Now then, other than Election Day (outside Tennessee) and the World Series (OK, so I've got a soft spot for the Phils these days), can we agree that this year truly, madly, deeply SUCKED?
As the economy crept toward disaster, with the Bushies doing nothing until the bubbles all burst, our retirements evaporated, many lost jobs and those that didn't lost pay for the future. Oh well, 95% is better than 0%, eh? Happy Holidays!
Then on top of that, since Bush and Cheney failed to get us in a war with Iran, it seems that Israel is making a late effort to see that we go there; thanks, old friend! You know, I firmly believe in Israel's right to exist, but I also believe in the Palestinians' right to exist there, too, and that DOESN'T make me the bastard child of Martin Bormann, folks. This is not of the good, as our beloved Newscoma would say.
What I AM hoping for in the New Year:
1) That January 20 arrives before we find ourselves in WW IV.
2) That President Obama channels FDR, not Hoover, taking the actions to create jobs and wealth.
3) That I still have a job with the same pay at this time next year.
4) That the Republicans finally understand the difference between CREATING wealth and HOARDING wealth (not at all hopeful on that one, folks).
5) That we survive this coming year with our health and our hopes and our lives intact.
6) That Bush, Cheney and the rest get sent to The Hague for war crimes trials. Hell no, I ain't forgettin'!
7) That we all pull together to get through all of this crap in front of us. Remember, it took Bush eight years to destroy the Clinton prosperity and then some, so it will take a long time to rebuild America, please don't give up hope.
8) Which is not to say you shouldn't call bullshit if you see it!
OK, that's it, I will see you NEXT year!
5 comments:
Neither the Hoover Channel nor the FDR Channel reversed the depression that followed the Roaring Twenties bubble. The War Channel worked that time, but that channel is not as feasible this go-round.
Virtually all good sentiments, and your readers will pray for you on #3. But:
4) That the Republicans finally understand the difference between CREATING wealth and HOARDING wealth
...needs to be reworded.
"Creating wealth" is a Republican term, and "hoarding wealth" is just what Republicans do after "creating" it. You omitted the proper alternative to "creating", which is:
EARNING WEALTH
Wow. Today has been a major eye opener in terms of finding out what you all think of me.
What's really amazing is that people are willing to accept so many lies--not one phone or email to me to see if they are true.
I can prove everything I've said I've done, yet I just found out you all don't believe my resume--and not one person bothered to talk to me. Just gossiped away.
This is why the Democratic party is so screwed in Tennessee. It's amateur hour, and the GOP works with each other whether they like each other or not.
I had no idea y'all disliked me and disbelieved me. And again, all anyone had to do is pick up the phone...drop me an email, and I could prove everything.
But malicious gossip from jealous amateurs prevailed.
You're a Buddhist, so you know, karma is a bitch, and there's a lot of bloggers in TN--especially Nashville, with some real bad karma.
It makes me very sad and extremely hurt to find out so many of you think so poorly of me.
What are you talking about Sharon?
Where is your blog?
I must have missed something. Send me mail.
If "pulling together" is what you desire, perhaps it might do well to consider the arbitrary divisions that have been hoisted upon us in the name of "social justice" in the last thirty years or so.
"Pulling together" implies a common set of connections that go beyond race, gender, sexuality, class and ethnicity, does it not? Might the insistence that "identity" originates not from a metaphorical "common vantage point," but from a group's "experience"--as the powers within the group define that "experience"--lead to these divisions that your expression of commomnality decries? How can, with these divisions governing our public and private discourses, we "pull together" rather than continue to yank each other apart until one "group" dominates over all others? Isn't that the sort of hegemony that liberalism has opposed for almost 200 years in various forms? Does liberalism instead make exceptions for every "group" other than "whiteanglosaxonprotestantheterosexualmales" that, as some of my colleagues have openly argued, will somehow act differently when they have the type of power you, I and members of our "group" ostensibly possess? How can putting another "group" in power achieve a commonality of "pulling together" if the basic premise of such a group is that commonality bases itself on an ideological construct of "whiteanglosaxonprotestanthetersexualmales?"
I fully agree we as Americans--and, more importantly, as human beings--need to "pull together." We as people face a hideously complex, in my view, set of crises. We will be quite fortunate to survive them without either a societal collapse or an economic "winter in the trenches of Petersburg." With every fiber of my being, I do NOT agree that such survival or commonality or "pulling together" can be accomplished through dividing people along lines that none of us chose and, at least for most of us, do not inherently cast doubts on our essential decency and good will.
Post a Comment