I took ther jerbs!
Actually, I didn't yet start my job. We just had orientation for AmeriCorps. I now know CPR, First Aid, and the rules of being an AmeriCorps person.
1) Be fat. Everyone at this AmeriCorps thing is fat. Fat people make fun of fatter people. I'm making fun of no one; I'm an anthropologist. Which is why I can make such unimperical blanket claims about Central PA on this side O the Riverrrr: People west of the Coal Region forgot to stop eating the PA Tastycakes and Middleswarth Chips cooked using the United States' most abundant energy source, coal. It all makes sense, really. The new foreigners (Italians, Polish, Ukranians, etc) get exploited while the old foreigners (PA Dutch) get fat, making the cats in DC office buildings, well, fat. It's a crazy connection, that makes no sense, and probably makes you want to stop reading this post before I get to anything constructive. I'll kick myself later.
2) Be white. At least we're not rich. I'm probably sitting on the largest pot of cash in the group, except for the retired lady who's gonna slave away in a center for the low-income elderly somewhere. Big government works best when it can convince old women to whittle away their golden years helping other old women to whittle away their golden years. But anyway, there is less diversity than I expected, especially at an AmeriCorps thing. I mean, aren't these supposed to be liberal cesspools where the soldiers of class-warfare get their training and their ability to employ the horrifying secret weapon--empowerment? Well, liberal, maybe, hard to tell. At least the executive director of CORE Susquehanna tried to impress upon us an appreciation for JFK and LBJ's joint initiative in starting programs that spawned programs like AmeriCorps. It took a long time, but I have Clinton to thank for this job that I've yet to begin. So much for politics, because...
3) Don't be political. Don't organize unions. Don't bust unions. Don't interfere with collective bargaining agreements. Don't fundraise. Don't advocate for one policy position or another. Just do your shit and be happy. I think this is fair, considering we are essentially employees of the Federal Government, but I have a sneaking suspicion that many Wingnuts think that empowerment is a political position, that raising people out of poverty is a political deception conjured up to elicit votes for the Left, and that improving people's lives through genuine good-heartedness and love of country is a farce, because the free market of ideas and goods does everything best. People helping people? Don't be ridiculous. Humanity is a bitch. What I'm saying is that programs like AmeriCorps are doomed if America continues to be drawn to the radical right, poor people and their friends be damned.
All supposed funniness aside, the people on the tour with me are all pretty great people. They be friendly, Central PA folk. And with them you can't go wrong. The comments about the fat people and the white people--I'm suffering from some strange form of culture shock. Sure, I've lived in PA all my life, essentially, minus the first 3 years and the last 4, but I guess I just got spoiled being at even the ridiculously white McDaniel College and Westminster, MD. At least there was the possibility of diversity there, as in it wouldn't be a surprise some racial minorities showed up and wanted to join the community, former KKK headquarters be damned. Here, in PA? We ain't got none of them outsider-types. And I can't even think of any fat people at McDaniel. I used to come home and think that Chris was fat, and compared to the average Central PA-ian, he's skinny shit, Billy is nonexistant. Don't know if being fat is all that bad, really, other than healthwise, but I'm certain it does say something about the character of a community, it's up to you, Readers, to tell me what that is.
Well, tomorrow is teambuilding adventures at Kidsgrove, which is well-timed considering last year at this time I was in the midst of running the show at First Year Student Orientation at McDaniel. Lots of teambuilding there. I'm trying not to get too nostalgic, because I really really do miss it. And it's only the beginning. Maybe I'll use some of the McDaniel knowledge and dazzle these AmeriCorps peeps. I'll let you know how it goes.
John Edwards has extramarital affair
Aug 08, 2008 by mhabegger | Add comment | Viewed: 147 times | Share on Facebook | Email this article
Let The Rhythm Hit Dem: Change for America Office Opens in Lewisburg
Aug 08, 2008 by mhabegger | Add comment | Viewed: 139 times | Share on Facebook | Email this article
On Wednesday morning, the new Change For America field organizer for Snyder and Union counties, Mark Norman, was gracious enough to meet with me one-on-one for about an hour just to talk about life, politics, and plans for campaigning in the area. Pretty sweet. He's definitely competent, and doesn't come off too much as an outsider, like so many of these paid-campaign organizers seem to be. You know, if I hadn't floundered around so much, ideally, I would like to have been in Mark's position, organizing local Democrats and volunteers for one of the most consequential and exciting candidates in U.S. history.
The reason I say this is because Mark just graduated from Penn State, so we are essentially at the same point in life. But enough about him, personally. What impresses me most is simply that he exists. A field organizer in Central PA??!?!?! Snyder County went nearly 70% for Bush in 2004. What hope do we really have of changing Snyder and Union counties from Red to Blue? Probably not much, but every voter and citizen, for that matter, deserves a fair hearing of all candidates. And it's really great to see that the Democrats and the Obama campaign in particular have dedicated their organizations to reaching out to voters often left in the cold, never being personally addressed and engaged in any kind of civic activity. There is an advantage to being in PA, I mean, apparently we are a swing state or something like that, so every vote helps. But in other election years, Central PA is simply left for Red.
The big news related to all this is that a Change for America office opened up in Lewisburg, Pa, yesterday, the same time that offices opened all over the country. I think it's pretty special that we have our own personal office up here, along with what constitutes a fully staffed structure. For sure, I don't have to travel down to Harrisburg to get involved, which I was previously worried I would have to do.
The office is pretty sweet. Lots of campaign paraphernalia, notably Obama stuff, but also stuff for all the down-ticket Dems as well. A few candidates were there, as well as one of the Union County commissioners. I'm an idiot and an asshole for not knowing their names. My bad. I'll find that shit out later. There is even a fireplace and a mantel, a minifridge, a bunch of needle point chairs, a big storage room, and some couches. It's near the Lewisburg Hotel, but I have a feeling that they won't be eating there too often on the meager salaries. The description is necessary because it is a complete contrast to the Carney office in 2006 on Market Street in Sunbury, which had suspect phone service, no heat and like two folding chairs in October. Then by election day, it was tricked out, comfy, and had heat. So the fact that the Change for America office is already fully-equipped as far as I can see is pretty goddamn amazing if you ask me.
Speaking of Carney, his peeps were there at the opening as well and said a few words. Frankly, they creep me out; his campaign staff is very off-putting, and they seem like complete outsiders. I won't name names, but the young brunette who seems in charge is pretty cruel. I don't like her. Maybe she just had a bad day, and of course I'll give her another chance. Not that I am the ultimate arbiter, but I'd like to see friendly people, not cold-calculating bitches.
Maybe I'm just pissed and passive-aggressive about an incident I had earlier with some former good friends concerning Carney, but I am liking him and the electoral politics that surround him less and less. His first ad is a complete disaster. You've been in congress for two years, and the best fucking thing you can come up with is that you didn't take a pay raise and donated it to charity? You've got to be fucking kidding. Whoever conceptualized that ad should never be able to work in campaigns and elections ever again, period.
Look, I'm happy to have a Democrat for my congressman, but I'm just not convinced he's actually going to vote like a Democrat when Obama takes the White House. In just his first term, Carney is already a corporate Democrat. It pisses me the fuck off. He could have been progressive, gained some notoriety, etc, knowing that it was essentially a fluke that he was elected in the first place considering the Republicaness of district 10, but no, he gauged the political winds, and has nothing to campaign on at all. If you can't campaign on an ideology or a party platform, then I guess all you can come up with are stupid dumbed-down talking points about congressional pay raises.
Okay, enough ranting for today. Be happy about the Lewisburg office. And I'm def in the system now, reading to do the legwork for this election, as I did in 2006. I think I'm canvassing on Sunday, so hopefully, I'll meet or remeet some new folks, and let you all know about how it goes, hopefully in a more entertaining form, as I won't have as much to talk about.
Lata. ooOOh, and Holly Licht, the Obama crazy person, is the shit. In sum, the Obama peeps are less stereotypical than I thought they would be.
The reason I say this is because Mark just graduated from Penn State, so we are essentially at the same point in life. But enough about him, personally. What impresses me most is simply that he exists. A field organizer in Central PA??!?!?! Snyder County went nearly 70% for Bush in 2004. What hope do we really have of changing Snyder and Union counties from Red to Blue? Probably not much, but every voter and citizen, for that matter, deserves a fair hearing of all candidates. And it's really great to see that the Democrats and the Obama campaign in particular have dedicated their organizations to reaching out to voters often left in the cold, never being personally addressed and engaged in any kind of civic activity. There is an advantage to being in PA, I mean, apparently we are a swing state or something like that, so every vote helps. But in other election years, Central PA is simply left for Red.
The big news related to all this is that a Change for America office opened up in Lewisburg, Pa, yesterday, the same time that offices opened all over the country. I think it's pretty special that we have our own personal office up here, along with what constitutes a fully staffed structure. For sure, I don't have to travel down to Harrisburg to get involved, which I was previously worried I would have to do.
The office is pretty sweet. Lots of campaign paraphernalia, notably Obama stuff, but also stuff for all the down-ticket Dems as well. A few candidates were there, as well as one of the Union County commissioners. I'm an idiot and an asshole for not knowing their names. My bad. I'll find that shit out later. There is even a fireplace and a mantel, a minifridge, a bunch of needle point chairs, a big storage room, and some couches. It's near the Lewisburg Hotel, but I have a feeling that they won't be eating there too often on the meager salaries. The description is necessary because it is a complete contrast to the Carney office in 2006 on Market Street in Sunbury, which had suspect phone service, no heat and like two folding chairs in October. Then by election day, it was tricked out, comfy, and had heat. So the fact that the Change for America office is already fully-equipped as far as I can see is pretty goddamn amazing if you ask me.
Speaking of Carney, his peeps were there at the opening as well and said a few words. Frankly, they creep me out; his campaign staff is very off-putting, and they seem like complete outsiders. I won't name names, but the young brunette who seems in charge is pretty cruel. I don't like her. Maybe she just had a bad day, and of course I'll give her another chance. Not that I am the ultimate arbiter, but I'd like to see friendly people, not cold-calculating bitches.
Maybe I'm just pissed and passive-aggressive about an incident I had earlier with some former good friends concerning Carney, but I am liking him and the electoral politics that surround him less and less. His first ad is a complete disaster. You've been in congress for two years, and the best fucking thing you can come up with is that you didn't take a pay raise and donated it to charity? You've got to be fucking kidding. Whoever conceptualized that ad should never be able to work in campaigns and elections ever again, period.
Look, I'm happy to have a Democrat for my congressman, but I'm just not convinced he's actually going to vote like a Democrat when Obama takes the White House. In just his first term, Carney is already a corporate Democrat. It pisses me the fuck off. He could have been progressive, gained some notoriety, etc, knowing that it was essentially a fluke that he was elected in the first place considering the Republicaness of district 10, but no, he gauged the political winds, and has nothing to campaign on at all. If you can't campaign on an ideology or a party platform, then I guess all you can come up with are stupid dumbed-down talking points about congressional pay raises.
Okay, enough ranting for today. Be happy about the Lewisburg office. And I'm def in the system now, reading to do the legwork for this election, as I did in 2006. I think I'm canvassing on Sunday, so hopefully, I'll meet or remeet some new folks, and let you all know about how it goes, hopefully in a more entertaining form, as I won't have as much to talk about.
Lata. ooOOh, and Holly Licht, the Obama crazy person, is the shit. In sum, the Obama peeps are less stereotypical than I thought they would be.
Sometimes it's hard to find a unique perspective
Aug 01, 2008 by mhabegger | Add comment | Viewed: 204 times | Share on Facebook | Email this article
You've probably noticed that I've dropped off on my political / social commentary as of late, favoring instead to share links, articles, and videos that seem to capture my feelings better than I could communicate to you in this format. Frankly, since I've been steeped in political news and commentary full-time during my unemployment, it has been hard for me to speak for myself; it seems everything that I want to write about has either already been covered tangentially, or in much more depth on sites like MyDD and Daily Kos (I'm not even going to touch on TPM, either), or even on the more obscure blogs on nytimes.com which still manage to garner much more readership than I could ever dream of having. Hundreds of comments? Please, I can't even get y'all to put one comment down. And I know people at least check my site every now and then, just check out the view numbers. Some are in the thousands.
Consider the latest column by Paul Krugman who is rapidly rising to the top of my personal heroes list.
The reason that I like Krugman so much is not necessarily for his liberal / progressive posturing on issues that matter most to me like economic and social justice (though it certainly helps), but his ability to tie everything he's thinking about relating to a specific issue in a couple hundred words. It's sick. I'm mean, he's no Nas, but he's very, very good, very, very convincing, and you can learn a lot from his columns, whether you have background in economics and politics or not. Sure, he's not funny like Maureen Dowd (who lacks substance, and it is whacko land as the campaign heats up) or Frank Rich, but Krugman hits you with content, facts, and then a moralistic and rational reasoning for the position he advocates.
Krugman goes on in the column to talk about how there is a five percent chance that the world temperatures could rise by 10 degrees Celsius, ending life on earth as we know it, which makes me wish for a Cheney-like "One Percent Doctrine" when it comes to protecting the earth and preserving our future lives. And he deftly weaves in his charges to the forthcoming Obama presidency which Krugman rightly expects will occur, meaning that he, unlike the rest of the mainstream media, is reading the polls correctly (composite polls put Obama into the White House by a landslide margin, 363-175, in case you're wondering).
Krugman steals my thunder, though you, Reader, would probably never have looked at Krugman's stuff if not for me, and I hesitate to rehash his points. I feel like I'm doing the unknown plagiarism. Sure, you can get away with it, but can you live with yourself?
Well, the news media has been plagiarizing in this way all over the place in the last few months. Time and time again (papa roach should be proud), the blogs will see something of import, analyze it fully, give it the coverage it deserves, and then move on. The media finds these same stories, albeit a day late and a dollar short, watering down any and all coverage of real substantive issues. I can't even go into the examples, there are so many. At first I thought that this summer I could nail a few news networks' stories on this blog, but the task is just too daunting. The problem, I think, is that I know TOO much to have an inflammatory opinion. Shame.
I could go on tirades about John McCain's douchebag campaign every single day like I did when I criticized Hillary and Obama when Edwards was still in the mix. But I'm not as excited about Obama, and we all know that it is probably a waste of our breath to address John McCain and his preposterous claims as he has little chance at capturing the White House for four more Bush years. So, we'll see. I'll keep writing. But probably less about big news stories, I'll just post them. In the coming weeks, I'll try to share my experience as a volunteer for PA Dems, Snyder County Dems, and Obama for America. We'll see how that goes.
Talk to you later,
Mike
Keepin' it real since '86
Consider the latest column by Paul Krugman who is rapidly rising to the top of my personal heroes list.
Can this planet be saved?
Recently the Web site The Politico asked Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, why she was blocking attempts to tack offshore drilling amendments onto appropriations bills. “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” she replied.
I’m glad to hear it. But I’m still worried about the planet’s prospects.
True, Ms. Pelosi’s remark was a happy reminder that environmental policy is no longer in the hands of crazy people. Remember, less than two years ago Senator James Inhofe — a conspiracy theorist who insists that global warming is a “gigantic hoax” perpetrated by the scientific community — was the chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
Beyond that, Ms. Pelosi’s response shows that she understands the deeper issues behind the current energy debate.
Most criticism of John McCain’s decision to follow the Bush administration’s lead and embrace offshore drilling as the answer to high gas prices has focused on the accusation that it’s junk economics — which it is.
A McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because “some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” That’s just plain dishonest: the U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.
What’s even more important than Mr. McCain’s bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.
Back when he was cultivating a maverick image, Mr. McCain portrayed himself as more environmentally aware than the rest of his party. He even co-sponsored a bill calling for a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (although his remarks on several recent occasions suggest that he doesn’t understand his own proposal). But the lure of a bit of political gain, it turns out, was all it took to transform him back into a standard drill-and-burn Republican.
And the planet can’t afford that kind of cynicism.
I’m glad to hear it. But I’m still worried about the planet’s prospects.
True, Ms. Pelosi’s remark was a happy reminder that environmental policy is no longer in the hands of crazy people. Remember, less than two years ago Senator James Inhofe — a conspiracy theorist who insists that global warming is a “gigantic hoax” perpetrated by the scientific community — was the chairman of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.
Beyond that, Ms. Pelosi’s response shows that she understands the deeper issues behind the current energy debate.
Most criticism of John McCain’s decision to follow the Bush administration’s lead and embrace offshore drilling as the answer to high gas prices has focused on the accusation that it’s junk economics — which it is.
A McCain campaign ad says that gas prices are high right now because “some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.” That’s just plain dishonest: the U.S. government’s own Energy Information Administration says that removing restrictions on offshore drilling wouldn’t lead to any additional domestic oil production until 2017, and that even at its peak the extra production would have an “insignificant” impact on oil prices.
What’s even more important than Mr. McCain’s bad economics, however, is what his reversal on this issue — he was against offshore drilling before he was for it — says about his priorities.
Back when he was cultivating a maverick image, Mr. McCain portrayed himself as more environmentally aware than the rest of his party. He even co-sponsored a bill calling for a cap-and-trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions (although his remarks on several recent occasions suggest that he doesn’t understand his own proposal). But the lure of a bit of political gain, it turns out, was all it took to transform him back into a standard drill-and-burn Republican.
And the planet can’t afford that kind of cynicism.
The reason that I like Krugman so much is not necessarily for his liberal / progressive posturing on issues that matter most to me like economic and social justice (though it certainly helps), but his ability to tie everything he's thinking about relating to a specific issue in a couple hundred words. It's sick. I'm mean, he's no Nas, but he's very, very good, very, very convincing, and you can learn a lot from his columns, whether you have background in economics and politics or not. Sure, he's not funny like Maureen Dowd (who lacks substance, and it is whacko land as the campaign heats up) or Frank Rich, but Krugman hits you with content, facts, and then a moralistic and rational reasoning for the position he advocates.
Krugman goes on in the column to talk about how there is a five percent chance that the world temperatures could rise by 10 degrees Celsius, ending life on earth as we know it, which makes me wish for a Cheney-like "One Percent Doctrine" when it comes to protecting the earth and preserving our future lives. And he deftly weaves in his charges to the forthcoming Obama presidency which Krugman rightly expects will occur, meaning that he, unlike the rest of the mainstream media, is reading the polls correctly (composite polls put Obama into the White House by a landslide margin, 363-175, in case you're wondering).
Krugman steals my thunder, though you, Reader, would probably never have looked at Krugman's stuff if not for me, and I hesitate to rehash his points. I feel like I'm doing the unknown plagiarism. Sure, you can get away with it, but can you live with yourself?
Well, the news media has been plagiarizing in this way all over the place in the last few months. Time and time again (papa roach should be proud), the blogs will see something of import, analyze it fully, give it the coverage it deserves, and then move on. The media finds these same stories, albeit a day late and a dollar short, watering down any and all coverage of real substantive issues. I can't even go into the examples, there are so many. At first I thought that this summer I could nail a few news networks' stories on this blog, but the task is just too daunting. The problem, I think, is that I know TOO much to have an inflammatory opinion. Shame.
I could go on tirades about John McCain's douchebag campaign every single day like I did when I criticized Hillary and Obama when Edwards was still in the mix. But I'm not as excited about Obama, and we all know that it is probably a waste of our breath to address John McCain and his preposterous claims as he has little chance at capturing the White House for four more Bush years. So, we'll see. I'll keep writing. But probably less about big news stories, I'll just post them. In the coming weeks, I'll try to share my experience as a volunteer for PA Dems, Snyder County Dems, and Obama for America. We'll see how that goes.
Talk to you later,
Mike
Keepin' it real since '86
It's been a long time, I shouldna left you | Nas on Colbert
Jul 28, 2008 by mhabegger | Add comment | Viewed: 263 times | Share on Facebook | Email this article
Anyway, this appearance on the Colbert Report is the second part of a three part Mike Habegger requirement for TV perfection. Colbert performed step one when he was in Philly and The Roots and John Edwards appeared on the show--damn, a great combo (I swear they write these shows just for me). To complete the trifecta, Allen Iverson needs to appear, and then all of my so-called "idols" will have shown their faces on TV in my basement. Pretty sweet. Stephen, you need to call up AI right now, get him before he realizes he has to practice for the next season, since this season, his team fucking sucked.
Nas did more than perform on the show, however, which is a big step up from what other musicians have been doing on the Colbert Report. Colbert spent an entire segment of the show giving background and context to Nas' appearance that mostly dealt with Nas' feud with the racist peeps over at Fox News, especially Bill O-bitch-Reilly. It seems that Nas was able to collect 600,000 signatures on a petition calling for Fox to stop its racist comments and programming. Of course, Fox dismissed it as a bunch of buffoonery, completely misunderstanding who they were dealing with in Nas. He's the best rapper of all time. The last thing you want him to do is write a song about you, because you gonna get murdered. Read the lyrics below the fold for what I'm talking about.
Hot damn that is some slick shit. You probably have to be a hip-hop scholar to have a full appreciation, but check out the clips from the show right, and hear him spit these nasty rhymes.
Sorry, couldn't find the embed for the actual song. I'm a bad blogger. Not very entertaining.
I wish I was at Netroots Nation, but at least I can watch the keynote
Jul 17, 2008 by mhabegger | Add comment | Viewed: 350 times | Share on Facebook | Email this article
It's not like it was free. I'm taking a break from my grad-school research slash GRE studying to provide you with my comments on the events of this weekend.
Yeah, this is pretty sweet. The yearly in-person gathering of the Netroots is happening today, tomorrow, Saturday and Sunday in the dangerously blistering heat of Austin, TX. I'm not there, for better or worse, because I have little money, and no one to go with. But the great folks of netrootsnation.org are streaming some live video, and tonight its Progressive hero Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC and former governor of Vermont. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say in front of his biggest fans; he won't be worried about cleaning it up for the media moguls, necessarily. There are currently 23 of us waiting for the feed to begin, and I'm sure that number will grow as the time gets near.
All this said, I was quite flabbergasted when I saw the agenda for the gathering. Holy Shit. It's a lot. A lot of great names, topics, etc. Can't believe how many people the bloggers can attract to a convention, even in Austin. I wrote a really long paper about technology helping to revitalize democracy in America From The Left, so I have an understanding of just how impacting this group of people can be on the American political arena, and yet I was still taken aback at the names on the list. I don't even want to go through them all, because most of you probably don't hold the same kind of dear appreciation I do for them. (As I'm typing this, there is some horribly encoded Rage Against the Machine blaring over the stream. Yikes).
They say that attending the convention will change your life. I'm willing to bet that it probably doesn't; it more likely is going to energize you to make this world better, shaped by what you believe in. So I guess I'm missing out on the motivational energy. Oops.
Well, I just wanted to let you know that political blogging manifests quite literally offline sometimes too. This is really just a heads up post. Talk to you all later.
You can watch the happenings here:
Yeah, this is pretty sweet. The yearly in-person gathering of the Netroots is happening today, tomorrow, Saturday and Sunday in the dangerously blistering heat of Austin, TX. I'm not there, for better or worse, because I have little money, and no one to go with. But the great folks of netrootsnation.org are streaming some live video, and tonight its Progressive hero Howard Dean, chairman of the DNC and former governor of Vermont. I'll be interested to hear what he has to say in front of his biggest fans; he won't be worried about cleaning it up for the media moguls, necessarily. There are currently 23 of us waiting for the feed to begin, and I'm sure that number will grow as the time gets near.
All this said, I was quite flabbergasted when I saw the agenda for the gathering. Holy Shit. It's a lot. A lot of great names, topics, etc. Can't believe how many people the bloggers can attract to a convention, even in Austin. I wrote a really long paper about technology helping to revitalize democracy in America From The Left, so I have an understanding of just how impacting this group of people can be on the American political arena, and yet I was still taken aback at the names on the list. I don't even want to go through them all, because most of you probably don't hold the same kind of dear appreciation I do for them. (As I'm typing this, there is some horribly encoded Rage Against the Machine blaring over the stream. Yikes).
They say that attending the convention will change your life. I'm willing to bet that it probably doesn't; it more likely is going to energize you to make this world better, shaped by what you believe in. So I guess I'm missing out on the motivational energy. Oops.
Well, I just wanted to let you know that political blogging manifests quite literally offline sometimes too. This is really just a heads up post. Talk to you all later.
You can watch the happenings here:
Sixers + Brand + Me Home For The Next Year = Basketball Heaven
Jul 15, 2008 by mhabegger | Add comment | Viewed: 364 times | Share on Facebook | Email this article
The Sixers Kick Ass! Good, got that out in the open. The Philadelphia 76ers have signed Elton Brand. Woot! Full disclosure: I hate Duke, so when I heard rumors about Brand going to the Sixers I at first was kinda skeptical. But then I remembered how crazy good he was on the Clippers a few years ago. Now, we all remember what happened the last time the Sixers got an aging All-Star PF from the Western Conference (actually, it wasn't all bad. If not for Webber, AI might have quit the team sooner). Webber was the shit, but he kinda disrupted the chemistry of the try and try harder team. Brand is nearly unstoppable, and is a nice pickup for an Eastern Conference that can't begin to compete with the Celtics who hold the amazing and defensive maniac Garnett.
My only hesitation, right now, is that the Sixers suck at shooting, and everyone will just collapse even more on Brand. And the Sixers had to give up Chris Carney in a later deal, which is annoying, considering he was one of the team's best shooters. I'm also sad that one of my childhood heroes, Calvin Booth (yeah 1995 Penn State!), is leaving (Not Really).
There was this controversy that Brand had told the Clippers that he would stay there. Might be true, but what Brand probably did was think "Well, I could stay in LAC where the management has always sucked and where no one gives a shit about us because of LAL, or I could go to a team with NO GOOD PLAYERS that somehow beat the Pistons in two games IN THE PLAYOFFS. Hmm, I wonder who wants to win more?...". It's true. Did you watch the Sixers this year? They had no good players. They were the worst team ever. And yet, they made the playoffs. How the fuck did that happen? There is something about Mo Cheeks and Philly. It just works. Crappy players can be successful. Can't wait to see what it will be like when Brand, a bonafied good player shows up to play. On the flipside, the Clippers had lots of good players, yet they still sucked every day. And didn't make the playoffs. Hmm.
The best part of all this was my realization that I will be living in PA for the next year at least, so therefore, I will be able to watch nearly every single Sixers game from the comfort of my own home. Now, all I need is that HD hookup, Mom and Dad. I haven't been able to do that kind of Basketball watching since I was in high school. Sure, at McDaniel, I could always turn on the Wizards, which was sometimes exciting, but I had other shit to do at school. Now that I'm home, with scarce friends, Marc Zumoff will again be my friend, saying "Brand in the weight room, got it!" the whole year. Woot.
That's all for my Russian Novel entry of the day. Keep it real-ish.
Going through the search...once again
Jul 13, 2008 by mhabegger | Add comment | Viewed: 383 times | Share on Facebook | Email this article
Since I last left y'all with my amazing writing last week, I haven't posted anything. Sham. Shame. Sorry for that. I'll try to post something substantial soon. Got a lot to talk about when it comes to ridiculousness of Contemporary American Political Systems, especially after reading Matt Taibbi's amazing book The Great Derangement. It's a must read, and is really easy to get through. Look it up on Amazon. I won't link it for you, though.
SO---> I'm looking through grad schools again. Seems that I've kind of settled on a life goal, and have realized that I need to be more creative in selecting programs to apply to. Right now, I'm looking at these kinds of programs:
1. Political Science (Theory-based)
2. Political Science (Public Policy-based)
3. Public Policy
4. Economic Policy
5. Economics (Political Science linkage aka needs to policy-based, and not Friedmanite)
6. Journalism (Political Journalism)
7. Media Studies
8. Rhetoric (Political Science Linkage)
All of this is because it dawned on me that what I'm most concerned about is economic and social justice, restoring it, that is. So I'm trying to find a program that gives me the right skills to take aim at such issues. But it also has to be interesting. And there has to be possibility of career other than in academia.
That's all, just needed to get that out there. K Bye.
SO---> I'm looking through grad schools again. Seems that I've kind of settled on a life goal, and have realized that I need to be more creative in selecting programs to apply to. Right now, I'm looking at these kinds of programs:
1. Political Science (Theory-based)
2. Political Science (Public Policy-based)
3. Public Policy
4. Economic Policy
5. Economics (Political Science linkage aka needs to policy-based, and not Friedmanite)
6. Journalism (Political Journalism)
7. Media Studies
8. Rhetoric (Political Science Linkage)
All of this is because it dawned on me that what I'm most concerned about is economic and social justice, restoring it, that is. So I'm trying to find a program that gives me the right skills to take aim at such issues. But it also has to be interesting. And there has to be possibility of career other than in academia.
That's all, just needed to get that out there. K Bye.
On July 4, We Celebrate Big Government, Not The Lack Thereof
I'm hoping readership hasn't dropped to near zero levels as it often does in the summertime, so I'm providing you all with a pillar of my ideological platform for my life's purpose:
This Independence Day, we must remember...that we need a big government.
Patriotism IS big government. Yes, I hear you, Historian Readers, complaining that the American Revolution was fought because of imperial overreach into the lives of ordinary Americans--that is big government!, you, Readers exclaim.
Well, when you're being controlled by a foreign entity that has little awareness of the situation on the ground, that is imperial-big government overreach that should be avoided. The problem here, though, is that this line of reasoning becomes construed by anti-government political parties and the corporate elite / superich to meaning that ALL government is worth rebelling against, but this is simply not the case. The Founding Fathers "founded", literally, a government, for God's sake. They could have said, eh, we won the war, now let's just let capitalism take over and run its course.
They didn't, and they wrote a Constitution that reserves normative and unalienable rights to "the people." They did that for a reason. Did they write into the constitution that you shouldn't tax corporations or establish trade barriers? No. They didn't reserve rights to multinational corporations. If they had, we might be living in the East India Company of America.
To say that the Founding Fathers were anti-tax, anti-big government, etc is unfair. The reason it seems that way to so many present observers, is because the business elite existed back then too, and concessions had to be made, or the not-so-autonomous economy of the early Republic could have been easily quelched. America got prosperous this way, but at what cost? Sure, the government made it legal for slaves to be held, but it was the private business superich that made it happen--your "Free" Market in action (or as I like to call it, Lazy Unfairre Capitalism).
The ambigious designation of the Founding Fathers that I am employing has allowed all kinds of groups to lay claim to their ideas as fundamental to the nation's founding. Surely, they weren't socialists, but they weren't die hard Capitalists, either. In fact, what they were fighting against by signing the Declaration of Independence (not) so many years ago was the colonial imperialist economic policies that left those who populated the Americas with the proverbial shaft. The new age manifestation of colonialism as an economic model is neoliberalism, which has foisted the same kinds of "Free" market privatization schemes across the world for the past generation.
Why am I telling you all this? Well, the point here is that it is the government that brings all of us Americans together--patriotism, if you will, love of government, our government. We celebrate it every July 4, because the government is made up of us. We are all participants in this democracy, whether you agree with the prevailing tides or not, and it is through the government that we move forward and do good together. We love the United States government not for what it doesn't do, but for what it does; we all have our dreamy ideals about government, no matter how hard our shells of cynicism.
This Independence Day, there will be much lauding of our troops, our civil servants, our policeman, our fire fighters, for they are part of us, extensions of democratic selves by way of the government. Will Blackwater be honored? No. Will UPS employees be thanked for their hard work? No. Will H&R Block's corporate board be honored as proud civil servants? No. Will Brinks home security be honored for their ability to secure our streets? No. The reason: all of these non-government affiliated entities are profit seeking; there's just no getting around that. And no matter how passionate us ordinary folks get about the virtues of entreprenuership, we all know deep down that the love of money, for better or worse, has eclipsed those companies' abilities to serve in the public interest.
So next time you get angry at the long line at the post office, the slow rate at which passports are processed, or the extended tours for US Troops, don't get spiral down and blame the very incarnation of government. Blame the constant budget cuts, salary cuts, pension cuts, cuts of all kind that come from the very same corporate elite that have been swindling us ordinary folks for centuries. This Independence Day, pledge to make us--our government--stronger, more accountable, and bigger, so we can have these community gatherings across America which you will inevitably attend be sponsored not by the local telecom company, or private hospital, but by the big government, which lends a helping hand to all of us, when it has sufficient resources.
Without the prideswell provided by our innate love of our government, there wouldn't be much to celebrate.
This Independence Day, we must remember...that we need a big government.
Patriotism IS big government. Yes, I hear you, Historian Readers, complaining that the American Revolution was fought because of imperial overreach into the lives of ordinary Americans--that is big government!, you, Readers exclaim.
Well, when you're being controlled by a foreign entity that has little awareness of the situation on the ground, that is imperial-big government overreach that should be avoided. The problem here, though, is that this line of reasoning becomes construed by anti-government political parties and the corporate elite / superich to meaning that ALL government is worth rebelling against, but this is simply not the case. The Founding Fathers "founded", literally, a government, for God's sake. They could have said, eh, we won the war, now let's just let capitalism take over and run its course.
They didn't, and they wrote a Constitution that reserves normative and unalienable rights to "the people." They did that for a reason. Did they write into the constitution that you shouldn't tax corporations or establish trade barriers? No. They didn't reserve rights to multinational corporations. If they had, we might be living in the East India Company of America.
To say that the Founding Fathers were anti-tax, anti-big government, etc is unfair. The reason it seems that way to so many present observers, is because the business elite existed back then too, and concessions had to be made, or the not-so-autonomous economy of the early Republic could have been easily quelched. America got prosperous this way, but at what cost? Sure, the government made it legal for slaves to be held, but it was the private business superich that made it happen--your "Free" Market in action (or as I like to call it, Lazy Unfairre Capitalism).
The ambigious designation of the Founding Fathers that I am employing has allowed all kinds of groups to lay claim to their ideas as fundamental to the nation's founding. Surely, they weren't socialists, but they weren't die hard Capitalists, either. In fact, what they were fighting against by signing the Declaration of Independence (not) so many years ago was the colonial imperialist economic policies that left those who populated the Americas with the proverbial shaft. The new age manifestation of colonialism as an economic model is neoliberalism, which has foisted the same kinds of "Free" market privatization schemes across the world for the past generation.
Why am I telling you all this? Well, the point here is that it is the government that brings all of us Americans together--patriotism, if you will, love of government, our government. We celebrate it every July 4, because the government is made up of us. We are all participants in this democracy, whether you agree with the prevailing tides or not, and it is through the government that we move forward and do good together. We love the United States government not for what it doesn't do, but for what it does; we all have our dreamy ideals about government, no matter how hard our shells of cynicism.
This Independence Day, there will be much lauding of our troops, our civil servants, our policeman, our fire fighters, for they are part of us, extensions of democratic selves by way of the government. Will Blackwater be honored? No. Will UPS employees be thanked for their hard work? No. Will H&R Block's corporate board be honored as proud civil servants? No. Will Brinks home security be honored for their ability to secure our streets? No. The reason: all of these non-government affiliated entities are profit seeking; there's just no getting around that. And no matter how passionate us ordinary folks get about the virtues of entreprenuership, we all know deep down that the love of money, for better or worse, has eclipsed those companies' abilities to serve in the public interest.
So next time you get angry at the long line at the post office, the slow rate at which passports are processed, or the extended tours for US Troops, don't get spiral down and blame the very incarnation of government. Blame the constant budget cuts, salary cuts, pension cuts, cuts of all kind that come from the very same corporate elite that have been swindling us ordinary folks for centuries. This Independence Day, pledge to make us--our government--stronger, more accountable, and bigger, so we can have these community gatherings across America which you will inevitably attend be sponsored not by the local telecom company, or private hospital, but by the big government, which lends a helping hand to all of us, when it has sufficient resources.
Without the prideswell provided by our innate love of our government, there wouldn't be much to celebrate.
McCain's "Triple Flop"
Jun 27, 2008 by mhabegger | Add comment | Viewed: 494 times | Share on Facebook | Email this article
Next time a Republican tells you that Obama has flip-flopped on his decision to reject public financing for the presidential campaign, quickly and politely remind them that John McCain triple flopped on the same exact issue.
Remember back in the old days of last fall when it looked like the McCain campaign was dead in the water because they barely had enough money to keep it afloat, and he had to shell more than half of his staff? Yeah, I remember. Well, the McCain folks decided it was time to accept public financing for the rest of the primary season, which also binds candidates to committing to public financing for the general election if the nomination were to be secured.
Let me say this: I'm all for public financing, because big money politics is ridiculous. Regular people, under normal circumstances ie unless you're Barack Obama and got five million small dollar donors over the internet to fund your presidential campaign, can never ever compete on the same level as self or PAC funded candidates, limiting the perspective of our so-called representative government. In my mind, and hopefully yours, public financing = good!
That said, back to McCain. Well, he opted for public financing, sent in all the paperwork, etc, saying that he's committed to campaign finance reform and leading by example is a good first step blah blah blah, and then something happened--he started winning, and suddenly his campaign was somewhat flush with money. But not all of it could be used under the strict public financing regulations that he endorsed prior to committing to their guidelines.
Luckily for Maverick McCain, who can supposedly not only buck his own party but federal campaign financing guidelines that he himself fought to formulate, his lawyers found a loophole (who would know that McCain would know the loophole?), and weaseled their way out of public financing. In doing this, however, McCain still broke the public financing guidelines by using that dirty money from PACs while he was still under the restrictions of the public financing laws.
The DNC filed lawsuit, but it has yet to come to trial, for lack of support. Apparently, the Democracts would rather Obama take hits for flip-flopping, calling public financing broken (which, yes, there are significant loopholes in the law that would have made it very hard for Obama and the DNC to compete against the "Freedom's Watch" assholes inc.), when they could be pressing McCain.
I think the reason they haven't pressed McCain is because it's so nuanced and issue, that it won't stick in the era of soundbite politics, especially when most of those soundbites are devoured by the largely uninformed Republican base.
At any rate, remember: it is completely hypocritical for McCain to call Obama a flip-flopper on public financing for the presidential campaign. He wanted it, then he didn't, then he broke rules to get himself out of it, broke more rules while he was still in it; now that he doesn't have it, he decides to prance upon the faux moral highground to throw stones at Obama's throne of reality.
It's a humiliating triple flop flop flop.
Remember back in the old days of last fall when it looked like the McCain campaign was dead in the water because they barely had enough money to keep it afloat, and he had to shell more than half of his staff? Yeah, I remember. Well, the McCain folks decided it was time to accept public financing for the rest of the primary season, which also binds candidates to committing to public financing for the general election if the nomination were to be secured.
Let me say this: I'm all for public financing, because big money politics is ridiculous. Regular people, under normal circumstances ie unless you're Barack Obama and got five million small dollar donors over the internet to fund your presidential campaign, can never ever compete on the same level as self or PAC funded candidates, limiting the perspective of our so-called representative government. In my mind, and hopefully yours, public financing = good!
That said, back to McCain. Well, he opted for public financing, sent in all the paperwork, etc, saying that he's committed to campaign finance reform and leading by example is a good first step blah blah blah, and then something happened--he started winning, and suddenly his campaign was somewhat flush with money. But not all of it could be used under the strict public financing regulations that he endorsed prior to committing to their guidelines.
Luckily for Maverick McCain, who can supposedly not only buck his own party but federal campaign financing guidelines that he himself fought to formulate, his lawyers found a loophole (who would know that McCain would know the loophole?), and weaseled their way out of public financing. In doing this, however, McCain still broke the public financing guidelines by using that dirty money from PACs while he was still under the restrictions of the public financing laws.
The DNC filed lawsuit, but it has yet to come to trial, for lack of support. Apparently, the Democracts would rather Obama take hits for flip-flopping, calling public financing broken (which, yes, there are significant loopholes in the law that would have made it very hard for Obama and the DNC to compete against the "Freedom's Watch" assholes inc.), when they could be pressing McCain.
I think the reason they haven't pressed McCain is because it's so nuanced and issue, that it won't stick in the era of soundbite politics, especially when most of those soundbites are devoured by the largely uninformed Republican base.
At any rate, remember: it is completely hypocritical for McCain to call Obama a flip-flopper on public financing for the presidential campaign. He wanted it, then he didn't, then he broke rules to get himself out of it, broke more rules while he was still in it; now that he doesn't have it, he decides to prance upon the faux moral highground to throw stones at Obama's throne of reality.
It's a humiliating triple flop flop flop.
This blog is for you.
Welcome to my blog. Hopefully you will laugh, cry, and take action. Can't believe I've made somewhat regular posts since August. Look for more features in coming months.
Who am I?
I graduated from McDaniel College on May 24 with a B.A. in Political Science, and will be working at ACTION Health in Danville, Pa through AmeriCorps for the year. I hope to be attending a high-powered graduate program next fall. Better watch out for me. Will let you know more details when they come along.
Blogging Friends
Latest News
Blogroll
Take the Power Back
Help Democrats wage a 50 State campaign in 2008!
