a medium amount of detail. This is not a negative statement. Most people are busy working, or raising families -- or they are incapable of achieving self-awareness. We might know quite a lot of detail about a particular subject, but are quite unaware and ignorant of a number of other topics. Very, very few people know a great deal of detail about a wide range of subjects. Therefore, most people simply don't know enough to form their own opinion independent of being influenced or nuanced by exterior sources.

Thus, there are a lot of people whose opinions are just a concatenation of phrases they have heard from media sources. These phrases and aphorisms form the basis of their proud opinionations. Do not expect them to analysis the meaning of these phrases and aphorisms, because they are fundamentally unquestionable. Would that I understood why this is so. My only venture is that people embed their sense of self and theier insecurity within the chosen phrases of their self-justification. To question the syllogisms of words is akin to questioning their very self.

Irrelevant?

Someone who makes a political statement which pillories the amorphous opposition with something beyond sarcasm is acting violently with words. The true conservatives of the 1950's were polite and respectful. This bunch that calls themselves arch-conservative should really call themselves corporatists, because that's what they really are. They are not at all conservative. They advocate political violence and destruction, not preservation. They do not believe in fundamental liberties, and only say so to promote the myth of their inclusion of the hard-working in their philosophy. It is only banter however. They are the breed which buys you a beer and talks you up, while they are sleeping with your wife and robbing your business.

Irrelevant?

Sounds like a "talk to the hand" technique. One does not have adjust or compromise, simply ignore. One does not have to reassess, learn from mistakes, or even admit that one is wrong. No. All admitting of fallibility is a thing of the past, committed to the dust bin of history, because of the belief that we are never wrong.

Or at least you can follow the finger principle. Simply put, the more you spend time criticizing and scapegoating the opponent, the less time you have to admit to culpability. When questioned, all you have to do is quickly admit to a superficial denial, and then deftly hone in on something specious about the opponent.

"Yes, I have behaved badly, but, but, ... but my opponent has never admitted to voting against bill 234." Alas, there were good reasons to vote against 234, but still that is not the point. The point is to change the subject and focus on the possible weakness of the opponent.

This is the oldest debate trick in the history of mankind. But it doesn't make reason irrelevant.

I feel sad when I read such vile disrespectful opinions, because deep down in my soul I have a great respect for personal opinions. I strongly believe that opinions should be aired out and discussed. Everyone needs to come together and realize that their is common interest, and everyone benefits. When I hear such abhorent statements that essentially murder the idea that another opinion has a right to exist, I am wounded at the core of my philosophical justification of existence.

How can anyone profess belief in democracy, and yet act like they can ignore the concerns of at least 50 percent of our population? All the horror movies in the entire history of Hollywood could not even come close to the one in which we are now experiencing.

The Party of No Principles
by Ari Behrman

03/29/2005 @ 10:22am [permalink]

On Sunday, a Los Angeles Times report detailed how House Majority Leader Tom DeLay let his own comatose father die in 1988. As the leader of the save Schiavo movement in Congress, DeLay embodies the GOP's rank hypocrisy on this issue. Democrats at Columbia University recently compiled a list of other examples of GOP hypocrisy in the Schiavo case. We've included the most relevant and added a few of our own.

** While Governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed a law allowing hospitals to remove a patient's life support regardless of the wishes of the family. Just a week ago Texas terminated the life of Sun Hudson, a five-month old baby suffering from a fatal genetic disorder.

** The 2000 Republican platform read: "Medical decision-making should be in the hands of physicians and their patients." Four years later, the language remained nearly the same: "We must attack the root causes of high health care costs...by putting patients and doctors in charge of medical decisions."

** Much of Terry Shiavo's care came courtesy of Medicaid, which the Bush Administration wants to cut by $60 billion. Just recently Republican Governor Bob Riley of Alabama tried to drop coverage for 13-year-old Lauren Rainey, a severely handicapped girl who requires a suction tube to breathe.

** In his previous career as a heart surgeon, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pulled the plug "on a regular basis," his office acknowledged last week. In his 1989 book Transplant, Frist advocated killing anencephalic babies, who are born in the same mental state that Terry Schiavo finds herself in today.

** The tort-reform bill recently passed by the Senate would block cases like the malpractice suit that provided for Terri's care from reaching the courts in the first place.

** So-called family values Republicans who constantly invoke the "sanctity of marriage" have viciously attacked Terry Schiavo's husband Michael, calling him a lying, lecherous wife-killer. It got so bad that TV host Joe Scarborough asked fellow conservative Pat Buchanan, "Are you comparing Michael Schiavo to a Nazi?"

This is from David NYC at the Dailykos.com.


Congressman Dave Weldon, smiling and holding a packet with some lady seated adjacent to his expensive suit.

Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL) wrote a letter to the newspaper Florida Today, taking issue with some statements the paper had made in an editorial on the Schiavo matter. What did Weldon have to say?

Did the editors interview registered nurse Carla Iyer, who personally treated Terri for a year and a half? She said in a sworn court affidavit that Terri "was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis saying things like 'mommy' and 'help me" and 'hi' when I came into her room."

Iyer says Terri would sit up in the nurse's station from time to time and laugh at stories they told. She felt pain and would indicate so. Carla fed her by mouth and not by tube. Does this sound like a woman in persistent vegetative state for the past 15 years? (Emphasis added.)

Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." ... It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges. (Emphasis added.)

From CNN:[Link] --Thanks to Atrios for this.


NATIONAL HYPOCRITE
Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday over a comment the Democratic vice presidential candidate made regarding actor Christopher Reeve.

Edwards said Reeve, who died Sunday, "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him.

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.

Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, called Edwards' remark "crass" and "shameful," and said it gave false hope that new treatments were imminent.

...

Frist, who was a heart surgeon before coming to the Senate, responded Tuesday in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve -- I think it is shameful -- in order to mislead the American people," Frist said. "We should be offering people hope, but neither physicians, scientists, public servants or trial lawyers like John Edwards should be offering hype.

"It is cruel to people who have disabilities and chronic diseases, and, on top of that, it's dishonest. It's giving false hope to people, and I can tell you as a physician who's treated scores of thousands of patients that you don't give them false hope."

This is from Ari Behrman. [Link]

Rumsfeld, November 13, 2003: "We're making enormous progress. In terms of essential services, schools are open, hospitals are functioning, people are out on the streets eating in restaurants, and life is going on, and 23 million people have been liberated."

Awbalth, a soldier from CA, October 20, 2004: "Immediately after the 'war' portion of the fighting, we should have been prepared to send in a massive reconstruction effort. Right away we needed engineers to diagnose problems, we needed contractors repairing problems, we needed immediate food, water, shelter, and fuel for the Iraqi people, and we needed more security for all of this to work...Establishing massive reconstruction efforts that employed millions of Iraqis would have gone a long way toward proving to the Iraqis that we were there to help them, not steal their oil and get rich from reconstruction contracts paid for by the American taxpayer."