Category: Political

When I get older losing my hair,
Many years from now.
Will you still be sending me a valentine
Birthday greetings bottle of wine.
If I’d been out till quarter to three
Would you lock the door,
Will you still need me, will you still feed me,
When I’m sixty-four.

I really must stop reading the news before going to bed because I spent a disquieting night last night reading Greenspan’s pronouncements on the changes that need to be made for Social Security to survive. It’s not that I was suprirsed by what he said; it’s that dour projections about the future of our retirement is not something I would recommend as an accompaniment to that nice glass of warm milk before bed.

The facts are, in this country, we are living longer and having fewer children — both good things and the way a society should progress. However, both events put strain on a retirement system that is based primarily on money paid in by a shrinking labor pool, spread thin by an increasingly large retired population.

Some solutions come to mind: One is that we decrease our longevity, and that was jokingly mentioned yesterday. Or at least, I think that was a joking reference. Another is to start having more babies, and the technology exists to quickly meet this solution. However, in the long-term this is not an effective alternative as increased population butts head first into inflexible limits on resources, not to mention a labor market that is moving inexorably offshore.

Another viewpoint is to allow a redirection of money from Social Security to private investments, but I think that way lies danger. Not only will this drain the Social Security fund more quickly, it puts that money pulled from it into the hands of people that, frankly, usually don’t know what they’re doing. Then when they get too old to work, what will we do for them? They don’t have Social Security, and they have no funds of their own. Will we leave old people to die, starving and homeless, on the streets of our cities? We come close enough to that already, except that we try to hide this with below standard nursing homes.

If these solutions — decrease the old folk, increase the young folk, let everyone play in the stock market– aren’t palatable, then the only solution is to make some drastic changes to how Social Security is managed. Changes such as raise the retirement age.

If we put aside our emotional responses to this–difficult, because many of us have grown up with the ‘promise’ of retirement by 65–we can appreciate the truth in this statement.

The backlash against Greenspan isn’t surprising. He’s basically kicking at our most sacred institution, and he does so in the same breath used to defend tax cuts. I don’t fault Greenspan on his views on Social Security; however, I do believe that he’s relying on old economic truisms that are no longer so true; I question the general acceptance of his infallibilty based on his stubbord refusal to adjust to new information in his continued defense of trickle-down economics.

He’s like so many old time economists who believe that if we just pump money back into the economy, American businesses will do well; when American business do well, they’ll expand and hire more people, and that will lead to competititon for workers, and the workers will do better. It sounds good on paper, and it has worked in the past, but not this time.

This time we have a bunch of economists who are scratching their head because they don’t see an increase in hiring, at least not enough to offset the losses. They point, happily, to improvements in the economy, but are only now starting to acknowledge, far too late, that these are coming without the traditional improvement in the quality of life of the average American.

Greenspan defends tax cuts, and also defends, and this one takes my breath away, Americans dependence on credit and credit cards, this in the face of record numbers of bankruptcies. However, I can see why he does this: it is the Greenspan Touch.

Because of past reactions to his pronouncements, stock markets have risen and economies have boomed. So if he says that tax cuts will help, and then goads the American people into spending these cuts on real goods, rather than using the money to pay down debt, he hopes that by sheer will power and the Greenspan name, he can start that long-delayed trickle-down effect and finally kickstart a real uplift to the economy.

But it’s not going to work this time, or at least, not in the accepted manner. The numbers don’t lie, and they refused to be coddled. I acknowledge that Greenspan is a wiz at economics, but perhaps the economists need to put their spreadsheets down and just look out the window.

You’ll be older too,
And if you say the word,
I could stay with you.
I could be handy, mending a fuse
When your lights have gone.
You can knit a sweater by the fireside
Sunday mornings go for a ride,
Doing the garden, digging the weeds,
Who could ask for more.
Will you still need me, will you still feed me,
When I’m sixty-four.

Jobs are not increasing, and people are becoming progressively worried about their own continued employment, even in, especially in, long-held jobs. Globalization is having an impact, and it’s not just that blue collar jobs are going to China and white-collar jobs going to India — jobs are going to any number of countries. As this happens, without careful planning and consideration, as well as effective re-training programs in this country, more people are forced into lower-level service jobs, such as those at Wal-Mart and members of the middle class fall like dead autumn leaves into new economic classifications.

As the level of living in other countries increases due to higher-level jobs moving offshore, the level of living in this country decreases and brings a closer alignment between the workers around the world. In some ways, this is a good thing — we do need a closer alignment between the countries of the world. An unfortunate consequence, though, is that a permanent worker class is created that has little hope for a future beyond meeting the immediate needs of a family. And as the shuffling of jobs continues, round and round about the planet, the standard of living for this worker class will continue to erode.

(I read recently that White House economists are working on the spin necessary to make all these changes more attactive on statistical sheets. For instance, they are at work reclassifying low-level service jobs such as those at McDonald’s as manufacturing’ work because the people ‘manufacture’ hamburgers by putting the components of the sandwiches together.)

As the middle class shrinks, fewer taxes are paid, and the budget deficit, already bloated like a ten-day old rotted sperm whale washed up on shore, continues to increase. To counter, programs such as the ‘guest worker’ program are instituted to bring workers here to this country. These workers are willing to work for wages that push down the wages of those who are citizens, helping to make it more palatable to keep some jobs here that could be offshored. This helps to slow the steady stream of jobs offshore, and thus keep the taxes paid by these workers in this country, but without negative impact on the profitablity of the companies, which would be adverse to trickle-down economics.

No, the health of companies, especially larger companies will increase and stock value will grow. We’re seeing the trends of this right now. But a middle class that had discretionary funds to invest in the stock market is beginning to vanish, leaving the stock in the hands of a small percentage of very wealthy people, who will continue to increase their wealth.

Now, the taxes these people pay could offset the loss of taxes from the middle class — and it is true, most tax in the United States is paid by the upper 15% of income earners. However, as tax cuts increase, those in the upper reaches pay less tax and since they can only spend so much, re-invest less money back into purchasing of real goods; industries that are primarily supported by a middle class will begin to modify to provide mass-produced cheap goods for a larger group of lower-income people, or smaller numbers of luxury goods for a higher-income people.

(Some say that Michael Eisner’s management is responsible for Disney having problems with profitability in the last five years, and from what I read, he hasn’t helped. But I think a stronger factor is that Disney is, to all intents and purposes, a middle-income class company.)

By holding the line on continuing to cut taxes and then cutting most social programs, we remov the funds that could re-train the, let’s say displaced computer programmer, as a high school teacher or registered nurse — both professions that have a continued demand for people. Providing this type of training will increase the competition for these jobs and generate an increase in the style of living for both groups. This is counter to the worker class scenario, and cuts into profits of hospitals and health care programs, and increases the needs for more taxes to pay for schools. Rather than re-train our workers, we’ll use part of the guest worker program to fill these needs — already happening — and keep the economic incentives down to move displaced workers into these professions.

The worker class scenario of a the new trickle-down economics demands a downward shift in workers, not a lateral one.

In addition, cutting social programs also means that those who are poor are more likely to remain poor because they won’t have access to facilities that might help them climb out of their poverty. Poverty also leads to adherance to more dogmatic religious beliefs in addition to an increased birthrate — both incidental but useful components in the infrastructure of the new economics. Additionally, cutting social programs also means less money to medical programs including wellness programs for children and older people, and we can, of course, kiss any kind of universal health care program good-bye.

Holding the bottom line and delivering cheap will become the focus of this current run of trickle-down economics that Greenspan seems to lovingly embrace; having adverse impact on not only the people but also on the environment (but not the economy, which should continue to thrive). We’re already seeing a return to coal fired utility plants something that most of us swore we would never support.

However, after re-reading all of this, I may have to reconsider my disagreement with Greenspan’s approach, especially in regards to the upcoming crises in Social Security. By his reliance on trickle-down economics we will be seeing people who have less access to quality health care; this will probably be combined with a decreased life span due to worries about economic fluctuations, not to mention the stress of seeing one’s career being shunted ever downwards. And less social spending will result in a less educated and informed populace, which has been shown to have an adverse effect on lifespan but a positive effect on corporate profitability and other economic factors. In addition, increased spending for homeland security should keep people in that proper frame of fearful mind, which will probably steal a day or two away from their lives. This isn’t to mention the known fact that people with less money don’t eat as healthily (the healthier the eating the increased the costs), and without incentive, most don’t live right, either; not to mention increased competition for fewer resources and a degradation of the environment, both of which will kill folks deader n’ than a rattlesnake in a pissy mood.

So maybe Greenspan does have the right idea after all, but it’s hidden with talk of economics and taxes and spending and older workers because we can’t stomach the truth: it’s time to think about putting into place social conditions to kill off all the old farts who aren’t rich but still insist on thriving, and without any demonstrated usefulness to corporate society. These damn old people who stubbornly refuse to shuffle off this moral coil in a timely manner, the selfish pricks.

Every summer we can rent a cottage,
In the Isle of Wight, if it’s not too dear
We shall scrimp and save
Grandchildren on your knee
Vera Chuck & Dave
Send me a postcard, drop me a line,
Stating point of view
Indicate precisely what you mean to say
Yours sincerely, wasting away
Give me your answer, fill in a form
Mine for evermore
Will you still need me, will you still feed me,
When I’m sixty-four.

“When I’m Sixty-Four”, Beatles

Signed: Future selfish prick.

Sometimes when you’re going through Bloglines looking at the excerpts, it seems like so many variations on a common theme. But then you click to another and you’re faced with What Causes Rape? Anatomy of a Rape Culture and the shock is staggering.

Ampersand at Alas, a Blog wrote an essay on rape culture, giving, as opinion, three reasons why rape occurs:

1. The Myth of Masculinity
2. Low Regard of Women
3. Sexuality is something possessed by women, given to (or taken) by men

When humanity first breathed war, rape followed on the exhalation.

In ancient times, women were taken by conquering soldiers as spoils of war, sometimes becoming the wives of the victors, whether they wanted this or not. In many ways the fate that met many of these women was no different than if their lands hadn’t been overrun, except that their fathers would have made the determination of which man would own them.

Up until the last century or so for most cultures women were literally considered property, so it’s not surprising that a winning army would take the horses, the gold, and the women, usually valued in that order. This fits with Ampersand’s assertion that rape is a result of women being seen as little value, except, of course, in those cases when women were of value – just like the horses and the gold.

There was an additional reason women were raped in war: to humiliate the men. However, rather than taking the women, they would be left, sometimes dead, sometimes alive, as soiled reminders of the men’s failure to succeed on the battlefield. Rather than sympathy from her family and friends, though, the woman would be driven out of her home in shame because she didn’t die rather than submit. Rape is seen as the fault of the woman, not the man.

However, humanity is more civilized today, isn’t it?

During World War II, Russian soldiers raped hundreds of thousands of women – I’ve even read esitmates of millions of women, some being their own country women freed from German camps. In China, an estimated 80,000 women were raped by Japanese soldiers during the war, which was bad enough but there was at least some familiarity with this type of rape – the women were victims of wartime behavior. However, the Japanese government also, calmly condoned the concept of jugan ianfu or comfort women – women from many different countries but primarily Korean, kidnapped and or sold to the Japanese military to provide sex for the soldiers.

Supposedly these women were paid a small sum for each man they had sex with; I’ve read that they received 2 yen per man. Also supposedly after 500 or so men, they could buy their way to freedom. These women, many in their early teens, had to service so many men that sometimes they would fall sleep while the men were still using them.

Of course, the details were hushed up and the few photographs of the practice in the time showed Geisha-like girls winking at the camera, or signs showing:

`We welcome with our hearts and bodies the brave soldiers of Japan.’

US soldiers don’t escape the stigma of rape. The worst forms of rape can occur during civil war, and our own Civil War was rife with assault and abuse of women. As for modern times, you don’t have to look too far back to find an example in Tailhook, but even in Iraq, female soldiers not only have to duck bullets and bombs, they have to duck their comrades in arms.

But this is all war, and we know that in war behavior changes. Or at least, that’s what I’ve been told. But what about rape in a peaceful society?

Rape is used to punish women who go against the norms of society. “She’s a slut”, the kid says on the streets of Bloomington, as if this is all the justification that’s necessary. Even now with high profile cases, the rape victim is treated as if it were her behavior that led to the rape, rather than the lack of control, or even interest in control, of the man.

In other countries, rape is used to enforce religious dictates. “She’s immodest,”, the kids say in Baghdad, as they kidnap 13 year old girls and gang rape them until they’re half dead. But this type of rape isn’t to punish the women as much as it is to punish the men. It sends a message: control your women or we’ll ruin their value to you.

Rape is also crime of poverty. This weekend, Jane Fonda and Sally Fields helped to publicize the mass rape, torture, and murder of young women in Juarez, Mexico, most of whom worked at maquiladoras, or border factories. Rather than go after the real criminals, most likely organized crime, the authorities are instead going after bus drivers and farmers, too poor to defend themselves.

While I find Fonda’s ‘vagina warrier’ rhetoric and decision to produce and star in the play “Vagina Monologues” to be inappropriate to the event, I can still appreciate what they’ve done. Unfortunately, though, the balloons will soon pop, the pink paint fade. Where will Fonda be tomorrow?

But let’s focus on the more personal forms of rape. Ampersand talks about rape as a way of men asserting their masculinity, but I’m not sure if that’s a reason for rape. Rape in schools or in frat houses seems to me to be more pack behavior than assertion of male dominance. Men have raped as a group, where they won’t rape as an individual.

I do agree with Ampersand’s belief that rape is at least partially based on viewing women as an object of gratification. And you don’t have to look further than something like the hip Fleshbot to see women treated as objects: nude women as art, women pictured in cartoons being raped, women in bonds, women as nothing more than vagina, ass, mouth, and breasts.

Fleshbot may represent the mainstreaming of porn, but oddly enough, there is no clear correlation between pornography and rape. In fact, I found a fascinating study that shows there may be more of a correlation between a magazine like Field & Stream and rape. In other words, between a heavily masculine environment and rape.

Rather than rape being a reaffirmation of masculinity, masculinity becomes a affirmation of rape.

Still, what about rape porn. Feministe wrote about rape pornography, and whether this can desensitize the act of rape. In her view, if there is no acceptable forms of rape, then there should be no acceptable form of rape pornography (sharing the same view on child pornography).

Ampersand lists as one reason that men rape is that women have sexuality and men want it – rape for pleasure. According to an FBI Study of serial rapists, though, most did not experience any significant pleasure from the act. In fact, many of the rapists were dysfunctional during the act.

However, I believe that Ampersand may be focusing more on so-called date rape with his essay. And with date rape, all the rules about serial rapists or wartime rape goes out the door. Except for one common point shared by all, which I’ll get to in a moment.

The date rapist takes advantage of circumstances, such as the victim being incompacitated. Usually the rapist is himself drunk or stoned on drugs. In addition, date rapists are aggressive in other interactions with the woman, and tend to see women more as sexual conquests and objects of gratification; even more so than the serial rapists.

Acquaintance rape is the most common rape in this country, and in most other countries. It is also the one least prosecuted and most tolerated by society; more likely to be blamed on the victim than any other form of rape – leaving the woman to be victimized twice: once by the rape, and the second time by society.

In fact, that is the common shared aspect of all rapes – a belief that if only the victim had changed their behavior (dressed differently, behaved differently, not stayed poor, not joined the military, fought back) the rape wouldn’t have happened.

Rape is the only crime where the victim is held partially, or wholly, accountable.

Sunday after listening to Tim Russert interview President Bush, I was filled with a renewed sense of urgency to get involved with the Presidential race this year, but felt frustrated as to how I could make a difference.

I do write about politics in this weblog, and I thought that perhaps I should focus more time and effort on the race, but I haven’t felt inclined to do this kind of writing. I’d rather just write about what catches my fancy, but then I feel guilt – I’m not doing enough for the cause. However, it seems to me that no matter what I write, or how often I write it, it really makes no difference. Perhaps if I were one of the more well known pundits like Glenn Reynolds or Atrios or Kos Calpundit it would make more of a difference.

Thinking that I went to Calpundit’s site on Sunday and I read his post on the LA Times article on Howard Dean, and the Internet Echo Chamber effect. Kevin pointed out quotes from the illumanti who were mentioned in the article, including Clay Shirky and Dave Winer and Doc Searls and others and I noticed that in his writing, and in the article, there wasn’t a mention of a woman.

Well, huh, I said to myself. I thought it strange that there wasn’t one woman mentioned in the article, considering that there has been several women actively involved in the Dean campaign in one way or other – women like Betsy Devine, Halley Suitt, and Sheila Lennon.

It’s just this sort of thing that used to make me really angry in the past, but lately, I just don’t seem to have that same passion. Or at least, not it when it comes to what I read in weblogs. Still, I was feeling a bit peeved, and since the sun was out, decided to go for a walk and think about the situation before responding.

Most of my regular walks still had too much ice on the paths to safely traverse, especially when you’re still walking with a limp and are concerned about falling again. I decided to head to Tower Grove; I hadn’t been there for ages, and it usually attracts a lot of visitors – perhaps its walks were clearer.

When I got to Tower, the sidewalks were still too icy, but the area around the faux ruin and its lake was fairly clear so I walked around it, carrying my digital camera to get some shots because the late afternoon light was very pretty reflected on the snow and ice. The ‘lake’ is really nothing more than a clever pond, thick ice formed a bridge across the water every where except by where the water was disturbed by the fountain.

In this break in the ice, four ducks were swimming about, two mallards, and two ducks I couldn’t figure out their breed but one was dark gray and white, the other primarily white. I watched them for a bit, but then turned away to get a picture of the shadow of a tree across the ice, reaching between empty seats, reflecting the loneliness of the surroundings with just me, the four ducks, and an occasional squirrel.

As I was moving about, carefully, hands going red from the cold and nose running in what I’m sure was a most edifying manner, I caught movement out of the corner of my eye–the ducks had left the water and were climbing across the ice towards the bank, very near to where I was standing.

Well, three of the ducks were moving across the ice. The fourth one was still at the water’s edge, looking at me and looking at his friends and then back at me, sometimes making a hesitant move forward as if he would make a dash across the ice, but then holding back at the end.

I tried to stay very still to not alarm him further, and the other three ducks, now safely in the patch of the only bare ground in the entire area, were turned towards him, quaking like mad as if to say, “It’s alright George. Come on! She won’t hurt you!”

Finally, in a burst of inspiration, or hunger, George managed to find a solution to his quandry by flying over the ice rather than walking across it, thereby joining up with his friends without having to expose himself too much to the danger, which was me.

Unfortunately, landing on ice is not one of the easier things to do – at least it doesn’t look easy – and when George landed, he slid across the ice and ended up butt first in the bank rather abruptly and in, what I could tell, a very embarrased frame of mind. He shook his feathers out in a huff, stomped, not walked, up to his friends, and then turned around and glared at me.

I’d never been glared at by a duck before. I now have a whole new respect for this species of bird.

Leaving the group to their feast in peace, I carefully backed away and started walking across the ice crusted, snow filled lawn, enjoying the sound and the feel of breaking through the ice with my boots. I love to walk on snow, especially snow that’s not too deep. There’s something about putting one’s footprint where none has been before that leaves one feeling special somehow, even if the print will be gone in the next snowfall or melt.

I walked around until too cold to feel my fingers and headed home. I thought about writing my experience, but I wasn’t in a mood. Haven’t been in the mood to write about politics lately, either. It just doesn’t seem to make a difference. I’d rather just write about George and his friends. Or a new poem I found I decided to incorporate into my book:

HER even lines her steady temper show;
Neat as her dress, and polish’d as her brow;
Strong as her judgment, easy as her air;
Correct though free, and regular though fair:
And the same graces o’er her pen preside
That form her manners and her footsteps guide.

“On a Lady’s Writing”, a poem by Anna L’titia Barbauld first published in 1773

It was last night’s reading of Dave Roger’s most recent post discussing Joe Trippi’s appearance yesterday at the Digital Democracy Teach-In that insired me to write today. Trippi had said, There’s a reason Bush is vulnerable today. It’s because of the blogs.. As Dave writes:

One gathers Mr. Trippi and others like him would have us believe that somehow weblogs have made President Bush vulnerable. Apparently it’s not because of the loss of 2.2 million jobs during his term. It’s not because of Dr. David Kay’s revelations regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It’s not because of a half-trillion dollar deficit.

It’s because of the blogs. I couldn’t believe that Trippi would say something such as this, until I heard it myself in a recording . In it he talks in this vein for quite a long time, of how Dean’s campaign has revitalized the Democratic party and if Dean had never run for office, this wouldn’t have happened. He also talked about this new form of democracy and how the Internet is going to give democracy back to the people.

For some reason, this reminded me of my first protest demonstration, back when I was 15. Unlike most of my later ones, this one had to do with transporting spent nuclear fuel across Washington State, and a large group of us obtained permission to take our protest down the Express Lanes of I-5 in Seattle.

It was an astonishing experience – thousands and thousands of people, as far as the eye could see, all pulled together in common protest against a move decided by both the federal and state goverments in definance of the people’s wishes. I attended with the niece of one of the activists and he tried to get people to cross from the Express Lanes into the actual freeway to stop all traffic, but this crowd was a peaceful one. Besides – they made a much stronger statement by not crossing the freeway.

A strong enough statement to force a change.

That was a long time ago and the first of many political activities to come. I even worked on some campaigns, such as Senator Henry Jackson’s bid for the White House. Henry Jackson was an environmentalist before the term was popular, and a man I really liked. He didn’t win the Democratic nomination, but he still made a difference.

I didn’t always agree with him, but he was a good man. When or lose, he continued to work for the people.

Back to the here and now and Dean and this ‘new democracy’.

Dave Winer writes:

He did raise a lot of money on the Internet, and that’s interesting, for sure, and he taught us so much, and if he had gone all the way, I believe he would have survived the onslaught of CNN, ABC and NBC, who were his real competitors, not the other candidates for the Democratic nomination. Read that sentence again, please. That’s the core premise of this piece, and the point that all the analysis so far has missed. His challenge wasn’t to get the most votes, because that would inevitably follow, once he won the battle with the television networks, a battle which he failed to even show up for.

And from this we can only assume that Dave is saying that if Dean had stayed on the Internet instead of wasting money on commercials, he would have won.

David Weinberger writes:

I came away reinvigorated, with a sense that we’re going to be build an infrastructure that may de-boob the White House in 2004 and over the longer term could help revive a diverse, strong, democracy.

Jeff Jarvis wrote, in response to Trippi:

“This campaign was the first campaign really owned by the American people. Now we have to build a movement owned by them.”

Movements are, by definition, owned by the people.
These tools are not owned by one movement or one campaign. They will be used by anyone; that is their power.
I love what Dean created. But it’s not proprietary to any ideology. And I do have problems with the chronic anger, defensiveness, and hubris.

And I have a lot of problems with statements such as This campaign was the first campaign really owned by the American people.

I could go on and on, but the talk is the same and about the only person who really caught my attention was Joi Ito (who provided photos of the Teach-In) as quoted by Jeff Jarvis:

Joi notes that there have been a lot of white American males talking about blogs.

(later)

Joi says that when Americans want to spread democracy they mean putting it under American control. Unfair. In a more balanced audience, that would have gotten a loud moan.

A lot of white American men talking about blogs, and American democracy and American control. I wouldn’t have moaned – I would have applauded, and he would have probably been the only person I would have applauded. Would have given him a bit wet one, too.

All this fuss about the ‘new Democracy’ has got me thinking how Democracy has changed over the years. All the efforts of women to get the vote and blacks to get equality and protests for war and against war and all the changes that have resulted from a determined people coming together. I was reminded of the workers striking for decent conditions at the turn of the century, and the Chinese students run down by tanks, and the millions of people who protested wars and oppression even to today, and wonder what these people, many of whom died for their efforts, or had tubes shoved down their throats to force feed them, or who had lost loved ones, or been tortured, or now face a new form of McCarthyism – I wonder what they would think about claims being made that only now, and only in the Net and among weblogs is true democracy happening.

Rather than a Ghandi or a Martin Luther King, this year the hero of the revolution is the fired campaign manager of a failed campaign, and it makes me angry, the first time in a long, long while, I’ve been truly angry.

But out of that anger comes laughter, and why not? The two are next to each other on the emotional circle, and come from the same center in all of us.

I laugh because I think on what Joi said and how much of this new ‘revolution’ has been centered around white American males; and how we women, long used to it, can now sit back and enjoy watching how the men deal with being ignored.

I laugh because none of this really matters. Change comes from people, many people, walking the streets, and sometimes the streets are made of bytes, but most of the time the streets are made of concrete. The means doesn’t matter – it’s the passion that counts.

Democracy was not invented online, and there is no ‘new’ revolution – there’s only new methods of fighting the same one that’s been fought by countless people in the past. And if I want to write about George and his paranoia, I can – whether it be George the duck, or George the President. And it makes no difference in the great scheme of things that I’m doing the writing, and not Kevin Drum, or Glenn Reynolds, or Clay Shirky, or Dave Winer.

We’re all just ducks swimming in the same pond. Some may quake louder then others, have brighter feathers, and fly across the ice instead of walk, but ultimately we all just fly, float, fuck, eat, and shit – and do what we can to make sure our pond lasts a little while longer, our babies don’t get pecked by assholes, and try not to end up as someone’s dinner.

Quack. Quack.