bush-sr

“In a county where only 13 percent of adults hold a bachelor’s degree, the credential isn’t much valued. “I am hoping with our new president that people will realize it is not a necessity,” said Emily’s mother“

–NYT

This is the new president who did his master’s at an Ivy. In fact, the last president who didn’t do post-undergrad education at an Ivy was George H.W. Bush Sr., who did his undergrad at Yale.

“Take him seriously but not literally”, we were told.

Why are people mad that Trump stopped funding abortion in other countries? Why should we be paying for people in another countries abortions? Let their government handle that, it's not our responsibility. Bush senior threw it out, clinton brought it back, bush Jr. threw it out, obama brought it back, now trump got rid of it again. Where were you all the other times this was thrown out, I didn't hear from you then. Can someone explain to me, with a legitimate argument why we should be funding other countries abortions?

robert-the-foul  asked:

Thanks to Tumblr's algorithms, I saw your response to a March for Science Ask & it triggered this question from me (if I may): Why march *now*? As we've seen with the recent surges in measles cases and other VPDs, science has been foundering for quite some time in the public's eye. Since Bush, Sr. (which is when I started paying attention to it), NASA - for example - has seen it's miniscule budget slashed every year under every president since. So, why the imperative to March for Science now?

The March for Science isn’t necessarily a response to science floundering in the public’s eye - the urgency comes from our current administration using that public skepticism to justify elimination of key scientific programs, and we have got to speak up. We have never, in the history of this country, had an administration that was this vehemently anti-science. Scientific programs have struggled in recent years to compete for funding of federal programs, absolutely- but the threat of abolishment of some of those organizations (the Environmental Protection Agency being the most public right now, after a Rep. committee member from Florida pitched a bill that would abolish the EPA) has never been so imminent.

For reference, Canada’s ‘War on Science’ wasn’t a single action, but a series of decisions and actions that accumulated over time and resulted in everything from layoff of science staff; program cuts, eliminations, and dissolved research programs; muzzling and censorship of scientists; forced falsification of published data; revocation of environmental protections, and in general giant list of horrors that you can read here.

All signs point to it being even worse here in the States.

On “I Didn’t Leave the Democratic Party, it Left Me.”

Without fail, a few times a week I hear someone who claims to have been a Democratic voter say, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.”  This is almost always said as a rationale, a justification for voting for Trump or not voting at all.   It is also almost always said by a white male.  A lot of the times, they either are or were in the manufacturing sector and/or a member of a union.  They blame the loss of jobs in their field that have either affected them and/or their family and friends on the Democratic Party.  They also blame the Party for the decline in union membership and anti-union bills passed in once proud union states like Michigan and Wisconsin.  Whenever I hear these complaints, I ask for specific examples of exactly how the Democratic Party betrayed them.  So far, I haven’t received a single specific from anyone that can’t be disproved by my eight-year-old and Google.  All I get is a reiteration that the Democratic Party left them or right-wing talking points about the Democrats being the party of “corporatists.” When I ask them to explain how Democrats are supposed to push pro-union bills when many union members themselves vote for Republicans or how they are supposed to alter the inevitable changes that arise from globalization, they hem and haw and end up not saying a damn thing.

The Democratic Party didn’t leave these folks.  These folks left the Party for a number of reasons.  One reason is because they, like most Americans, are intellectually lazy, especially when it comes to knowing and understanding how their government works.  They don’t understand or care to understand how laws are made, what can and can’t be done because of legislative rules, what can be legitimately done at any given moment in time due to the makeup of the legislative bodies involved.  This situation isn’t unique to ex-Dems, the far-left also suffers from being severely civics challenged.  They expect, demand, and want FDR-like progress without the very large progressive majorities FDR enjoyed every single term in office.  This same unrealistic demand applies on the state level, as well.  If people who claim to be progressives don’t vote for progressive majorities, then they shouldn’t bitch when things are not as progressive as they’d like.  I know this sounds simple, but it seems to completely elude a whole lot of people.

When I ask these ex-Dems whether or not they voted or Democratic candidates in the 2010 and/or 2014 midterms, they almost always say, “No.”  I don’t know exactly how the Democratic Party left people who didn’t support it.  I really don’t know how allowing Republicans who are anti-union and all for shipping jobs overseas to have power is a reasonable response to wanting pro-union, less globalization.   If I’m ever able to get an answer about this, it usually ends up being something along the lines of, “to teach the Democrats a lesson.”  This is the same stupid mindset from many on the left during the 2010 midterms with regard to what they perceived were sleights with regard to health care and Wall Street reform.  How’d that “teach them a lesson” thing turn out?  As far as I can tell it led to the rise of the Tea Party, Democrats losing many states including blue states like Michigan and Wisconsin, the U.S. House of Representatives and most of the political leverage progressives had.  That wasn’t a lesson.  That was political suicide which was followed by giving Republicans control of the Senate in 2014 and the White House last November.  This is where I sarcastically slow clap and say, “Bra…..fucking….o!”  You wanted the Democratic Party to do things for you but you didn’t do anything for the Democratic Party.

Another reason these people left the Democratic Party is the same reason a lot of people left-racism/bigotry.  To many of these individuals, unions were great until minorities became members.  Public schools were terrific until their kids had to go to school with “those kids.”  Living in the city or suburb adjacent areas was fine until “those people” started moving in.  Make no mistake, White Flight isn’t something unique to conservatives.  Many so-called “progressives” bolted from their neighborhoods once it started getting ethnically diverse.  The beliefs, attitudes, mindset behind progressive White Flight are the same behind, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.”  Anyone who claims differently doesn’t know a damn thing about anything, especially political history, voting patterns, sociology, psychology, belief systems….

The Democratic Party hasn’t won the majority of the white vote since 1964.  Now, why is that?  What happened in 1964 that would cause white voters to turn away from the Democratic Party?  Was it, A) the government outlawing the poll tax?  Or, B) Barry Goldwater winning the Republican presidential primary nomination?  Or, C) the last Looney Tune cartoon produced by Warner Bros.?  Or, D) the passage of the Civil Rights Act by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson?  If you say anything other than, “D” you need to be remanded to third-grade history and can’t come back to the discussion until you pass.  The underlying reason for White Flight, for School of Choice, for whites not voting for the Democratic Party is racism. Full…Fucking…Stop!  When people tell me, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me, “ what they often mean is, “An awful lot of people I don’t want in the Democratic Party are a major voting bloc in the Party.”  The same reasons behind conservative and progressive White Flight are why the Democratic Party hasn’t won the majority of the white vote since 1964.  It isn’t because the Democratic Party’s stance on economic issues.  It is because, when push comes to shove, too many white voters don’t want to minorities to have the same rights and privileges they do.

Of course, people aren’t going to come right out and say the reason they no longer support the Democratic Party is because of racial issues. Instead, they come up with nonsense claims like, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me” or “Democrats have moved too far to the left.”  This latter claim is used by the right, the media, and so-called “Democrats” who think chasing the white vote is a smart, moral strategy.  Former Democratic Senator from Virginia, Jim Webb is the most recent person making the idiotic claim that Democrats have moved too far to the left.  This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who knows  Webb’s political history. Until 2006 he was a Republican.  I wouldn’t expect anything less from someone with such a conservative background to say something different than Democrats have moved too far to the left.  This is why anyone with an ounce of sense can and should completely ignore anything Webb has to say about the Democratic Party.

The political reality is only one party has moved hard towards their extreme and that would be the Republicans.  Read Eisenhower’s 1956 platform and it sounds like it came out of the 2016 Democratic Convention.  You don’t even need to go back that far to see just how hard to the right Republicans have shifted.  Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., even W. wouldn’t have lasted two months running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.  This shift to the right by Republicans in Congress is well researched and documented.  Since the early 70s, the majority of Democrats have pretty much stayed in the same just left of center grouping while Republicans in the Senate, but especially in the House have moved sharply to the right.  To say, “Democrats have moved too far to the left” isn’t backed up by the data.  If the gap between the majorities of the two parties was four spots on the political spectrum in the 70s and now it is ten, this doesn’t mean each has shifted three spots.  What has happened is the left has shifted one spot and the right has shifted five.  It is intellectually lazy to look at the difference between four and ten and say, “both sides have moved equally apart.”  There are no Tea Party equivalents on the left.  Jim Webb and others saying, “The Democrats have moved too far to the left,” is complete bullshit.

Progressives love to point out white privilege when it applies to conservatives.  Of course, it is low hanging fruit. What many white progressives are not very good at is recognizing and admitting their own privilege and how their beliefs and actions undermine the very ideology they claim to believe in so strongly. Progressivism is about equality, justice, and fairness with no fine print, no fucking asterisks.  If you aren’t standing up and fighting for the rights of those in society who have been and are denied them to one degree or another, stop pretending you are progressive in order to make you feel good about yourself.  Don’t blame the Democratic Party for being the only one of the two major political parties that stands up for these things because you don’t have the mental or intestinal fortitude to do so yourself.  Don’t say, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me,” when what you really mean is, “I’m uncomfortable with the Democratic Party prioritizing the most vulnerable in society over my white privileged ass.”  There are actually white supremacists at the seat of power in our country right now.  So-called “progressives” who aren’t adamantly standing up and fighting for those most at risk from the quasi-fascist right may say they were Democrats, but at best they were fair weather fans who, if they were honest, would say, “I’m perfectly fine with progress as long as it is focused on my wants and needs and not on people who really need it.”  This is what it really boils down to whether progressives want to admit it or not.  If you want social/economic change, you have to vote for the party that is your best chance to get it, not the party that is completely against it.  The more you vote for and elect Democratic candidates, the more they will have power.  The more power they have, the more they can enact change.  It is See Spot Fucking Run for anyone smart enough and honest enough to see it.

In April of 1990, Michael Jackson was in Washington D.C. to receive an award, the Artist of the Decade, from President George Bush Sr. One of the many related events was a visit to the National Children’s Museum. Jackson was with a large entourage. His bodyguards, managers and publicists were milling with museum officials and selected guests. Photographer Scott Christopher was there to document the occasion. The group was halted as scores of school kids were assembling in the next room. Michael Jackson found a moment and he slipped away.

Jackson dodged into a small exhibit room and Scott Christopher followed. The photographer had developed a rapport with the pop star. They were comfortable with each other. Christopher and his camera had become invisible. Jackson sat down, next to a kid-sized table that held three toy xylophones. Above it on the wall was a photograph of jazz great Louis Armstrong. The trumpeter was rehearsing in a bathroom before a concert. A photographer had caught him in an unguarded moment.

Jackson took the xylophone mallet and began to play. There was a shift in the energy and Christopher sensed it. Michael Jackson was getting lost in his own little world. The photographer recalls, “Michael was within his heart of hearts.” His face began to relax and his eyes lost focus. The man was having fun. He was playing music.

A photographer looks at elements. Jackson was playing with one hand, the other was relaxed beside him. Louis Armstrong held his trumpet at an angle. The contemporary pop star was lost to himself and so was Armstrong. Scott Christopher wanted a shot where Jackson’s arm would parallel the trumpet. He could hope. He also could have popped off a few safe shots. He could possibly ruin the moment. He waited. Jackson continued to play, for himself.

After twenty to thirty seconds, the pressure of the photographer’s finger opened the shutter of the camera for a fraction of a second. Light hit celluloid. An image was captured. Immediately, an official popped into the room and announced the start of the event. Reality beckoned. The moment was broken.

So now we’re getting into the President Luthor era, and I gotta say, there’s a major plot hole here for me. Now the whole concept is basically the Lex Luthor, Businessman idea taken to the logical extreme–if before, Lex was a rich man with well-hidden evil that maintained good publicity, so Clark couldn’t legally touch him, now he’s that to the ultimate degree. And the comics have some fun with the idea of Clark being at President Luthor’s beck and call…

Although that’s never really been the case? I mean, it wasn’t like Bush Sr. had a red phone that connected to the Fortress of Solitude. Kal-El has helped out various police departments and federal agencies, but of course, he’s done that “I’m here, how can I help?” routine for scientific teams, foreign nations, really anyone who seems trustworthy and knows what to do. The idea that he’s beholden to the President of the United States, even intangibly like Captain America… I don’t know, it seems pretty cynical to make Superman stand for Truth, Justice, and the American Way again (in Lois & Clark, he shortened that annoyingly to “truth and justice”) just when that’s backfiring on him.

Also, it seems like a toss-up that Lex would countenance asking for Superman’s help. Doesn’t he seem a little too hubristic for that?

Anyway, I don’t buy the idea that Superman doesn’t lift a finger to stop Lex from being elected, besides writing some mean articles at the Daily Planet. I know, I know, the point of the storyline is that Superman can’t just swoop in and kill or kidnap or assault Lex because now he’s the President–not that he could do that before, or would do that. But Superman is a beloved public figure. He can’t just say “hey, press conference, I know I can’t prove any of this in a court of law, but Lex is into some seriously shady shit. Don’t vote for him”? I know Superman wouldn’t want to use his celebrity to get embroiled in politics for something like, say, Romney running against Obama, but to keep Lex Luthor out of the White House? The man couldn’t take an hour to go on CNN and say “remember that time Lex blew up Metropolis and blamed it on a clone? Seems a little hinky, right?”

And, very recently–given Marvel time, probably within the year–we’ve had Lex leading the Injustice Gang against the Justice League, so that’s all of them too going hey, Luthor’s a piece of shit. Like Wonder Woman, who since her post-Crisis reboot has been a beloved public figure and political activist. You can’t even say that it would be ‘just’ Superman–all of them, from Plastic Man to Green Lantern, know that Luthor went after them twice.

And this isn’t Marvel, either, where the public is looking for any excuse to believe that Captain America murdered someone and now must be hunted down like a dog. The DC heroes enjoy near-universal approval. They’re public figures who, even apart from superpowers, are really a kind of celebrity unseen in our world. Imagine if, say, Patrick Stewart and J.K. Rowling were just as famous and charismatic as ever, but also spent most of their time as supercops and mega-firefighters? These figures would be like the Pope, the guy who killed bin Laden, and Johnny Depp pre-sleaze rolled into one. I can’t imagine, speaking together, they couldn’t render Luthor unelectable, especially as a third-party candidate.

anonymous asked:

please teach us about 20 dollar nose bleed and the bush administration

all of folie is just a big fuck you to the bush administration courtesy of pete wentz and is basically a period piece you need some background on to really appreciate. it kinda gets lost in translation with younger fans who don’t remember 2000-2008 because a lot of them hadn’t even been born yet (which is fine) but it’s interesting to see folie pushed aside as just a declaration of psychosis when it has more layers than that.

just the united states army itself between 2001-2011 sent around 1.5 million troops into both afghanistan and iraq, 2.8+ million in total. it was full of fear mongering to promote a search for something that didn’t exist and it was a war that benefited off of vulnerability that only ended with far more death than what the united states even started it over. no one really talks about civilian deaths, entire cities bombed as collateral damage, and the endless manhunts to dead ends. it was all built on the pretenses that all of this was going to be worth something and it built up to the violence we still see today.

as for 20 dollar nosebleed i’m not going to go into too much detail but take the lyrics “when i look at the man who would be king / the man who would be king / goes to the desert the same war his dad rehearsed / came back with flags on coffins and said, “we won, oh we won.”

i would recommend reading about the invasion of kuwait and operation cyclone. george h.w. bush (sr) essentially started the “first iraq war” and in the end abandoned pakistan which gradually led to the formation of al-qaeda. al-qaeda being the reason why george w. bush, his son, later started war once again in iraq and afghanistan.

so it’s all pretty straight forward and i would definitely recommend evaluating folie more underneath that specific lense

When an artists offers an idea, a perspective, it helps us all to see who we are. And it wakes up, and it pushes us forward towards our collective and individual potential. It makes us — each of us — able to see who we are more clearly. It’s progression and progressive movement. It’s the future staring us down in the present and saying, “C'mon, let’s get on with it. Here we are. Now.”

I embrace the use of the word “artist” rather than “musician” because the band Nirvana were artists in every sense of the word. It is the highest calling for an artist, as well as the greatest possible privilege to capture a moment, to find the zeitgeist, to expose our struggles, our aspirations, our desires. To embrace and define a period of time. That is my definition of an artist.

Nirvana captured lightning in a bottle. And now, per the dictionary — off the Internet — in defining “lightning in a bottle” as, “Capturing something powerful and elusive, and then being able to hold it and show it to the world.”

Kurt Cobain, Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl were Nirvana. The legacy and the power of their defining moment has become, for us, indelible. Like my band, R.E.M., Nirvana came from a most unlikely place. Not a cultural city-center like London, San Francisco, Los Angeles or even New York — or Brooklyn — but from Aberdeen, Washington in the Pacific Northwest, a largely blue-collar town just outside of Seattle.

Krist Novoselic said Nirvana came out of the American hardcore scene of the 1980s — this was a true underground. It was punk rock, where the many bands or musical styles were eclectic. We were a product of a community of youth looking for a connection away from the mainstream. The community built structures outside of the corporate, governmental sphere, independent and decentralized. Media connected through the copy machine, a decade before the Internet, as we know it, came to be. This was social networking in the face.

Dave Grohl said, “We were drop-outs, making minimum wage, listening to vinyl, emulating our heroes — Ian MacKaye, Little Richard — getting high, sleeping in vans, never expecting the world to notice.”

Solo artists almost have it easier than bands — bands are not easy. You find yourself in a group of people who rub each other the wrong way and exactly the right way. And you have chemistry, zeitgeist, lightning in a bottle and a collective voice to help pinpoint a moment, to help understand what it is that we’re going through. You see this is about community and pushing ourselves. Nirvana tapped into a voice that was yearning to be heard.

Keep in mind the times: This was the late Eighties, early Nineties. America, the idea of a hopeful, democratic country, had been practically dismantled by Iran-Contra, by AIDS, by the Reagan/Bush Sr. administrations.

But with their music, their attitude, their voice, by acknowledging the political machinations of petty but broad-reaching, political arguments, movements and positions that had held us culturally back, Nirvana blasted through all that with crystalline, nuclear rage and fury. Nirvana were kicking against the system, bringing complete disdain for the music industry and their definition of corporate, mainstream America, to show a sweet and beautiful — but fed-up — fury, coupled with howling vulnerability. Lyrically exposing our frailty, our frustrations, our shortcomings. Singing of retreat and acceptance over triumphs of an outsider community with such immense possibility, stymied or ignored, but not held down or held back by the stupidity and political pettiness of the times.

They spoke truth, and a lot of people listened. They picked up the mantle in that particular battle, but they were singular, and loud, and melodic, and deeply original. And that voice. That voice. Kurt, we miss you. I miss you. Nirvana defined a moment, a movement for outsiders: for the fags; for the fat girls; for the broken toys; the shy nerds; the Goth kids from Tennessee and Kentucky; for the rockers and the awkward; for the fed-up; the too-smart kids and the bullied. We were a community, a generation — in Nirvana’s case, several generations — in the echo chamber of that collective howl, and Allen Ginsberg would have been very proud, here. That moment and that voice reverberated into music and film, politics, a worldview, poetry, fashion, art, spiritualism, the beginning of the Internet and so many fields in so many ways in our lives.

This is not just pop music — this is something much greater than that. These are a few artists who rub each other the wrong way, and exactly the right way, at the right time: Nirvana. It is my honor to call to the stage Krist Novoselic and Dave Grohl.

—  Michael Stipe- Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony

Greenwich Halloween Murder

Greenich, Connecticut, is one of the wealthiest suburbs in North America. One of it’s most famous faces include George Bush Sr., who grew up there. However, on the night before Halloween 1975, something sinister happened in the peaceful town of Greenich; 15-year-old Martha Moxley was murdered in cold blood.

When Martha’s parents woke up on Halloween morning, they expected her to still be in bed after attending a big party the night before. Instead, they saw the unimaginable– Their daughter was lying on their front lawn dead. Her bloodied body was barely recognisable. She had been beaten with a golf club so severely that it had shattered into dozens of tiny, sharp pieces. Her killer then used one of these jagged fragments to stab her in the neck 40 times. It was determined that Martha had been killed in a different location, then dragged into her own backyard. Who could have committed such a bizarre, senseless crime?

Initially, all eyes turned to the host of the party, Tommy Skakel. Tommy is the nephew of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and (coincidentally to some) got off with the crime free of charge despite him being the one to walk Martha home. Although the police were pretty convinced that Tommy was their suspect, they never made any conviction, and the gruesome Greenwich Halloween murder remained a cold case for over 16 years. it wasn’t until 1998, 23 years after the young girl’s murder, that a killer was named: Michael Skakel, Tommy’s brother. According to novelist Dominick Dunne, Michael had once climbed a tree outside Martha’s window and masturbated. He was infatuated with the girl. And in 2002, Michael Skakel was finally convicted of the murder by a grand jury.