a dark day for freedom

[fflo]

Why don't we use the powerful language of liberty in service of progressivism? Moreover, why don't those blasted Democrats? Is it because they are still afraid of the association with communism of the connotations of "power to the people" behind the real meaning of those words?

I am home while the second water meter dude freezes the incoming line as part of his attempt to get my water back on; the first water meter dude assured me no current meter readers would be losing their jobs, but that job just won't be there any more. No more flirting with the meter reader; alas.

Unfortunately, being home has allowed me to tune in to coverage of the inauguration. Early on Peter Jennings cited a picture of Bush with a NYC firefighter as having been from 9/11. Is it the official ABC position to make that mistake? Are we going to forget, in the mass media, where he was and wasn't that day?

As I live longer in this country I really do appreciate its (supposed) ideals more and more, but I am in fear for their future degree of realization, and I am horrified to realize that, by sheer virtue of our power, we are the greatest threat to ---hey, some heckler just was heard in the middle of this song! I'm sure the poor sucker is face down on the ground already, being handcuffed. Wish I coulda heard what he was saying.

We're the greatest threat to much of the rest of the world, yes. But I also fear, even while I hope for it, the fall of the empire. Will it be led by a loss of economic power? Won't it matter, when global corporate forces are increasingly running everything anyway?

I just heard someone yell "off the platform, everybody!" just before Dubya started the oath. Wonder if that earlier booming voice during the song was not of protest but of "security."

He is worse than Reagan. Things are much worse than the Reagan years, though they got this ball rolling.

Please get your work done soon, water meter dude, so I can get back to the office and away from this nightmare.

Comments

[groovesinorbit]

Your tv has an off switch, doesn't it? Put on Duke Ellington and chill, girl. We'll get through this.

[fflo.livejournal.com]

I can't help but look. Like a car crash? I dunno. Driving into work I realized I'm going to listen to or watch the State of the Union speech again this year. I feel the need to know what the enemy is up to, and what we're being exposed to.

But I did turn off the inaugural "address" partway through, at least.

[groovesinorbit]

Well, that's something. I can help but look, cuz the sumbitch makes me want to break things. You know what the enemy's up to. Why put yourself through it? Not good for ya.

[maffick.livejournal.com]

Well, if you feel a need to know what the enemy is up to, you're certainly NOT going to find out in the state of the union; but if I can provide any insight for you, they're pro'ly going to be bombing Iran soon enough.

ugh. sad day, fer shur

[squirrelykat.livejournal.com]

I'm wearing all black, and wearing my peace sign earrings and necklace.
I ain't spending a dime. I can't stand to look at his ugly mug......
did you hear that they even went to the extreme to WELD SHUT the manhole covers near the White House!?!?! what the F***!

may your water flow......

[madush69.livejournal.com]

Everyone is worse than Reagan. He was the last decent president we had.

During the Reagan years I worked maybe 15 - 20 hours a week...I had time to study and participate in a band. I had a pool, a hot-tub, a 4 bedroom two bath home with a living room, family room, dining room, and dinette. I had a dishwasher, a maid, and a mechanic. I always had food overhead and a roof in my belly (or something like that)...anyway. Ever since then things have been more difficult.

Something to think about.

[groovesinorbit]

Reagan got this whole trip Bush is on started. He was also suffering from Alzheimer's while he was in office and not really competent. And he tried to pretend that the AIDS epidemic was a judgment from god. And then there was Iran-Contra and the US-backed death squads in Central America. The list goes on. I don't consider him a decent president by any stretch of the imagination.

[vjsmom.livejournal.com]

I managed to skip all coverage of the inauguration. I'll manage to skip the State of the Union as well. I'm with pijeanf in that watching W makes me want to break stuff. Or throw up. Perhaps you should try reading the State of the Union address and then writing a response to it. That way, you can find out what's said without having to actually hear or watch the speech. And writing a response (either for publication in an editorial or just for yourself) might give you a way to deal with the anger and indignation that will inevitably result.

[groovesinorbit]

Good idea, S.

[fflo.livejournal.com]

Not a bad idea. I was reading radicalteacher yesterday; she wrote "I can work myself up into a frothy, violent anger without his direct influence. I just only need to think back to the state of the union." And I got to thinking further about it.

I'd been leaning toward listening vs. watching---the visuals piss me off more, and the TV commentary drives me crazy. But reading it is probably best of all.

The social security nonsense is outrageous. Small signs that there is high-ish level resistance are somewhat encouraging, but it's still another area they may well manage to plunder.

I can't reply. Not to that.

[lickingtoad.livejournal.com]

I used to provide a very pat summary of the State of the Union, last time he gave one.

Call it a domestic-policy riff:

"Children are our future. Let's protect and educate them."
"Prisoners are often maltreated. Let's improve their lot."
"Drug addiction can ruin lives. Let's ameliorate that."
"Oh, terrorists and gays? Out of luck. Sorry."

Seriously. Not only does he spout empty buzzword rhetoric at every opportunity, but I defy anyone to call their lives better since he came into office. Anyone.

Re: I can't reply. Not to that.

[fflo.livejournal.com]

You don't think life is better for the pilers-up of money? The people invested in the big corporate (and personal) profits associated with the war? Well, better by the standard of their continuing success with grabbing more money, power, and resources to their side of the chasm, anyway... ?

I just had a mass e-mail from a "woo-woo" kind of crazy-wisdom-spiritual friend who was in attendance, with old commune pals, at the inaugural protests. She feels she was meant to be there to try to uphold a higher vibration of unity and the beauty in everyone, in the face of the polarization vibration in the air. But she wrote, "I truely don't understand why people voted for him, and from that place i'm curious." I started to write back "Self interest!!" & go on, but I think it may be pointless with this particular woman.

I should say, I do love your pithy summations. 'Specially that last one.

l

[squirrelykat.livejournal.com]

I can't watch The Shrub either - I just listen......
about Social Security - and The Shrub wanting to revamp it - don't they pay attention to history? doesn't he remember when it was NOT manditory and people wouldn't pay in? I can't see privatizing it working for everybody. My dad works at H&R Block and people are ALWAYS taking money out of their IRA's and taking the penalties. won't work.....

Re: l

[groovesinorbit]

Bush and his cronies don't give a damn. They just want to get rid of it. More money in their offshore bank accounts. The last of New Deal dismantled. Fuck poor people!

Re: l

[fflo.livejournal.com]

Well, it WILL work if your goal is to take more from the public coffers & steer it to private industry, the stock market, profit for business, etc. I think it's pretty safe to say that the "security" part of the plan is not what this administration is out to protect.

But yeah, it's crazy how short our collective memories are. My parents' generation remembered the depression first-hand, and there are some who still recall, if only through study, the struggle to bring a better standard of living, and an 8-hour work day, and other fundamentals of labor like that, to the masses.

I heard an interesting take on how the privatized options would likely, almost necessarily, tend toward a limited choice of investment options, since they'll have to be managed by the govt. And people not being able to afford the fees associated with more active/individual investment will probably be economically coerced into choices of certain mutual funds, whose components would almost surely be politically influenced.

Ach, back to work...