Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

New Year's "No!"s

Submitted by lambert on Fri, 01/01/2010 - 10:48am
Departments: 
Department of You Can't Buff a Turd

Speaking, as BTD would say, for myself only--

1. No teebee. (Yes, read books instead!)

2. No account at a Big Bank. (Yes, use a local bank, or, better, a credit union.)

3. No credit card. (Yes, to cash and ATMs.)

3. No plastic. (Yes, to cash, and anything that keeps the "rent" the banksters want to charge you in your pocket. Hat tip BDBlue and nihil obstet.)

4. No processed or factory food. (Yes, buy local where possible, and learn to cook (a lot better).)

5. (If possible!) No car. (Yes to walking, public transportation, and biking. I know this is not possible for everyone, and I've been lucky enough to live in cities and small towns all my life, so I've never needed a car, even for the commute. But people could think about sharing their cars, no? Even in the burbs?)

And lastly:

6. No legacy party involvement. No time, attention, or money to either legacy party. The opportunity cost of devotion to Democrats and/or Republicans at any level is the construction of anything new that will actually work on our behalf.; the health care debacle shows -- if FISA, TARP, Gitmo, Afghanistan, and the big nothings on housing and unemployment did not already -- that both legacy parties, and Versailles, are irredeemable. The legacy parties are not resting. They are not stunned. They have passed on. They are no more. They have ceased to be. They have expired and gone to meet their makers. They are late parties. They are stiffs. Bereft of life, they rest in peace. Their metabolical processes are of interest only to historians. They've hopped the twig. They've shuffled off this mortal coil. They've run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible.

No supporting "good" legacy party members. No process fixes. No horse race coverage. No endorsements. No tempting scandal stories. No party line access blogger campaigns. No snark about Versailles public figures. No rewriting history. No oxygen. Why would something that's dead need oxygen, anyhow?

Yes, to policy analysis. Yes, to policy advocacy. Yes, to setting the record straight. Yes, especially yes to local coverage and support for local candidates. Yes, to becoming a candidate. Yes, to movement stories on single payer, or food, or demands for justice of any sort. Yes, to learning to taste, and see, and feel again -- all that the corporatists want to steal and then sell back to you.

And yes to the measure of happiness that will occur in the space opened up by saying No to all that bad shit.

0
No votes yet

Comments

TaosJohn's picture
Submitted by TaosJohn on

The part about legacy parties, especially. The first five resolutions will likely take care of themselves soon enough, although they are excellent as well.

But #6 should be tattooed on the back side of every blogger's eyelids.

selise's picture
Submitted by selise on

great list. thanks for it (and for other stuff).

Submitted by gmanedit on

When I was in my twenties, I couldn't take it anymore and stopped reading newspapers for a year. My depression lifted. No TV is a good move. (Without cable, I had a blissful two TV-free weeks at the digital change-over, until my SO discovered that it was the old VCR that was blocking the signal from the digital antenna to the digital TV.)

If you're going to learn to cook, might as well make it French. Sauces! Meanwhile, there's a lot of comfort in a good grilled-cheese sandwich (cook it in butter over a low flame, so the cheese melts before the bread burns).

No car means money in your pocket. It's like earning thousands of dollars a year.

It will be a relief to ignore the ins and outs of the legacy parties. I'm looking forward to it.

PS: It's not too late to get a cat or a dog. My rescued cat has added a lot of happiness to my life, once he decided it was safe to come out from under the bed (I think someone was not kind to him in the past). He's so smart, he drags pieces of toilet paper into the litter box to show us that it needs cleaning. Good boy!

coyotecreek's picture
Submitted by coyotecreek on

And boy, did you nail it with this comment:

"No time, attention, or money to either legacy party. The opportunity cost of devotion to them is constructing anything new that will actually work on our behalf..."

I am so worried that when the elections role around former Dems will just sigh and say, "what can I do...it's either Repugs or Dums and I can't let a Repub back in so....."

That's exactly what Obama and Friends are counting on and NOTHING will ever change if we let that happen - again.

I'm looking for good direction as to how I can help with "anything new". Any suggestions?

Submitted by Anne on

I stopped watching pretty much anything political at some point during the 2008 campaign; as far as I can tell, I am missing nothing by not watching the lot of them. It's been great for my blood pressure, and the dogs enjoy my not shouting at the TV.

But, I do watch TV - I have my guilty pleasures, and refuse to apologize for them.

I read - whatever looks interesting depending on my mood. I like learning stuff, but I like to escape, too.

We bank with the credit union, and gave up credit cards some years ago; we have check cards, but process the transactions like credit cards to avoid the debit fees. If we can't afford to pay cash for it, we don't buy it,and I have to say that there is a lot of pleasure in knowing that what we have we actually own (well, except for the house, which will be paid off in about 13 years - or sooner if we can manage it).

I've always been big on fresh food, love to cook with real ingredients, as opposed to out of boxes, but am determined to start buying local meats and dairy products; the stuff is better for you and tastes like real food.

I stopped giving money to all the Democratic party organizations in mid-2008, and have no plans to open my wallet for them this year. I send back - on their dime - any and all literature that appears in my mailbox - often, I will cut up whatever it was and send it back in the postage-paid envelope.

Policy advocacy and truth-telling is where the focus should be, of course, and maybe if there's enough of it and it's loud enough, it will be enough to wake the zombies still walking the halls of Congress. My gut feeling is that without real campaign finance reform, the zombies will have no real reason to pay attention to us; that has to be at or near the top of the list, and inform every other issue.

Jeff W's picture
Submitted by Jeff W on

That's a great list!

And thanks, lambert and the other Correnteans, for your indefatigable (and brilliantly written) efforts in supporting those Yes's. Happy New Year, everyone!

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I agree about using credit cards as little as possible (also switch to credit cards issued by credit unions which have a 15% interest rate cap). But also don't replace them with debit cards, which do not enjoy the same protections as credit cards. If you have to use a card, use the credit card and then pay it off (although it's better to use cash, especially if you're shopping locally to save your local merchant the 3-4% credit card fee).

nihil obstet's picture
Submitted by nihil obstet on

So I'll say yes, absolutely, to 2, 4, and 5. A little arguing on 1, 3, and 6.

1 - what do you mean, no teebee? How about rented movies or DVDs of good series? Reading print and watching/listening to spectacle are different, but I don't think one is always clearly superior to the other. In some cases (especially documentaries) being able to see really helps. The main thing to avoid on TV is the commercials; no matter how resistant you think you are, the relentless onslaught of little 15-30 second dramas from problem to nirvana based on buying is going to do very bad things to your psyche. I don't watch news or pundit shows, so I can't comment on whether they're innately destructive.

3 - Financial institutions are blood-sucking leeches. However, unless you can't keep yourself within bounds to pay off your balance every month, a credit card is preferable to a debit card. It provides more protection against theft and fraud. And since I use one of the cashback cards, I get some found money every year. Not much, but it's money back on stuff I'd buy anyway. As I said, don't ever pay a finance charge.

6 - People who have been active in politics and advocacy for years are generally involved in legacy parties. And I will do what I can to make sure that Dennis Kucinich stays in Congress. If you cut yourself off from legacy parties, you also cut off one of the avenues to people you know who can help with the new project. I'll agree on "don't give money to the party" and "don't support a lesser evil" but I'm not ready to go all the way to "no time or attention" to the legacy parties. I'm for sale. Give me human rights, including real universal health care, and I'm yours, even if you're still claiming your name is "The Democratic Party".

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Cable is the monthly bill - a rent - where they suck you dry by charging you for a bunch of crap you don't want (Fox news anyone? CNBC?). When you can get - no lie - a better HD picture over the air with a good antenna (one time cost, no monthly charges) and, as you say, get any decent entertainment you might be looking for from DVD rentals. The entertainment industry is one of the few in this country that still employs people, mostly union members, and produces a product other countries want, so I'm not for killing it (although I think there's a good argument that cable news needs to die). I do want to make it better, however, and one way to do that is direct your money (via rentals and ratings/tivo recordings) to good stuff (The Wire) and not paying the rent for the bad stuff via a cable bill. None of my money goes to Fox News, for example. But I'm happy to reward the folks who made Battlestar Galactica, just as I'm happy to reward talented authors, but would never by a Jonah Goldberg book.

Submitted by gmanedit on

is courtesy of the religious broadcasters, who, rightfully afraid that virtually nobody would pay for their programming, lobbied successfully for bundling.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

And here's why:

"This is the model for how such alliances can work, especially with regard to an issue of profound importance such as slavery. It is not necessary, and usually it is not even possible, to restrict one's compatriots to those with whom one agrees about all issues, or even a significant subset of issues. One need not and should not expect or demand that those with whom one joins in a particular cause agree with or endorse one's general views. In this case, Clarkson and Wilberforce disagreed on every other then-current issue of importance and controversy.

But they agreed about slavery, and they agreed that it must be ended. That is all one should require and, I stress, that is all that is necessary. As in this case, the goal must be very clearly defined, and the members of the coalition must be fully committed to it. I would go still further: provided the goal is defined in a way that is not subject to compromise and equivocation, even the reasons which inform the participants' commitment to that goal need not be the same. Provided they agree on the goal itself -- as here, that slavery be ended -- that is all that is needed. As I indicate, I will be returning to this issue in connection with examples from our politics today."

Submitted by lambert on

... from a diary at Kos that generated all of 10 comments. Of Grant's Army, Civil War historian Fletcher Pratt writes:

ffor if any one fact emerges from the tangled account of Gettysburg it is this -- that the Union victory was achieved by no one man, but by the cooperation of a large number of men, each appearing, as though by a miracle, in exactly the right place. . . .

Meade was not only a better soldier [than Hooker at Chancellorsville], he also had a simpler problem; he simply could not help putting in all his men. Lee attacked him at every point in succession; all he had to do was keep a clear head and stand his ground. He had seen enough of war by this time -- any of the Union generals had seen enough of war by this time – to do that; the rest followed as logically as conclusion succeeds premise. The appearances of Reynolds, Doubleday, Kilpatrick and the others at the right moments were not accidents but incidents; the Union infantry was full of generals who knew how to take advantage of the ground, the cavalry was loaded with valiant youths. What Lee attacked at Glendale was an armed mob; what he attacked at Second Bull Run was a group of quarrelsome old men; at Chancellorsville, he attacked a man; but at Gettysburg he came into collision with a system. The Army of the Potomac had developed to such an extent it no longer needed brains; it needed only someone to see that it did not fall over its own feet, which Meade was quite capable of doing. . . .

The South, a democracy of the classical type, believed combination on such a scale, such regulation, impossible without the sacrifice of individuality; they conceived of the Republic as the narrowly knitted federal league prescribed by the letter of the Constitution. They looked upon it much as Chios or Mitylene on the Athenian League of Pericles.

They did not realize that the North had developed a much stronger and more imperial structure, a type of polity new in the world. Combination is not new in the world; the Romans were a people of combination; the Germans are, so are the Japanese. But all the classical combinations had obtained their strength by making the individual one grain of sugar in the sack, with no thought or will or direction save those furnished by the mass. They ruthlessly harried the oddity, even the oddity of genius, such as Scipio or Schubert. The Northern type of combination -- which became the American type, since it triumphed -- was something much more complex and valuable, and constitutes this nation's one outstanding contribution to the science of human relations, a contribution not even yet thoroughly understood. . . .

Americans are a race of "joiners"; they should exult over the fact, it is their greatest title to fame. It enables them to form an association for the improvement of musical taste without inquiring into the social status of the members, and one for sending a rocket to the moon without examining their private morals. In Europe such bodies would be impossible unless the members were gemutlich, sympathique all around the compass; every association is necessarily a general association, throwing the members together at all points.

Americans are a race of joiners; it has enabled them to form those strange caravans that subdued a continent, and those research bodies which are the glory of science. The husking-bee, the house-building-bee, are the characteristic American institutions. Once their purpose is accomplished, they disband and no more is heard of them.

This implies an extraordinary flexibility of mind and a high degree of tolerance. The fault, the fatal fault of the Confederacy was that its system possessed neither. Tolerance was reserved for the small circle of the elect. It was intolerant of any but received opinion; it was inflexible, Chinese, dead, static. It was not without splendid virtues; ability (when found in the right places) made its way more swiftly to the top through the loose Southern organization than through the tighter organization of Northern society. But such ability, unless it were genius itself, arrived at the top not quite capable of performing its tasks. The Northern system furnished talent with such an elaborate apparatus of training and support that it became the equal of genius. It is not without significance that the Southern commanders at the beginning of the war -- Lee, Longstreet, Johnston, Bragg, Forrest -- were still the Southern commanders at the end of the war, mostly older men, while the Union, with an air of prestidigitation, was producing such young tigers as Sheridan, Custer, Wilson, Upton and Kilpatrick. The South, like most aristocracies, was deficient in education, both of the corporate body and of the individual member.

What I'm arguing is that giving attention to the legacy parties has unacceptable opportunity costs. That has nothing to do with individual party members, or any individual. In fact, taking up that attitude is an important part of getting rid of them.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

if you go without a car, chances are you're going to walk more than most people. but it still may not be enough. 30-60min a day, at least 3 days a week. everyone can find time for some exercise, and it's good for both body and spirit, when its part of your life on a regular basis.

i'll make my annual plug for yoga. it's not for everyone, but it is great if you're poor and can't afford a club membership or expensive workout equipment. Iyengar is my guru and he and his family have written many helpful guides, most of which have lots of pictures and visual instruction.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

if you live in DC or many urban areas you may be able to cut everything but your phone. (It will also cure you of your internet addiction if you don't have it in the home.)

There is always a coffee shop or public library with free wifi. If you live in DC, you can go to the truly elegant National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Castle, or, if you have a researcher's card, the reading room in the Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress.

jumpjet's picture
Submitted by jumpjet on

The nearest one is out at the university I attend, which is something of a drive from my parents' house. Otherwise it's Starbucks, which charges for internet.

But I've found that to be a blessing in the past, since without free unfettered internet access it would be just me and my computer and some coffee- perfect for writing fiction.