I don't remember if I already named this guy as a Bad Jew.
Where'd he get that name, anyway? Does he have a sister named Muffy? Muffy Schlozman? Must be from Greenwich.
BLOG POSTS
Thursday, May 31, 2007
WHAT HAPPENS
From the Huffington Post:
The Op-Ed page of the International Herald Tribune, in a piece entitled "The Follies of Bush's Policy," calls for the Bush administration to immediately terminate the clandestine distribution of $75 million dollars to opponents of the Iranian government .... The entirely predictable results of that secret dole has been to tarnish all opposition groups including those in Iran, leaving them open to the charge that they are paid lackeys of America. In short, say the authors, the program has "backfired." "It has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West." "Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported, it must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone."
This is what happens when you not only don't understand whom you're dealing with, but don't understand yourself.
The Op-Ed page of the International Herald Tribune, in a piece entitled "The Follies of Bush's Policy," calls for the Bush administration to immediately terminate the clandestine distribution of $75 million dollars to opponents of the Iranian government .... The entirely predictable results of that secret dole has been to tarnish all opposition groups including those in Iran, leaving them open to the charge that they are paid lackeys of America. In short, say the authors, the program has "backfired." "It has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West." "Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported, it must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone."
This is what happens when you not only don't understand whom you're dealing with, but don't understand yourself.
CRACKING
From Think Progress:
Friends of Bush from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.”
I was wondering how Bush thought he could make his intended permanent military presence in Iraq stick if a Democrat won in 2008. Obviously, he thinks he knows how to do it. I wish we knew what he was thinking.
"Our country's destiny" is not a political meme; it's a religious one. I remind you once again that fundamentalists of the LaHaye stripe believe the Devil lives in Baghdad, and that the Antichrist will make his capital there. So the big structure we are determinedly building in Baghdad is not an American embassy, but the military/political wing of a church.
I told you a while ago that I thought the Democratic strategy was to push Bush so hard on so many fronts and issues that he cracks. Looks like it's working. Think Nixon. But God I hope we get him out of there before his mania becomes homicidal.
Friends of Bush from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated “I am the president!” He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of “our country’s destiny.”
I was wondering how Bush thought he could make his intended permanent military presence in Iraq stick if a Democrat won in 2008. Obviously, he thinks he knows how to do it. I wish we knew what he was thinking.
"Our country's destiny" is not a political meme; it's a religious one. I remind you once again that fundamentalists of the LaHaye stripe believe the Devil lives in Baghdad, and that the Antichrist will make his capital there. So the big structure we are determinedly building in Baghdad is not an American embassy, but the military/political wing of a church.
I told you a while ago that I thought the Democratic strategy was to push Bush so hard on so many fronts and issues that he cracks. Looks like it's working. Think Nixon. But God I hope we get him out of there before his mania becomes homicidal.
RIGHT
From Bill Scher on the Huffington Post:
Today, President Bush is getting a fresh round of favorable headlines for announcing this ahead of next week's summit of the powerful G-8 nations:
By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To help develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.
Sounds nice, almost like he wants one of them Kyoto treaties.
Except that yesterday, Reuters reported:
President George W. Bush is under pressure from European allies to give ground on climate change at next week's meeting of the world's richest countries, but policy experts say prospects for a breakthrough are slim.
The sticking point is Bush's longstanding opposition to measurable goals for reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases that spur global warming.
...
As negotiators try to hammer out the final language in a communique, the United States has blocked an emerging consensus in favor of firm targets.
So we could have a major breakthrough right now, establishing firm targets for the eight nations that contribute nearly half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
But instead, the White House is proposing more talking, while making it sound like a bold proposal.
Comment completely unnecessary.
Today, President Bush is getting a fresh round of favorable headlines for announcing this ahead of next week's summit of the powerful G-8 nations:
By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases. To help develop this goal, the United States will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.
Sounds nice, almost like he wants one of them Kyoto treaties.
Except that yesterday, Reuters reported:
President George W. Bush is under pressure from European allies to give ground on climate change at next week's meeting of the world's richest countries, but policy experts say prospects for a breakthrough are slim.
The sticking point is Bush's longstanding opposition to measurable goals for reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases that spur global warming.
...
As negotiators try to hammer out the final language in a communique, the United States has blocked an emerging consensus in favor of firm targets.
So we could have a major breakthrough right now, establishing firm targets for the eight nations that contribute nearly half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
But instead, the White House is proposing more talking, while making it sound like a bold proposal.
Comment completely unnecessary.
GLUED?
The word is that on Keith Olbermann recently Al Gore was as stiff and equivocating as he used to be - suggesting he's going to run. Gore is a brilliant and honest man - he just can't be a candidate, because he keeps thinking he has to be what the public wants at the moment. That's been my greatest fear, even though I wish like hell he could run.
But - why isn't some candidate glueing him or herself to Gore? If Gore really doesn't want to run - or even if he does - why isn't Barack Obama, for example, making it clear that if he wins Al Gore will be right at his side, advising him, holding an important post, sharing his thinking? It would be a great political move. But not good for Obama's ego.
That's why I believe that the current leading Dem candidates are too obviously in it for personal glory. Which they don't want to share. Which means I can't support them. I don't care about their personal glory. I care about America and its democracy. I suspect a lot of voters feel the same way.
But - why isn't some candidate glueing him or herself to Gore? If Gore really doesn't want to run - or even if he does - why isn't Barack Obama, for example, making it clear that if he wins Al Gore will be right at his side, advising him, holding an important post, sharing his thinking? It would be a great political move. But not good for Obama's ego.
That's why I believe that the current leading Dem candidates are too obviously in it for personal glory. Which they don't want to share. Which means I can't support them. I don't care about their personal glory. I care about America and its democracy. I suspect a lot of voters feel the same way.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
BIG
Al Gore reminds me that our biggest problem is that we have too many tiny people masquerading as big people.
It's far easier to point out who is big as opposed to who's little, since there are so many more of the latter than the former. But two examples of tiny: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
John Edwards isn't little, but he isn't quite big. Bill Richardson isn't little, but he's too conflicted to be big. John McCain isn't little, but he's a walking Greek tragedy. People believe he means what he says, but they don't believe what he means.
It's hard to know if Hillary's big or little, because she doesn't want you to know what she really is. I'm not sure Obama himself knows if he's big or little. So I guess he stays little until he finds out.
This lack of big people is not exactly something new, since there are always more positions requiring big people than there are big people to fill them. Paul Krugman is big. David Brooks is tiny. There aren't enough Krugmans, I guess, to put together the New York Times. In fact, there seems to be a loss of big folks at the Times: I used to think Maureen Dowd was big, but she's not.
It's either that we have more positions needing big people than we ever have had before, or we have less big people than we ever have. I will bet it's probably both; America has not been so good lately at making big people, or even finding big people and pushing them to the top.
Bill Clinton was big, but flawed. So's Al Gore. George Bush walks at the height of a diamondback rattlesnake.
It's far easier to point out who is big as opposed to who's little, since there are so many more of the latter than the former. But two examples of tiny: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
John Edwards isn't little, but he isn't quite big. Bill Richardson isn't little, but he's too conflicted to be big. John McCain isn't little, but he's a walking Greek tragedy. People believe he means what he says, but they don't believe what he means.
It's hard to know if Hillary's big or little, because she doesn't want you to know what she really is. I'm not sure Obama himself knows if he's big or little. So I guess he stays little until he finds out.
This lack of big people is not exactly something new, since there are always more positions requiring big people than there are big people to fill them. Paul Krugman is big. David Brooks is tiny. There aren't enough Krugmans, I guess, to put together the New York Times. In fact, there seems to be a loss of big folks at the Times: I used to think Maureen Dowd was big, but she's not.
It's either that we have more positions needing big people than we ever have had before, or we have less big people than we ever have. I will bet it's probably both; America has not been so good lately at making big people, or even finding big people and pushing them to the top.
Bill Clinton was big, but flawed. So's Al Gore. George Bush walks at the height of a diamondback rattlesnake.
GROW THE FUCK UP
From the New York Times:
The worry behind this growing movement to mandate diversions that once were voluntary is that the fun has been taken out of fun. To the arbiters of wholesome recreation, today’s fun is too passive, too controlled and much too automated. Video games though spectacularly violent in ways that the 9-year-olds of yesteryear could never have imagined are deemed an inferior play form by these experts because they expose children to no real risks and demand of them no metabolically measurable effort. A kid with an Xbox can blow up the planet, but he can’t scrape his knee or even grow short of breath. A stone-skipper, though, might fall into a pond, forcing one of his resourceful buddies to snap a branch off a nearby maple tree and hold it out to him before he drowns.
Thus does parental protectiveness come full circle, with the deliberate promotion of character-building childhood mishaps. By pushing that baby-on-board overboard — particularly if that baby was born a male — we can encourage him, the thinking goes, to develop emotional sea legs. That’s the hidden redemptive promise behind the appeal of the “The Dangerous Book for Boys” and the rise of play-positive organizations like the Alliance for Childhood: It’s not too late to raise a scrapper, even if he grew up eating organic and riding to Montessori school in a Volvo.
The perceived, and feared, alternative is rearing a programmed, thin-skinned nonentity. Sure, the wife was probably right to enroll little Tim in yoga class as an early stress-reduction measure, and yes, it’s a fact of hectic modern life that play dates need to be scheduled eight days in advance, but what good will any of this do if the lad’s budding masculine soul is starved of the key emotional nutrients that only chaotic goofing off supplies?
God, what a bunch of controlling, neurotic people we are - we who resisted all control and smoked dope and fucked without condoms and climbed rocks and skied down glaciers.
Maybe we should stop thinking and just let things be. Or maybe just get out of New York and look at the rest of the world. Why does every move we make have to be dictated by some group or some expert? Why are we so afraid of danger? And just wait until we have to face our own deaths.
Ah, Fiona tells me, "it's a Jewish thing." And she's right. It is. The Holocaust - or a Holocaust - is always with us. Protect, protect, protect - eliminate all dangers. Except the dangers that protect the kid from the danger of being a wuss (entirely non-Israeli, don't you know.)
And from whence comes our assumption that our kids are entirely unable to do anything for - or by - themselves? You boomers, you raised a generation of totalitarians. If your mother had taken that attitude, you would have kicked her in the shins. Who says every kid needs his own personal George Bush?
What has you so scared? What the fuck is it?
If you would grow the fuck up, maybe your kids would too.
The worry behind this growing movement to mandate diversions that once were voluntary is that the fun has been taken out of fun. To the arbiters of wholesome recreation, today’s fun is too passive, too controlled and much too automated. Video games though spectacularly violent in ways that the 9-year-olds of yesteryear could never have imagined are deemed an inferior play form by these experts because they expose children to no real risks and demand of them no metabolically measurable effort. A kid with an Xbox can blow up the planet, but he can’t scrape his knee or even grow short of breath. A stone-skipper, though, might fall into a pond, forcing one of his resourceful buddies to snap a branch off a nearby maple tree and hold it out to him before he drowns.
Thus does parental protectiveness come full circle, with the deliberate promotion of character-building childhood mishaps. By pushing that baby-on-board overboard — particularly if that baby was born a male — we can encourage him, the thinking goes, to develop emotional sea legs. That’s the hidden redemptive promise behind the appeal of the “The Dangerous Book for Boys” and the rise of play-positive organizations like the Alliance for Childhood: It’s not too late to raise a scrapper, even if he grew up eating organic and riding to Montessori school in a Volvo.
The perceived, and feared, alternative is rearing a programmed, thin-skinned nonentity. Sure, the wife was probably right to enroll little Tim in yoga class as an early stress-reduction measure, and yes, it’s a fact of hectic modern life that play dates need to be scheduled eight days in advance, but what good will any of this do if the lad’s budding masculine soul is starved of the key emotional nutrients that only chaotic goofing off supplies?
God, what a bunch of controlling, neurotic people we are - we who resisted all control and smoked dope and fucked without condoms and climbed rocks and skied down glaciers.
Maybe we should stop thinking and just let things be. Or maybe just get out of New York and look at the rest of the world. Why does every move we make have to be dictated by some group or some expert? Why are we so afraid of danger? And just wait until we have to face our own deaths.
Ah, Fiona tells me, "it's a Jewish thing." And she's right. It is. The Holocaust - or a Holocaust - is always with us. Protect, protect, protect - eliminate all dangers. Except the dangers that protect the kid from the danger of being a wuss (entirely non-Israeli, don't you know.)
And from whence comes our assumption that our kids are entirely unable to do anything for - or by - themselves? You boomers, you raised a generation of totalitarians. If your mother had taken that attitude, you would have kicked her in the shins. Who says every kid needs his own personal George Bush?
What has you so scared? What the fuck is it?
If you would grow the fuck up, maybe your kids would too.
WHAT'S A HUMAN?
From Daily Kos:
The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease. A beef producer in Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows. Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well. The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.
I don't expect Republicans to clean up their act. They got elected; if they want to destroy every conception of what government ought to do, they can do that - until they get thrown out. (Although throwing out wouldn't do it for me; if I can't have mass drowning, I expect mass incarceration.)
But it would be nice if once in a while they blushed when they pulled crap like this.
You have to believe they all grew up in some part of the country where they don't teach civics - or civilization, even. This is caveman aggression at its worst (and please keep those Geico metrosexuals away from me.) I've got to dumb down my definition of what constitutes a human - because a lot of what I thought was included doesn't seem to be.
The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease. A beef producer in Kansas, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wants to test all of its cows. Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone should test its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive tests on their larger herds as well. The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.
I don't expect Republicans to clean up their act. They got elected; if they want to destroy every conception of what government ought to do, they can do that - until they get thrown out. (Although throwing out wouldn't do it for me; if I can't have mass drowning, I expect mass incarceration.)
But it would be nice if once in a while they blushed when they pulled crap like this.
You have to believe they all grew up in some part of the country where they don't teach civics - or civilization, even. This is caveman aggression at its worst (and please keep those Geico metrosexuals away from me.) I've got to dumb down my definition of what constitutes a human - because a lot of what I thought was included doesn't seem to be.
HORROR OVER?
From Think Progress:
“Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, finds current public tolerance for gay rights at the high-water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades.” Today, 59 percent of Americans believe that “homosexual relations between consenting adults” should be legal, and 89 percent believe “gays should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.”
Must be the "Will & Grace" effect. So why is everyone so concerned about the Republicans pandering to the religious right?
Maybe that horror is over ... ?
Okay, Mitt! After you get the nomination, will you flip-flop again? Or just shut up on the issue?
“Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, finds current public tolerance for gay rights at the high-water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades.” Today, 59 percent of Americans believe that “homosexual relations between consenting adults” should be legal, and 89 percent believe “gays should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.”
Must be the "Will & Grace" effect. So why is everyone so concerned about the Republicans pandering to the religious right?
Maybe that horror is over ... ?
Okay, Mitt! After you get the nomination, will you flip-flop again? Or just shut up on the issue?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
BOW TIES
My goodness, what you learn if you're paying attention!
From Think Progress:
One of Scooter Libby’s “most ardent defenders, Richard Carlson, a former chief of the Voice of America who serves as a member of a defense trust set up for Libby,” reacts to Patrick Fitzgerald’s latest filing which again states that Valerie Plame was covert: I think it’s certainly unseemly that he is kicking him while he’s down. For Fitzgerald, to get on his high horse, it’s disgusting and he should be ashamed of himself. Richard Carlson is the “bow-tied father of bow-tied television pundit Tucker Carlson” who “sent a courier with a check to Libby’s Virginia home…on the morning of his perjury indictment.”
I meant the part about who was Tucker Carlson's father. That explains just about everything about Tucker.
But, while I'm at it - let's see. One should be prohibited from stating a negative fact about a convicted felon, even if it's true, and even if it's extremely relevant to his sentencing, because it's piling on?
I wonder if the Carlsons kicked Bill Clinton when he was down.
More nauseating hypocrisy.
From Think Progress:
One of Scooter Libby’s “most ardent defenders, Richard Carlson, a former chief of the Voice of America who serves as a member of a defense trust set up for Libby,” reacts to Patrick Fitzgerald’s latest filing which again states that Valerie Plame was covert: I think it’s certainly unseemly that he is kicking him while he’s down. For Fitzgerald, to get on his high horse, it’s disgusting and he should be ashamed of himself. Richard Carlson is the “bow-tied father of bow-tied television pundit Tucker Carlson” who “sent a courier with a check to Libby’s Virginia home…on the morning of his perjury indictment.”
I meant the part about who was Tucker Carlson's father. That explains just about everything about Tucker.
But, while I'm at it - let's see. One should be prohibited from stating a negative fact about a convicted felon, even if it's true, and even if it's extremely relevant to his sentencing, because it's piling on?
I wonder if the Carlsons kicked Bill Clinton when he was down.
More nauseating hypocrisy.
TRUMP'S IN STEAKS
Donald Trump is now hawking steaks on the cover of the Sharper Image catalog, and also a two day seminar which promises that when you're done you're on your way to being a millionaire (chump change, Donald - why don't you teach us how to become a billionaire?)
Beneath his dignity? He's never had any. It's all about the bucks. But hey, if people believe he's an expert on steaks, how about toilet paper? One assumes Trump has taken a lot of dumps in his life. Probably he's taken more dumps than he's eaten steaks.
Remember when top-line rockers refused to allow their music to be used in commercials? When they'd rather be dead than play Vegas? You look at what's happening these days and you realize that Bush is completely in tune with the culture - which is all about moving dollars from the bottom to the top of the food chain.
Or has it always been that way?
Beneath his dignity? He's never had any. It's all about the bucks. But hey, if people believe he's an expert on steaks, how about toilet paper? One assumes Trump has taken a lot of dumps in his life. Probably he's taken more dumps than he's eaten steaks.
Remember when top-line rockers refused to allow their music to be used in commercials? When they'd rather be dead than play Vegas? You look at what's happening these days and you realize that Bush is completely in tune with the culture - which is all about moving dollars from the bottom to the top of the food chain.
Or has it always been that way?
FAMOUS
The Huffington Post reports that a Dutch TV station will air a program in which a terminally ill woman selects one of three patients to receive her kidneys. This is supposed to be a good thing because it will highlight the shortage of organ donors.
Damn. If I know I can get famous by giving up an organ, I'm going to do it.
But how depressed will the losers be? I'm not worth a kidney? Why don't I just kill myself right now?
On the other hand, maybe, when I walk down the street, some guy will know I'm famous and want to give a kidney to a famous guy. If not a kidney, maybe a book deal. Or a TV show. I could call it "Who Wants To Give Me A Kidney?" Or "Who Needs Kidneys, Anyway?"
Damn. If I know I can get famous by giving up an organ, I'm going to do it.
But how depressed will the losers be? I'm not worth a kidney? Why don't I just kill myself right now?
On the other hand, maybe, when I walk down the street, some guy will know I'm famous and want to give a kidney to a famous guy. If not a kidney, maybe a book deal. Or a TV show. I could call it "Who Wants To Give Me A Kidney?" Or "Who Needs Kidneys, Anyway?"
FOCUSED
Conservative Republicans are embracing Rudy Giuliani because they think he's electable. They could be very wrong about that, but it shows that they are thinking power and not family values. Republicans have the right focus on this. I hope the Democrats manage to stay equally focused.
ME TOO
Gore's book should be rocking the world. It isn't. I don't even find much comment on leftish blogs.
I think the reason for the latter is ego. Everyone thinks that what they have to say is the most important thing.
Hey, I can get with that. So do I.
UPDATE: David Brooks writes a totally incomprehensible review, a intellectually snobbish piece about someone Brooks believes is an intellectual snob, calling Gore "strange" and saying he relies on "pseudoscience." It essentially repeats the old Republican line that Gore isn't human, hasn't any sympathy for people. But as to Gore's full frontal attack on the Bush administration, Brooks does not have a single thing to say. No refutation equals admission? That's what Brooks would say if the shoe was on the other foot.
I think the reason for the latter is ego. Everyone thinks that what they have to say is the most important thing.
Hey, I can get with that. So do I.
UPDATE: David Brooks writes a totally incomprehensible review, a intellectually snobbish piece about someone Brooks believes is an intellectual snob, calling Gore "strange" and saying he relies on "pseudoscience." It essentially repeats the old Republican line that Gore isn't human, hasn't any sympathy for people. But as to Gore's full frontal attack on the Bush administration, Brooks does not have a single thing to say. No refutation equals admission? That's what Brooks would say if the shoe was on the other foot.
Monday, May 28, 2007
WHO NEEDS IT?
So far as I have gotten, Gore's book is the one I have been waiting for. It lays out comprehensively all the grounds for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It includes all those little stories - never followed up on - that I noticed in blogs and newspapers for the last three years. It is so convincing that it could be said that not to impeach this administration would be an abdication of our obligation to democracy.
The book has also convinced me that Gore should not run for president. Because of course he has handed the right wing and its media an infinite source of ideas for contemptuous commentary. If Gore were to run, he would find himself defending everything he said in this book - and while everything he says is eminently defensible, the attacks and spin would confuse many issues and distract Gore from presenting a positive program. So, with regrets, I bid adieu to a Gore presidency. In the current state of America, the race would be a disaster - because Gore is about the truth these days, and no one needs that ...
The book has also convinced me that Gore should not run for president. Because of course he has handed the right wing and its media an infinite source of ideas for contemptuous commentary. If Gore were to run, he would find himself defending everything he said in this book - and while everything he says is eminently defensible, the attacks and spin would confuse many issues and distract Gore from presenting a positive program. So, with regrets, I bid adieu to a Gore presidency. In the current state of America, the race would be a disaster - because Gore is about the truth these days, and no one needs that ...
HOW SAD
I'm listening to Gore and I'm thinking: this guy is too intelligent and too educated to be elected.
How sad is that!
How quickly I came to that mindset. After all, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, Bush I was no genius but no dope either, Reagan was not a shining intellect but OK one aberration, Jimmy Carter is so bright ... so was Nixon.
Six years of Bush and I'm convinced we'll only elect a moron.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Here's Eugene Robinson's view on the subject: hopefully not wishful thinking.
How sad is that!
How quickly I came to that mindset. After all, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, Bush I was no genius but no dope either, Reagan was not a shining intellect but OK one aberration, Jimmy Carter is so bright ... so was Nixon.
Six years of Bush and I'm convinced we'll only elect a moron.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Here's Eugene Robinson's view on the subject: hopefully not wishful thinking.
HONEST TO DELUSIONS
If Hillary Clinton were a man, she wouldn't be having the problems she's got with the public response to her political manipulations. If what she's said and done were said and done by a man, it's highly likely no one would have said a word. But Hillary is pilloried (I like that!) by comparing her to the ideal women have created for themselves in the last thirty years.
Women believe themselves to be more honorable and honest than men, and have managed to convince a lot of men of that. It isn't true, of course, as anyone knows who thinks about it. The only kind of honesty more prevalent in women is the honest profession and adherence to a delusion (being true to a falsity), whatever kind of delusion that may be. Take the two Monicas, for instance: Monica II is under the delusion that God loves Republicans; Monica I was under the delusion that the President loved her. They both acted completely in good faith, except the underlying principle was utter bosh.
There are men who are deluded, too, and honest to those delusions. Like George Bush .... Nah. He's a hypocrite.
Hillary is under no delusions. She's politically dishonest - and that's seen as a man thing, so Hillary is felt as a sort of hermaphrodite. Which explains why a lot of people are as uncomfortable with her as if she'd confessed to a sex change operation.
Women believe themselves to be more honorable and honest than men, and have managed to convince a lot of men of that. It isn't true, of course, as anyone knows who thinks about it. The only kind of honesty more prevalent in women is the honest profession and adherence to a delusion (being true to a falsity), whatever kind of delusion that may be. Take the two Monicas, for instance: Monica II is under the delusion that God loves Republicans; Monica I was under the delusion that the President loved her. They both acted completely in good faith, except the underlying principle was utter bosh.
There are men who are deluded, too, and honest to those delusions. Like George Bush .... Nah. He's a hypocrite.
Hillary is under no delusions. She's politically dishonest - and that's seen as a man thing, so Hillary is felt as a sort of hermaphrodite. Which explains why a lot of people are as uncomfortable with her as if she'd confessed to a sex change operation.
GETTING OUT THERE
I'm listening to Al Gore's "Assault on Reason," and may comment on it from time to time. My first thought is that his assessment that TV watching is increasing doesn't make sense - and the finding that more people are watching TV while on the internet makes less sense. I don't dispute the studies on the former that have been done - but I would like to see data broken down on bases such as economic status, education, age, religion, race - and then further broken down to see which watches what. Americans are busier outside the home than ever - if more women are working, the audiences for daytime programming have to be dropping. Americans have returned to some extent to live activity - at least, they all seem to be going to the gym. And it is not possible to make any real use of the internet while watching TV. However, I do believe that in many homes the TV is always on - it's a form of background comfort, particularly for people who are lonely or people who are disturbed by things they think when it's quiet. I suspect statistics that show more TV watching now are really showing more time with the TV on - not at all the same thing.
Gore quoted someone as saying "If it's not on TV, it doesn't exist." This concept, I think, has stretched exponentially in the last 5-10 years. I think many people have concluded that if they are not on TV they don't exist - or at least that for them to have validated lives someone just like them must be on TV. Watching others on "Deal or No Deal" or reality shows or Jay Leno's "Battle of the Jaywalk Allstars" gives people the good feeling that you don't have to bright, or educated, or good looking, or talented or accomplished to be somebody; you just have to get in front of a camera. These people view celebrities as similarly validating - most of the celebrities who are most followed are entertainers, and they are not being followed because of their talent but because, in some cases, of their lack of it, and where they are talented, that's beside the point. The thing is, they seem to be just like us - and the lives of luxury they lead therefore seem to be available to all of us if we can just get on TV. People don't comprehend the tremendous amount of work - and in some cases brilliant strategic planning - that gets a celebrity major exposure. They think it's easy - just find a lens. It doesn't matter what you do in front of it. You Tube is the perfect example of this.
That's why democracy isn't working so well in America. If you think your future success - and your self-respect - depends on getting on TV, you don't need to think about what politicians are doing (unless they're celebrities), you don't need to think about economic problems, you don't need to think about anything except exposing yourself. If you can't find a lens, you can still express yourself on a smaller scale to people you meet, or people (on the internet) you don't actually meet. It's all just a matter of "getting out there" and presenting your style.
And, in a society where narcissism is dominant, thinking about others is unnecessary. And that portends the death of democracy.
Further: Gore says that TV is a one-way medium which does not allow for conversation. This is contradicted by what I've said above. However, with the exception of You Tube or similar operations, the type of conversations had remains in the control of the people who own the medium. Views will be presented which they either think are newsworthy or express something they want to say. The average man's participation is within the media's format - you are either a game show participant or you are news (meaning, most likely, something bad has happened to you.) I don't know whether the problem is that in these contexts people are not allowed to make significant comments, or whether these people have no significant comments to make. The last unscripted moment I recall from an unknown person was the speech by the Indian woman who accepted Brando's Oscar. If you want to say something like that now, looks like you have to be someone they want to show - i.e., they probably wouldn't give you the opportunity to show your tit that they gave Janet Jackson. On the other hand, get yourself murdered or missing (if you're a pretty young girl) and you could say just about anything - if the dead could speak.
Gore quoted someone as saying "If it's not on TV, it doesn't exist." This concept, I think, has stretched exponentially in the last 5-10 years. I think many people have concluded that if they are not on TV they don't exist - or at least that for them to have validated lives someone just like them must be on TV. Watching others on "Deal or No Deal" or reality shows or Jay Leno's "Battle of the Jaywalk Allstars" gives people the good feeling that you don't have to bright, or educated, or good looking, or talented or accomplished to be somebody; you just have to get in front of a camera. These people view celebrities as similarly validating - most of the celebrities who are most followed are entertainers, and they are not being followed because of their talent but because, in some cases, of their lack of it, and where they are talented, that's beside the point. The thing is, they seem to be just like us - and the lives of luxury they lead therefore seem to be available to all of us if we can just get on TV. People don't comprehend the tremendous amount of work - and in some cases brilliant strategic planning - that gets a celebrity major exposure. They think it's easy - just find a lens. It doesn't matter what you do in front of it. You Tube is the perfect example of this.
That's why democracy isn't working so well in America. If you think your future success - and your self-respect - depends on getting on TV, you don't need to think about what politicians are doing (unless they're celebrities), you don't need to think about economic problems, you don't need to think about anything except exposing yourself. If you can't find a lens, you can still express yourself on a smaller scale to people you meet, or people (on the internet) you don't actually meet. It's all just a matter of "getting out there" and presenting your style.
And, in a society where narcissism is dominant, thinking about others is unnecessary. And that portends the death of democracy.
Further: Gore says that TV is a one-way medium which does not allow for conversation. This is contradicted by what I've said above. However, with the exception of You Tube or similar operations, the type of conversations had remains in the control of the people who own the medium. Views will be presented which they either think are newsworthy or express something they want to say. The average man's participation is within the media's format - you are either a game show participant or you are news (meaning, most likely, something bad has happened to you.) I don't know whether the problem is that in these contexts people are not allowed to make significant comments, or whether these people have no significant comments to make. The last unscripted moment I recall from an unknown person was the speech by the Indian woman who accepted Brando's Oscar. If you want to say something like that now, looks like you have to be someone they want to show - i.e., they probably wouldn't give you the opportunity to show your tit that they gave Janet Jackson. On the other hand, get yourself murdered or missing (if you're a pretty young girl) and you could say just about anything - if the dead could speak.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
ROUGH TIME
This is a must read. It confirms that so-called "moderate" Muslims - if in fact they actually exist - are doing next to nothing to avert the rise of radicalism in the American Muslim community. And it apparently calls me wrong in my recent statement that America had a good chance of avoiding the fate of Europe, where radical Islam may some day eat Europe alive.
With radical Islam, radical Christianity and radical Judaism apparently captivating so many of the young, the supposed "clash of civilizations" may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we may be in for a very rough time.
With radical Islam, radical Christianity and radical Judaism apparently captivating so many of the young, the supposed "clash of civilizations" may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we may be in for a very rough time.
OUR TIMES
From the Huffington Post:
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed on Feb. 27 more research funds for new energy technology, including ``clean'' coal systems. The next day, Mark Penn, her top campaign strategist, had a different take on coal.
In an internal blog at his other job, as chief executive officer of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, Penn wrote of how Burson worked ``behind the scenes'' for TXU Corp., a Texas company seeking to build power plants fueled by pulverized coal, which some environmentalists say would be major polluters.
The times we live in.
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton proposed on Feb. 27 more research funds for new energy technology, including ``clean'' coal systems. The next day, Mark Penn, her top campaign strategist, had a different take on coal.
In an internal blog at his other job, as chief executive officer of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller, Penn wrote of how Burson worked ``behind the scenes'' for TXU Corp., a Texas company seeking to build power plants fueled by pulverized coal, which some environmentalists say would be major polluters.
The times we live in.
TONYA HARDING IN IRAQ
Bush unearths a two-year old piece of intelligence: Bin Laden wants to make more attacks in the U.S., this time from Iraq. Therefore what? We have to have another Republican president? We can't leave Iraq?
Does anyone dispute that Bin Laden wants to attack inside the U.S. again? That will remain true for at least as long as the U.S. is in the Middle East, and probably longer. He wants to mount the attacks from Iraq? I'm sure he does. But he's got a problem - it is quite likely that the last thing Iraqi shiites (or seculars, if there are any left) want is al Qaeda even being in Iraq.
And for that, of course, we have to blame Bush. Here's the guy who not only didn't bother to chase Bin Laden or stay after al Qaeda, but destroyed one of the huge barriers to al Qaeda success and handed Bin Laden at least the chance at another failed state base. And the Republicans stood with Bush. These are the guys we need to put an end to the threat?
Why is this not perfectly clear to every American?
Bin Laden against America is Tonya Harding against Nancy Kerrigan. He wants to be the champion, but he can't be because he hasn't the talent to build the empire he wants - he can only try to destroy the empire which exists. For him, Iraq is perfection - it distracts us from seeing him coming, like Kerrigan didn't see Harding until it was too late.
Want a safe world? Get your army out of Iraq, and focus on tracking and taking out the real threat to America - whether it's located in Iraq or on the beach at Phuket. If the Democrats won't - or can't - force Bush out of Iraq, they can at least force him through appropriate legislation to get going on Islamic fundamentalism. That's how to co-opt the toughness stance and get a president elected.
Problem is: since no Democratic candidate is taking this stance, there's no one anyone really wants to elect.
Does anyone dispute that Bin Laden wants to attack inside the U.S. again? That will remain true for at least as long as the U.S. is in the Middle East, and probably longer. He wants to mount the attacks from Iraq? I'm sure he does. But he's got a problem - it is quite likely that the last thing Iraqi shiites (or seculars, if there are any left) want is al Qaeda even being in Iraq.
And for that, of course, we have to blame Bush. Here's the guy who not only didn't bother to chase Bin Laden or stay after al Qaeda, but destroyed one of the huge barriers to al Qaeda success and handed Bin Laden at least the chance at another failed state base. And the Republicans stood with Bush. These are the guys we need to put an end to the threat?
Why is this not perfectly clear to every American?
Bin Laden against America is Tonya Harding against Nancy Kerrigan. He wants to be the champion, but he can't be because he hasn't the talent to build the empire he wants - he can only try to destroy the empire which exists. For him, Iraq is perfection - it distracts us from seeing him coming, like Kerrigan didn't see Harding until it was too late.
Want a safe world? Get your army out of Iraq, and focus on tracking and taking out the real threat to America - whether it's located in Iraq or on the beach at Phuket. If the Democrats won't - or can't - force Bush out of Iraq, they can at least force him through appropriate legislation to get going on Islamic fundamentalism. That's how to co-opt the toughness stance and get a president elected.
Problem is: since no Democratic candidate is taking this stance, there's no one anyone really wants to elect.
THE IDEAL
You watch Jon Stewart and you realize there’s one guy out there who understands what’s going on and is not afraid to say it. Let’s call that the ideal.
Of the Democratic candidates, the closest to the ideal is Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, his being both smart enough to figure things out and gutsy enough to say them rules him out of the Presidency as a nincompoop.
Next is Joe Biden, who probably understands everything and says some of it. He’s disqualified because he talks too much.
Then we get to Hillary. We know she knows what’s going on – in fact, we get uncomfortable because the thing she knows best is how to operate the American power structure. She says very little. She is therefore considered wise, and therefore electable – by women, anyway, who have a lot of respect for a woman who doesn’t tell everything she knows.
Edwards? We’re not entirely sure he knows what’s going on.
Obama? We don’t care if he knows or not, as long as he sounds like a candidate.
Well … if we can’t have Kucinich, can we have Ron Paul? Oh, yeah, I forgot – he’s another nincompoop.
So can we have a nincompoop? (We’ve got one now, right?) If the answer is yes, unfortunately, we’re gonna get Giuliani. But better to have a real nincompoop than a man in nincompoop’s clothing.
Of the Democratic candidates, the closest to the ideal is Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, his being both smart enough to figure things out and gutsy enough to say them rules him out of the Presidency as a nincompoop.
Next is Joe Biden, who probably understands everything and says some of it. He’s disqualified because he talks too much.
Then we get to Hillary. We know she knows what’s going on – in fact, we get uncomfortable because the thing she knows best is how to operate the American power structure. She says very little. She is therefore considered wise, and therefore electable – by women, anyway, who have a lot of respect for a woman who doesn’t tell everything she knows.
Edwards? We’re not entirely sure he knows what’s going on.
Obama? We don’t care if he knows or not, as long as he sounds like a candidate.
Well … if we can’t have Kucinich, can we have Ron Paul? Oh, yeah, I forgot – he’s another nincompoop.
So can we have a nincompoop? (We’ve got one now, right?) If the answer is yes, unfortunately, we’re gonna get Giuliani. But better to have a real nincompoop than a man in nincompoop’s clothing.
MAN OF THE PEOPLE
Barack Obama announces he won’t shop at WalMart, and then his wife resigns from the board of a WalMart vendor. What – she just figured out WalMart was anti-union? She joined the board in 2005 – as I remember, the WalMart problem was pretty well exposed by then. And the company says her resignation letter says she quit because of increased demands on her time.
Yeah, Barack is a man of the people, yeah.
Hypocrisy is everywhere. Everything is political theater. I don’t believe a single thing I’m told by a candidate.
Tom Friedman actually has a good idea. He proposes that any foreigner who gets a Ph.D. in the US should be offered immediate citizenship. That’s assuming that people still come here for Ph.D.’s, and that anyone besides Mexicans still wants to come here and live.
Yeah, Barack is a man of the people, yeah.
Hypocrisy is everywhere. Everything is political theater. I don’t believe a single thing I’m told by a candidate.
Tom Friedman actually has a good idea. He proposes that any foreigner who gets a Ph.D. in the US should be offered immediate citizenship. That’s assuming that people still come here for Ph.D.’s, and that anyone besides Mexicans still wants to come here and live.
MUST STOP
Anent (I confess it, I’m literate) radical Muslims in Europe:
Is radical Islam a threat to Western values? By its tenets, certainly. Europeans who don’t already know should be warned that in a Muslim state non-Muslims are accorded a second-class status very much like that of blacks in America before Rosa Parks. They are not going to like it if Europe goes Islamic.
What are the chances of that happening? Not that bad. How will it happen? If there is a consensus among Muslims in Europe that radicalism is the way to go (which, I take it from the silence of so-called “moderate” Muslims, may be happening rather quickly), Muslims will set to the process of outbreeding the native populations (they are already doing that) and, where the natives are distracted (which they are, by moneymaking) move slowly into positions of political power. When they have the majority (assuming no change in attitude) Muslims could move very rapidly to use democratic institutions to impose a theocracy (Hitler imposed Nazism in just this way.)
It is a huge joke to me that Americans profess to be so concerned about Mexican immigration, when all the Mexicans want is a piece of the good life (the American immigration fight is about economics and the assumption of a finite pie, not about terrorism or anything else.) The folks with the immigration problem are, for example, the French; it’s a problem that should have been dealt with years ago, because now it isn’t immigrants but native-born Muslims who are wreaking havoc in Paris. The Brits found out a long time ago what it’s like to have your former colonies push you down the totem pole. The French could find out soon what it’s like to have termites eat the totem pole.
That process will progress only as quickly as non-Muslims allow it to. Actually stopping it would require totalitarian measures which would reduce Europe to the same sort of state that radical Muslims intend, in terms of the protection of Western values and freedoms (sort of what has happened in the U.S. since 9/11.) So what can European non-Muslims do?
I used to think that radical Muslims were co-optable; i.e., give them a good job and a taste of good Western life and they would be assimilated into it. I still think that’s true with regard to fringe radicals, but as to the truly committed, they can’t be co-opted. The 9/11 hijackers proved that truth; after living for a year, rather comfortably, in America, nothing changed in their attitudes to stop them from what they did.
So I don’t have an answer for the Europeans. The only thing I could tell them is: make sure your kids recognize the threat, because it will only come to fruition years from now, and you wouldn’t want a generation of ignorant French and Dutch, et al, to be sleeping on their watch when the Muslims make their move.
What about the U.S.? Could it happen here? No. It will be a hundred years before it is even remotely possible that Muslims amount to a majority of the U.S. population (that’s assuming they don’t proselytize the Mexicans.) See, we never had a Muslim colony, so we never gave citizenship to persons from that colony. Through luck, we avoided the mistakes the Europeans made – although if the Bush administration had its way we would soon be making those mistakes, as we absorbed Middle Eastern states (the permanent presence in Iraq?) to guarantee our access to foreign oil.
Does radical Islam threaten the U.S. mainland militarily? I.e., will they follow us home, as Bush says, if we don’t defeat them in Iraq?
One has to assume Islam will follow the Prophet’s model. It will first take down and absorb contiguous Muslim states (contiguous to what? Where is the center of radical Islam? I have to conclude it is Saudi Arabia, since that’s where the doctrines came from, as well as the money to further them.) That will take it quite a while – although if we keep helping them by destroying secular Arab states it will not take as long as it otherwise would have. Once that has been accomplished, they agglomerate these states militarily and use a large army to launch on conquests. If Europe has not yet been taken over by Islam, it will have been sufficiently undermined to make its resistance weak. Once Europe is gone, America begins to have a problem (think Hitler, again.)
So, if Bush is thinking fifty years down the road he could be right. (This does not absolve him of the blame for creating the situation which makes it possible for him to be right.)
Is there anything we should be doing about that now? The first thing I thought of is: stop selling weapons to Muslims. But I’m not sure that’s a good idea. Muslims are not a creative group; they don’t produce anything they can’t pump out of the ground. But if they are determined, and have no choice, they could (with all the money they have) develop their own weapons industries – and that would be very bad for us.
I might add that if the U.S. gets used to being a theocracy (Christian, sure, but what’s the real difference in the end?) there won’t be any Western values here left to defend.
The defense against Islam is the same as the defense against fundamentalist Christianity: we have to resist every move it makes, and make sure our people are educated to what Western values are and why they would rather enjoy them than not.
As to whether we can sit back and let the rest of the world turn radical Muslim, I’d rather not. But that doesn’t mean we have to keep hitting them militarily. It does mean we have to be smart enough to take every opportunity to thwart them (which is a lot smarter than we currently are.) That is the approach that they are going to take.
One thing is for certain: knee-jerk multiculturalism must stop. There are some cultural attitudes which are so inimical to our system that they cannot be tolerated. Maybe it’s time for America to stop thinking about “family” values and think about the values of freedom and democracy.
Is radical Islam a threat to Western values? By its tenets, certainly. Europeans who don’t already know should be warned that in a Muslim state non-Muslims are accorded a second-class status very much like that of blacks in America before Rosa Parks. They are not going to like it if Europe goes Islamic.
What are the chances of that happening? Not that bad. How will it happen? If there is a consensus among Muslims in Europe that radicalism is the way to go (which, I take it from the silence of so-called “moderate” Muslims, may be happening rather quickly), Muslims will set to the process of outbreeding the native populations (they are already doing that) and, where the natives are distracted (which they are, by moneymaking) move slowly into positions of political power. When they have the majority (assuming no change in attitude) Muslims could move very rapidly to use democratic institutions to impose a theocracy (Hitler imposed Nazism in just this way.)
It is a huge joke to me that Americans profess to be so concerned about Mexican immigration, when all the Mexicans want is a piece of the good life (the American immigration fight is about economics and the assumption of a finite pie, not about terrorism or anything else.) The folks with the immigration problem are, for example, the French; it’s a problem that should have been dealt with years ago, because now it isn’t immigrants but native-born Muslims who are wreaking havoc in Paris. The Brits found out a long time ago what it’s like to have your former colonies push you down the totem pole. The French could find out soon what it’s like to have termites eat the totem pole.
That process will progress only as quickly as non-Muslims allow it to. Actually stopping it would require totalitarian measures which would reduce Europe to the same sort of state that radical Muslims intend, in terms of the protection of Western values and freedoms (sort of what has happened in the U.S. since 9/11.) So what can European non-Muslims do?
I used to think that radical Muslims were co-optable; i.e., give them a good job and a taste of good Western life and they would be assimilated into it. I still think that’s true with regard to fringe radicals, but as to the truly committed, they can’t be co-opted. The 9/11 hijackers proved that truth; after living for a year, rather comfortably, in America, nothing changed in their attitudes to stop them from what they did.
So I don’t have an answer for the Europeans. The only thing I could tell them is: make sure your kids recognize the threat, because it will only come to fruition years from now, and you wouldn’t want a generation of ignorant French and Dutch, et al, to be sleeping on their watch when the Muslims make their move.
What about the U.S.? Could it happen here? No. It will be a hundred years before it is even remotely possible that Muslims amount to a majority of the U.S. population (that’s assuming they don’t proselytize the Mexicans.) See, we never had a Muslim colony, so we never gave citizenship to persons from that colony. Through luck, we avoided the mistakes the Europeans made – although if the Bush administration had its way we would soon be making those mistakes, as we absorbed Middle Eastern states (the permanent presence in Iraq?) to guarantee our access to foreign oil.
Does radical Islam threaten the U.S. mainland militarily? I.e., will they follow us home, as Bush says, if we don’t defeat them in Iraq?
One has to assume Islam will follow the Prophet’s model. It will first take down and absorb contiguous Muslim states (contiguous to what? Where is the center of radical Islam? I have to conclude it is Saudi Arabia, since that’s where the doctrines came from, as well as the money to further them.) That will take it quite a while – although if we keep helping them by destroying secular Arab states it will not take as long as it otherwise would have. Once that has been accomplished, they agglomerate these states militarily and use a large army to launch on conquests. If Europe has not yet been taken over by Islam, it will have been sufficiently undermined to make its resistance weak. Once Europe is gone, America begins to have a problem (think Hitler, again.)
So, if Bush is thinking fifty years down the road he could be right. (This does not absolve him of the blame for creating the situation which makes it possible for him to be right.)
Is there anything we should be doing about that now? The first thing I thought of is: stop selling weapons to Muslims. But I’m not sure that’s a good idea. Muslims are not a creative group; they don’t produce anything they can’t pump out of the ground. But if they are determined, and have no choice, they could (with all the money they have) develop their own weapons industries – and that would be very bad for us.
I might add that if the U.S. gets used to being a theocracy (Christian, sure, but what’s the real difference in the end?) there won’t be any Western values here left to defend.
The defense against Islam is the same as the defense against fundamentalist Christianity: we have to resist every move it makes, and make sure our people are educated to what Western values are and why they would rather enjoy them than not.
As to whether we can sit back and let the rest of the world turn radical Muslim, I’d rather not. But that doesn’t mean we have to keep hitting them militarily. It does mean we have to be smart enough to take every opportunity to thwart them (which is a lot smarter than we currently are.) That is the approach that they are going to take.
One thing is for certain: knee-jerk multiculturalism must stop. There are some cultural attitudes which are so inimical to our system that they cannot be tolerated. Maybe it’s time for America to stop thinking about “family” values and think about the values of freedom and democracy.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
BAD ENOUGH
How in God's name did we get to the point that political debates are now sponsored by media outlets (Isn't the corporate sponsorship of sports stadiums bad enough? Is there anything left in America that isn't corporate?) And worse, that the only questioning is by employees of those outlets, so that the subjects debated (that's an incredibly loose term for this process) are controlled by the sponsoring outlet and the whole thing is a vehicle for pushing their point of view?
Didn't the League of Women Voters used to sponsor these? And wasn't the questioning by a diverse panel?
Oh, yeah, didn't the Bush administration trash the League of Women Voters? What was it, an IRS ruling? I forget. But somehow they're not allowed to do these things any more.
It's bad enough that fascism goes so much deeper than we realize. But when the fascists are the corporations that own the press we depend on to keep us from going fascist - well, holy shit ...
Didn't the League of Women Voters used to sponsor these? And wasn't the questioning by a diverse panel?
Oh, yeah, didn't the Bush administration trash the League of Women Voters? What was it, an IRS ruling? I forget. But somehow they're not allowed to do these things any more.
It's bad enough that fascism goes so much deeper than we realize. But when the fascists are the corporations that own the press we depend on to keep us from going fascist - well, holy shit ...
Monday, May 21, 2007
WHY NOT?
Since everything the Bush administration does is entirely predictable (did anyone really think Bush would fire Gonzalez?) there's really no reason for Democrats to think about him any more. These days I'm quite sure Pelosi and Reid have things planned out at least a month in advance based on what they already know Bush is going to do.
So why not devote some efforts to deflating the potential Republican candidates and letting the independents know what they're really about? How about holding hearings that they can subpoena these candidates to? It wouldn't be too hard to figure the topics out. Then they can hold these guys up to their own record, since the press is not going to be very good at that.
Or better yet, for the moment - why not hold hearings on the fairness doctrine and expose the biases of the press? Then go back to the candidates.
I like it.
So why not devote some efforts to deflating the potential Republican candidates and letting the independents know what they're really about? How about holding hearings that they can subpoena these candidates to? It wouldn't be too hard to figure the topics out. Then they can hold these guys up to their own record, since the press is not going to be very good at that.
Or better yet, for the moment - why not hold hearings on the fairness doctrine and expose the biases of the press? Then go back to the candidates.
I like it.
FIX IT
Blame Whitney Houston.
It's not her fault, and she's not guilty of it, but she launched an entire generation of singers who are all technique and no soul. Every note extended and bent until you're bored to death with it. The melody - if there is one, which is rare - is lost under a flood of melisma. It sucks.
Go back and listen to Aretha, or Gladys Knight, or anyone else who sang black-oriented music up to the early nineties. With them, it was the song - not the performance - that mattered, and Jesus they sold those tunes. Only Chaka Khan threw a lot of technique at you - and in her case it was amazing because it was so unique.
Maybe the problem isn't so much the singing as that no one seems to know how to write a song these days. If you want to know how it should be done, go listen to The Eagles. Or Cole Porter. Or Holland Dozier Holland. Or Jerry Ragavoy (yeah, I know you don't know who he is, but you know his songs.)
Fix it. It's annoying.
It's not her fault, and she's not guilty of it, but she launched an entire generation of singers who are all technique and no soul. Every note extended and bent until you're bored to death with it. The melody - if there is one, which is rare - is lost under a flood of melisma. It sucks.
Go back and listen to Aretha, or Gladys Knight, or anyone else who sang black-oriented music up to the early nineties. With them, it was the song - not the performance - that mattered, and Jesus they sold those tunes. Only Chaka Khan threw a lot of technique at you - and in her case it was amazing because it was so unique.
Maybe the problem isn't so much the singing as that no one seems to know how to write a song these days. If you want to know how it should be done, go listen to The Eagles. Or Cole Porter. Or Holland Dozier Holland. Or Jerry Ragavoy (yeah, I know you don't know who he is, but you know his songs.)
Fix it. It's annoying.
IN REVERSE
The Bush administration has called Jimmy Carter "increasingly irrelevant." Let's apply my Cardinal Rule #1 - to find out what Republicans are doing or thinking, listen to what they say their opponents are doing or thinking. It's remarkable psychologically - it's like Nixon's refusal to destroy the tapes. These guys are giving you the clues you need to take them down.
And - as usual - they are exactly correct - in reverse.
And - as usual - they are exactly correct - in reverse.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
FASCIST AMERICA
WHAT CARTER MEANS
Anent Jimmy Carter's recent description of the Bush administration as the worst in American history:
Jimmy Carter is the most honest, intelligent and honorable figure to appear in American politics in my lifetime. Apparently, those qualities made him unfit for the presidency - but they perfectly suit his role as the voice of America's half-dead conscience. He is also living proof of what born again Christianity should be, as opposed to the vicious nonsense preached by Jerry Falwell.
If I believed in God, I would ask Him to bless Jimmy Carter - and to bless the rest of us with the understanding of what Carter means to us.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
SOMETHING GOING ON
Just in case you were wondering ...
This story from AP via Firedoglake:
The $592 million (American) embassy (in Baghdad) occupies a chunk of prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington’s National Mall, with desk space for about 1,000 people behind high, blast-resistant walls. The compound is a symbol both of how much the United States has invested in Iraq and how the circumstances of its involvement are changing.
The embassy is one of the few major projects the administration has undertaken in Iraq that is on schedule and within budget. Still, not all has gone according to plan.
The 21-building complex on the Tigris River was envisioned three years ago partly as a headquarters for the democratic expansion in the Middle East that President Bush identified as the organizing principle for foreign policy in his second term.
We are building a huge, permanent infrastructure in Iraq. We are putting in the latest equipment, and it is not there to support some temporary military presence. What’s going up is not something to be taken down and removed when our troops withdraw or respond to some uncertain Congressional appropriation. And the facilities that are being constructed, and the way they are being linked, indicate a more or less permanent military presence.
I mentioned this at least a year ago, and this is the only story I've seen on this project. Seems to me it explains a lot more of why we're in Iraq and how long we're going to stay than any comment by Bush or any Congressman.
What I don't get is this: most Democrats say they won't support a permanent military presence in Iraq, other than Hillary. So what does she know? And what do other Democrats know? Who is it who is behind this thing, and what is Hillary's connection to it? And how does whoever is behind it expect this project to survive a change of administration?
Something is going on here that we may not hear about until it's too late - whatever that means...
Holy Shit! I get it! This is the Palace of the Antichrist! Ask Tim LaHaye about that.
Friday, May 18, 2007
COMPROMISE
The factional fighting going on in Gaza now illustrates what I see as a fundamental flaw in Arab attitudes. They do not believe in compromise - with them, it is all or nothing. I suspect this is true of those who are most tribal in mindset, and that those who are educated outside Arab countries might be more inclined to accept half a loaf. But the latter are not controlling the situation in any Arab area.
This is not to say the Arabs won't reach truce agreements, or even negotiate a settlement. But these are tactical maneuvers, very Koranic ones in fact. When they can't overwhelm, they lay low until their moment arrives. So any compromise is temporary, and doesn't reflect a real change in attitude.
The problem is that compromise is the glue of civilization. Without it, Arabs cannot hope to participate in modernity - that is, unless they buy it with oil revenue. This does not bode well for Iraq, I'm afraid. Or Israel. Those who wanted to wall Israel off probably had the right idea - but the wall needs not to be physical but societal.
This is not to say the Arabs won't reach truce agreements, or even negotiate a settlement. But these are tactical maneuvers, very Koranic ones in fact. When they can't overwhelm, they lay low until their moment arrives. So any compromise is temporary, and doesn't reflect a real change in attitude.
The problem is that compromise is the glue of civilization. Without it, Arabs cannot hope to participate in modernity - that is, unless they buy it with oil revenue. This does not bode well for Iraq, I'm afraid. Or Israel. Those who wanted to wall Israel off probably had the right idea - but the wall needs not to be physical but societal.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
WHY I LOVE RELIGION
From AmericaBlog:
In a speech to Latin American and Caribbean bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were "silently longing" for Christianity, he said.
Millions of tribal Indians are believed to have died as a result of European colonization backed by the Church since Columbus landed in the Americas in 1492, through slaughter, disease or enslavement.
In a speech to Latin American and Caribbean bishops at the end of a visit to Brazil, the Pope said the Church had not imposed itself on the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
They had welcomed the arrival of European priests at the time of the conquest as they were "silently longing" for Christianity, he said.
Millions of tribal Indians are believed to have died as a result of European colonization backed by the Church since Columbus landed in the Americas in 1492, through slaughter, disease or enslavement.
YOM KIPPUR COMING UP
Having been proved guilty of violating the World Bank's ethics rules, Paul Wolfowitz argues that there should be no consequence. This, of course, is the M.O. of the entire Bush Administration - the people who dismantled the government because people should be personally responsible for their own welfare. Personal responsibility - yeah, right.
It is also the M.O. of America, these days. People who screw up and then apologize are allowed off the hook with no penalty for their screwups. Although Wolfowitz won't even apologize.
I think all this is a consequence of current views of religion - fair to say, since current views of religion seem to hold that religion is the only basis for morality - i.e., that if you're not a believer in God you can't know what morality is, and if you do happen to know, you just can't make yourself apply it.
How do you avoid personal responsibility? If you're a Catholic, you go to confession and then you're excused. If you're Jewish, you use Yom Kippur. If you're a fundamentalist, you don't have to do anything, because being born again is a permanent pass on consequences.
I bet Wolfowitz figures Yom Kippur is coming up fast ...
It is also the M.O. of America, these days. People who screw up and then apologize are allowed off the hook with no penalty for their screwups. Although Wolfowitz won't even apologize.
I think all this is a consequence of current views of religion - fair to say, since current views of religion seem to hold that religion is the only basis for morality - i.e., that if you're not a believer in God you can't know what morality is, and if you do happen to know, you just can't make yourself apply it.
How do you avoid personal responsibility? If you're a Catholic, you go to confession and then you're excused. If you're Jewish, you use Yom Kippur. If you're a fundamentalist, you don't have to do anything, because being born again is a permanent pass on consequences.
I bet Wolfowitz figures Yom Kippur is coming up fast ...
Monday, May 14, 2007
WHAT'S GOING ON?
In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger (a Republican) moved the primary election date from June to Feb 5. In Florida, Republicans in the state legislature moved their date to January 29. I don't know who was directly responsible for the moves in other states, but I am beginning to see a pattern here.
The way things have been set up now, by February both parties will likely know who their candidates are. This gives the Democratic nominee nine months to screw up, make mistakes, annoy the voters or bore them out of their minds. Nobody can maintain momentum over that length of time. By November, we should be so sick of the presidential campaign that we don't bother to go to the polls.
Of course, the Republican faces the same risks. But there are some major differences in the way those risks play out. Firstly, voter apathy is much more likely to hurt a Democrat. Secondly, the Republicans have the White House. If they engineer a terror attack, or some other thing, the Democrat, with whom we're already bored, could get stuck flatfooted while the Republican swears he will follow in Bush's footsteps. Thirdly, Republicans are far better at sticking to message. A Democrat will likely be found wandering in the haze after we've stopped listening to his perorations.
Fourthly - though this applies more evenly to both - early primaries make it likely that both parties will wind up with worse (and damaged) candidates, because fence-sitters and late bloomers will be discouraged from getting in.
The reasons given for this move to early primaries are mostly ego-driven - we want our state to pick the candidate. But I don't buy that - unless state governments are now being entirely run by narcissists (believe me, I don't rule that out), something much more meaningful has to be going on. I smell Rove in the middle of this. I'll take any ideas in addition to my own.
The way things have been set up now, by February both parties will likely know who their candidates are. This gives the Democratic nominee nine months to screw up, make mistakes, annoy the voters or bore them out of their minds. Nobody can maintain momentum over that length of time. By November, we should be so sick of the presidential campaign that we don't bother to go to the polls.
Of course, the Republican faces the same risks. But there are some major differences in the way those risks play out. Firstly, voter apathy is much more likely to hurt a Democrat. Secondly, the Republicans have the White House. If they engineer a terror attack, or some other thing, the Democrat, with whom we're already bored, could get stuck flatfooted while the Republican swears he will follow in Bush's footsteps. Thirdly, Republicans are far better at sticking to message. A Democrat will likely be found wandering in the haze after we've stopped listening to his perorations.
Fourthly - though this applies more evenly to both - early primaries make it likely that both parties will wind up with worse (and damaged) candidates, because fence-sitters and late bloomers will be discouraged from getting in.
The reasons given for this move to early primaries are mostly ego-driven - we want our state to pick the candidate. But I don't buy that - unless state governments are now being entirely run by narcissists (believe me, I don't rule that out), something much more meaningful has to be going on. I smell Rove in the middle of this. I'll take any ideas in addition to my own.
DREAMGIRLS
Finally watched Dreamgirls. The singing is great. The music is just awful. If Motown had made records like these, we never would have heard of them. No soul, no melody, no infectious beat. It's Disneyfied Motown - which, of course, Motown actually became when it moved to LA and then sank from sight. The only good moment is Jimmy Early's short James Brown turn - which, unfortunately, as the movie points out, was about as far from the Motown sound as you could get. It's otherwise all plastic. Just like us.
Friday, May 11, 2007
CBS
So CBS fires John Batiste as its military analyst for appearing in a VoteVets ad speaking up for Congressional intervention in Bush's war policy. CBS is apparently afraid it's going to lose its pro-Bush viewers.
This is the network that hired Katie Couric to save its raggedy-ass news operation. This is the level of thinking going on at CBS. But on the Batiste thing, I have to agree with them - they can't afford to lose any more viewers than they've already driven away. And probably the same morons who watch Katie Couric wink the news are in that 28% that still believe in Bush.
But for the rest of us, it is now clear that we should put a block on CBS News so our kids don't see it and get stupid.
UPDATE: CBS News has claimed that it fired Gen. John Batiste because he was engaging in “advocacy” that might hurt the credibility of his “analytical approach.” CBS has not expressed a similar level of concern with its other consultants, particularly former Bush aide Nicolle Wallace.
ThinkProgress has confirmed that the Wallace serves as an informal advisor to the McCain campaign. As early as August 2006, the National Journal reported that Wallace was affiliated with the McCain campaign:
Nicolle Wallace, who oversaw communications for Bush in the campaign and at the White House, will help McCain.
The Washington Post’s Peter Baker also noted that she was aiding the McCain campaign.
CBS does not appear to have been concerned that Wallace’s advocacy for McCain would impact her on-air analysis. But on at least two occasions — after the media reported she was affiliated with the campaign — Wallace appeared on CBS programming to boost John McCain:
I think, one, there is John McCain and there is everybody else. Nobody else running for president or thinking about running for president is even in a category of suggesting or proposing policy that any commander in chief is considering adapting. And I think John McCain himself addressed the political perils this week when he came out in all his interviews and said, `You know, everyone knows I have presidential aspirations, but let’s put all that aside and do right by the men and women of our military.’ And I think that is the essence of who he his and what his campaign will be about. [CBS Saturday, 1/6/07]
I think one thing that has always dogged the White House when it comes to Iraq is, in addition to people feeling uncomfortable and weary of what is clearly a very difficult war, they have always been under the impression that there was no plan for Iraq. Now, I don’t think McCain will suffer from that label from the public. He obviously has a plan. I think people associate him with this strategy of having more troops, and we’re now going to see that. But I think McCain is doing exactly what his core supporters–and that’s a pretty large number of Americans–expect him to do, and that’s to put it all on the line, to say… “Let the chips fall where they may.” [CBS Saturday, 1/13/07]
CBS’s concerns over the “advocacy” of Gen. John Batiste is clearly hypocritical. The network will have to offer a better reason for why he was let go.
UPDATE: CBS VP Linda Mason amends her complaint against Batiste. “It isn’t just that he took an advocacy position,” she said. “General Batiste took part in a commercial that’s being shown on television to raise money for veterans against the war.” Actually, the VoteVets ad that Batiste appears is not a fundraising ad.
You know, you read this stuff and you understand that the rich have declared war on the rest of America. Not war in the hostile sense - the rich are not hostile - just a friendly but determined attempt to protect and increase their own wealth and power. It's a product of the corporate state - which America is not entirely, but might as well be, because the corporations (through this administration) control the state. And the corporations produce the kind of kids who, with no qualms, operate solely to enhance their own (and their bosses' and friends') wealth.
This is how it's supposed to be, though, isn't it? The problem is not them but me - I who am saddled with memories of the '60s. Sometimes I wish the '60s had never happened. Maybe then I wouldn't be delusional.
This is the network that hired Katie Couric to save its raggedy-ass news operation. This is the level of thinking going on at CBS. But on the Batiste thing, I have to agree with them - they can't afford to lose any more viewers than they've already driven away. And probably the same morons who watch Katie Couric wink the news are in that 28% that still believe in Bush.
But for the rest of us, it is now clear that we should put a block on CBS News so our kids don't see it and get stupid.
UPDATE: CBS News has claimed that it fired Gen. John Batiste because he was engaging in “advocacy” that might hurt the credibility of his “analytical approach.” CBS has not expressed a similar level of concern with its other consultants, particularly former Bush aide Nicolle Wallace.
ThinkProgress has confirmed that the Wallace serves as an informal advisor to the McCain campaign. As early as August 2006, the National Journal reported that Wallace was affiliated with the McCain campaign:
Nicolle Wallace, who oversaw communications for Bush in the campaign and at the White House, will help McCain.
The Washington Post’s Peter Baker also noted that she was aiding the McCain campaign.
CBS does not appear to have been concerned that Wallace’s advocacy for McCain would impact her on-air analysis. But on at least two occasions — after the media reported she was affiliated with the campaign — Wallace appeared on CBS programming to boost John McCain:
I think, one, there is John McCain and there is everybody else. Nobody else running for president or thinking about running for president is even in a category of suggesting or proposing policy that any commander in chief is considering adapting. And I think John McCain himself addressed the political perils this week when he came out in all his interviews and said, `You know, everyone knows I have presidential aspirations, but let’s put all that aside and do right by the men and women of our military.’ And I think that is the essence of who he his and what his campaign will be about. [CBS Saturday, 1/6/07]
I think one thing that has always dogged the White House when it comes to Iraq is, in addition to people feeling uncomfortable and weary of what is clearly a very difficult war, they have always been under the impression that there was no plan for Iraq. Now, I don’t think McCain will suffer from that label from the public. He obviously has a plan. I think people associate him with this strategy of having more troops, and we’re now going to see that. But I think McCain is doing exactly what his core supporters–and that’s a pretty large number of Americans–expect him to do, and that’s to put it all on the line, to say… “Let the chips fall where they may.” [CBS Saturday, 1/13/07]
CBS’s concerns over the “advocacy” of Gen. John Batiste is clearly hypocritical. The network will have to offer a better reason for why he was let go.
UPDATE: CBS VP Linda Mason amends her complaint against Batiste. “It isn’t just that he took an advocacy position,” she said. “General Batiste took part in a commercial that’s being shown on television to raise money for veterans against the war.” Actually, the VoteVets ad that Batiste appears is not a fundraising ad.
You know, you read this stuff and you understand that the rich have declared war on the rest of America. Not war in the hostile sense - the rich are not hostile - just a friendly but determined attempt to protect and increase their own wealth and power. It's a product of the corporate state - which America is not entirely, but might as well be, because the corporations (through this administration) control the state. And the corporations produce the kind of kids who, with no qualms, operate solely to enhance their own (and their bosses' and friends') wealth.
This is how it's supposed to be, though, isn't it? The problem is not them but me - I who am saddled with memories of the '60s. Sometimes I wish the '60s had never happened. Maybe then I wouldn't be delusional.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
MY FUNERAL
Chris Matthews asks George Tenet why, since there are Americans running around countries all over the world, al Qaeda doesn't just pick them off one by one?
Never mind Tenet's answer; here's the real one:
Al Qaeda's focus is not on destroying the US, or killing Americans. It is on building a caliphate, unifying the rule of Arabs and, to the extent possible, all Muslims. It is on building a world power and humiliating those who have humiliated Muslims.
(This is theoretical, because no one has ever cited evidence that al Qaeda had any positive policies to implement if it were a world power. But then al Qaeda is an anachronism - it probably wants to do exactly what Mohammad the Prophet did, that is, create an empire by conquest for the purpose of, at the moment, unifying Islam.)
The U.S. remains a target for al Qaeda's grand schemes, because al Qaeda recognizes the publicity value of an attack on a major US city or landmark. But that is tactics, not strategy.
Nor do I believe, at this point, that al Qaeda has in mind ruling any non-Muslim country. That's not to say that sometime way down the road Muslims may get it into their heads once again to attack Christian (or Jewish) countries - after all, Christians and Jews have it in their heads to attack Muslim countries right now. But I think the Arabs are smart enough to understand that some period of consolidation will be necessary first. So, for the immediate future, al Qaeda is a threat only insofar as it is unsuccessful. If it gets what it wants, we can look forward to a fairly long period of uneasy peace. Long enough, anyway, to encompass my funeral.
Never mind Tenet's answer; here's the real one:
Al Qaeda's focus is not on destroying the US, or killing Americans. It is on building a caliphate, unifying the rule of Arabs and, to the extent possible, all Muslims. It is on building a world power and humiliating those who have humiliated Muslims.
(This is theoretical, because no one has ever cited evidence that al Qaeda had any positive policies to implement if it were a world power. But then al Qaeda is an anachronism - it probably wants to do exactly what Mohammad the Prophet did, that is, create an empire by conquest for the purpose of, at the moment, unifying Islam.)
The U.S. remains a target for al Qaeda's grand schemes, because al Qaeda recognizes the publicity value of an attack on a major US city or landmark. But that is tactics, not strategy.
Nor do I believe, at this point, that al Qaeda has in mind ruling any non-Muslim country. That's not to say that sometime way down the road Muslims may get it into their heads once again to attack Christian (or Jewish) countries - after all, Christians and Jews have it in their heads to attack Muslim countries right now. But I think the Arabs are smart enough to understand that some period of consolidation will be necessary first. So, for the immediate future, al Qaeda is a threat only insofar as it is unsuccessful. If it gets what it wants, we can look forward to a fairly long period of uneasy peace. Long enough, anyway, to encompass my funeral.
WHAT COMES TO MIND?
According to the AP, TV viewership is now plummeting. Is that because there are so many news and entertainment alternatives that didn't exist ten years ago? Sure. I don't watch TV. Period. All the news and entertainment I need is on my iPod. But I would watch TV if there was anything on it worth watching.
For the most part, TV is full of crap - literally. Even HBO, which does some excellent things, fills most of its schedule with movies no one went to see at theaters, or which were not even released to theaters because everyone already knew no one would go. The simple truth is that if you put out garbage, and there are other producers out there with better stuff, sooner or later you're going to lose your customers. Maybe we're not as mindless as TV thinks we are. Does General Motors come to mind?
For the most part, TV is full of crap - literally. Even HBO, which does some excellent things, fills most of its schedule with movies no one went to see at theaters, or which were not even released to theaters because everyone already knew no one would go. The simple truth is that if you put out garbage, and there are other producers out there with better stuff, sooner or later you're going to lose your customers. Maybe we're not as mindless as TV thinks we are. Does General Motors come to mind?
FORESIGHT
There is a severe water shortage in Palm Beach County, getting worse. Major water use restrictions have been put in place to save the aquifer from sea-water invasion and the destruction of the drinking water supply.
And the county is on track to approve a new 10,000 house development on a farm in the middle of the county.
They must be getting their advice from Senator Inhofe. That is, if they aren't being bribed by developers.
And the county is on track to approve a new 10,000 house development on a farm in the middle of the county.
They must be getting their advice from Senator Inhofe. That is, if they aren't being bribed by developers.
COLLUSION
There's a book out there called "Collusion." It's about how and why the Italian CIA-equivalent cocked up the Niger yellowcake documents and sold Washington on them. I've heard the author on two talk shows. Now I know what the book is about.
Why in hell would I buy it?
Did I find the author so fascinating that I have to know how he is going to tell me in detail what I already know in substance? Not that I recall. Do I have to know the detail? It means nothing to me.
Is there something wrong with this business model?
And here's an even worse case.
I didn't need anyone to tell me what was in George Tenet's book. I've been primed for it for years. Only tabloid readers would want to immerse themselves in this stuff, and for the same reasons - conflict and titillation. Certainly not for political enlightenment - like I said, either you already knew, or you don't believe a word of it.
However, it does make the hours pass. Like a "Law and Order" marathon. Here's a chance for the putatively informed to get lazy while looking hip.
Why in hell would I buy it?
Did I find the author so fascinating that I have to know how he is going to tell me in detail what I already know in substance? Not that I recall. Do I have to know the detail? It means nothing to me.
Is there something wrong with this business model?
And here's an even worse case.
I didn't need anyone to tell me what was in George Tenet's book. I've been primed for it for years. Only tabloid readers would want to immerse themselves in this stuff, and for the same reasons - conflict and titillation. Certainly not for political enlightenment - like I said, either you already knew, or you don't believe a word of it.
However, it does make the hours pass. Like a "Law and Order" marathon. Here's a chance for the putatively informed to get lazy while looking hip.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
FORESEEABLE
Here in Wellington, Florida, where I live, in the last two years (following rapid development) drug arrests have gone up 176%, thefts out of vehicles 106.8%, shoplifting over 80%, assaults over 40%.
I want to thank our town officials who collaborated with developers in raping what was once a quiet little town and filling our cow pastures and tree farms with thousands of homes built to house the people who are committing these crimes.
But hell, they couldn't have foreseen this, could they? I mean, it's never happened anywhere else ...
I want to thank our town officials who collaborated with developers in raping what was once a quiet little town and filling our cow pastures and tree farms with thousands of homes built to house the people who are committing these crimes.
But hell, they couldn't have foreseen this, could they? I mean, it's never happened anywhere else ...
THE QUEEN
Finally got to see "The Queen." What a sad story, really - an irreconcilable conflict between a retained vision of what England once was, and had not been for some time - and the mediated absurdity it became. Personally, I opt for the Queen's side - at least insofar as she recognized, and mourned, the loss of what once was real grandeur. Grandeur - like so many things I was brought up to respect - doesn't exist any more, is impossible now. Only small things get big nowadays.
Who killed Diana? All of you who worshipped her so desperately (and pointlessly) that paparazzi were willing to risk her life and theirs to get yet another picture to sell you; and Diana herself, who knew the game she was playing, and played it for all it was worth. Maybe she even knew that an early death would be her final boost into the pantheon of those who are adored forever, though having accomplished nothing much to speak of, because of the way they carried themselves and the way they managed to kiss the public's ass without showing their condescension.
Who killed Diana? All of you who worshipped her so desperately (and pointlessly) that paparazzi were willing to risk her life and theirs to get yet another picture to sell you; and Diana herself, who knew the game she was playing, and played it for all it was worth. Maybe she even knew that an early death would be her final boost into the pantheon of those who are adored forever, though having accomplished nothing much to speak of, because of the way they carried themselves and the way they managed to kiss the public's ass without showing their condescension.
SALES
You know, bloggers and progressives keep saying that the press and politicians who live in the Beltway mentality are not connected to reality, don't know what the "people" think, don't know what the future holds. And I think the Beltway people think:
What's real is inside the Beltway. You people out there in Minnesota making all that noise don't make the future; connected people do. That's why there are connections - they facilitate political (and economic) results. We network; you netroot. Which of us do you think has more power to make things happen?
The answer to that question is: it depends. How soon is a big election coming up? How much attention are people paying to what you do? And regardless of what it is that you want to make happen, how good are you at getting the votes, when you need them, to support you?
That's why Beltway people - press and politicians - spend so much time trying to communicate with people outside the Beltway. Note I say communicate, not inform. It's a selling job, and they train themselves to do it well. The genius of the Republican approach (but not of the Republicans) is that they never stop trying to sell themselves, while the Democrats get lost sometimes in internal debates on policy.
The thing is, though, in order to sell, you have to know the people you're selling to. Right now most Republicans - and a lot of the DC press - have not adjusted their techniques to the political facts revealed in the 11/06 election. They're still trying to sell the old stuff the old way. So there's an opening for new people with new techniques - but don't make the mistake of believing these new people are more concerned about the needs and desires of people in Minnesota. They're just more attuned to them. So they close more sales right now.
What's real is inside the Beltway. You people out there in Minnesota making all that noise don't make the future; connected people do. That's why there are connections - they facilitate political (and economic) results. We network; you netroot. Which of us do you think has more power to make things happen?
The answer to that question is: it depends. How soon is a big election coming up? How much attention are people paying to what you do? And regardless of what it is that you want to make happen, how good are you at getting the votes, when you need them, to support you?
That's why Beltway people - press and politicians - spend so much time trying to communicate with people outside the Beltway. Note I say communicate, not inform. It's a selling job, and they train themselves to do it well. The genius of the Republican approach (but not of the Republicans) is that they never stop trying to sell themselves, while the Democrats get lost sometimes in internal debates on policy.
The thing is, though, in order to sell, you have to know the people you're selling to. Right now most Republicans - and a lot of the DC press - have not adjusted their techniques to the political facts revealed in the 11/06 election. They're still trying to sell the old stuff the old way. So there's an opening for new people with new techniques - but don't make the mistake of believing these new people are more concerned about the needs and desires of people in Minnesota. They're just more attuned to them. So they close more sales right now.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
MAKE 'EM SING
After watching the Republican debate, two thoughts:
In 2000 the press called the Democratic candidates - for the most part, reasonable and thoughtful men - the Seven Dwarfs (Dwarves?) How come there's no cute little phrase for the mental and moral midgets on the Republican stage?
And
These candidates expressed positions opposed by the majority of Americans, according to poll results. Unfortunately, so did Bush. This time around, Americans had better understand that you don't vote for a man for president because you like his smile when he's telling you frankly he's going to do things you're going to hate.
Too bad we don't make the candidates sing. At least we'd have something clear and concrete that we could judge them on.
In 2000 the press called the Democratic candidates - for the most part, reasonable and thoughtful men - the Seven Dwarfs (Dwarves?) How come there's no cute little phrase for the mental and moral midgets on the Republican stage?
And
These candidates expressed positions opposed by the majority of Americans, according to poll results. Unfortunately, so did Bush. This time around, Americans had better understand that you don't vote for a man for president because you like his smile when he's telling you frankly he's going to do things you're going to hate.
Too bad we don't make the candidates sing. At least we'd have something clear and concrete that we could judge them on.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
NOT YET
How many people remember that the Nazis came to power by winning an election?
A lot of Americans may have come to their senses after their Nazi moment (I'm not sure, actually, if it was 2000 or 2004 - I'll have to think about that). But so did many Germans - the Nazis actually lost the next election they faced. By then, though, it was too late. The Nazis were so well entrenched in the government that they were able to continue the process of de-democratization until the Reichstag fire gave them the moment to eliminate democracy entirely.
So we are not at the moment yet where we can relax.
I know it is not fashionable to make the Republican-Nazi comparison, but there is a book in it. Maybe I'll write it.
A lot of Americans may have come to their senses after their Nazi moment (I'm not sure, actually, if it was 2000 or 2004 - I'll have to think about that). But so did many Germans - the Nazis actually lost the next election they faced. By then, though, it was too late. The Nazis were so well entrenched in the government that they were able to continue the process of de-democratization until the Reichstag fire gave them the moment to eliminate democracy entirely.
So we are not at the moment yet where we can relax.
I know it is not fashionable to make the Republican-Nazi comparison, but there is a book in it. Maybe I'll write it.
ARE WE READY?
CBS has announced that it will no longer allow comments to its website stories about Barack Obama because of the violent racist sentiments that have been expressed there.
That's in case any of you are deluding yourself that America has reached the point where Obama's race is irrelevant ...
And you can extrapolate by a huge factor from the number of those comments to the immensely more vast number who share the sentiments but won't comment.
Are the Democrats sure they want to nominate - and America is ready for - a black candidate?
That's in case any of you are deluding yourself that America has reached the point where Obama's race is irrelevant ...
And you can extrapolate by a huge factor from the number of those comments to the immensely more vast number who share the sentiments but won't comment.
Are the Democrats sure they want to nominate - and America is ready for - a black candidate?
BETTER
The traditional view is that young people tilt left, out of their simplistic views of morality (which, it could be argued, prove that being moral is the natural state of man) and their inexperience with life; and that as they grow older they tilt right when they have accumulated wealth they are determined to protect.
I think we've entered a new paradigm.
It seems to me that, in the world of globalism, young people will tilt right until they make their fortune. When they do, they will either continue that tilt, or turn left. Which they do, it seems to me, depends on their essential possession (or retention) or lack of real morality, sympathy and an intelligent world view. If any genuine goodness has survived their youth, they will turn leftward to put it to use. If they've lost their sense of goodness, or never had any, or had only the sense that they were good (without the substance), they'll stay on the right.
Arianna Huffington seems a good example of someone who, maturing, came to the world view that a lot of us had as young adults. So I don't excoriate the rich for lack of empathy. I try to take them one by one.
This is not a prediction of the political future, either way. Real morality is rare, even in kids - so I think there won't be all that many folks turning left late in life. But some are, and some will, and that's better than what could have been.
I think we've entered a new paradigm.
It seems to me that, in the world of globalism, young people will tilt right until they make their fortune. When they do, they will either continue that tilt, or turn left. Which they do, it seems to me, depends on their essential possession (or retention) or lack of real morality, sympathy and an intelligent world view. If any genuine goodness has survived their youth, they will turn leftward to put it to use. If they've lost their sense of goodness, or never had any, or had only the sense that they were good (without the substance), they'll stay on the right.
Arianna Huffington seems a good example of someone who, maturing, came to the world view that a lot of us had as young adults. So I don't excoriate the rich for lack of empathy. I try to take them one by one.
This is not a prediction of the political future, either way. Real morality is rare, even in kids - so I think there won't be all that many folks turning left late in life. But some are, and some will, and that's better than what could have been.
TERRIBLE
Hillary Clinton's proposal to repeal the original authorization for the Iraq war may lead to the Supreme Court's review of the extent of Congressional power. With all due respect to Hillary, this is a very dangerous course - because I can conceive of this Court taking the opportunity to strengthen the powers of the Presidency at the expense of Congress - i.e., rewrite the Constitution in a very bad way.
And assuming they did that, what then? Does Congress defy the Court? What good would that do when Bush has been given the ammunition to ignore Congress completely, and the Court will sustain whatever he does? Does Congress impeach Scalia, Alito and Roberts? Are we looking at treason trials? Civil war? (Anyone looking forward to a civil war with a military which has become increasingly Christian fundamentalist?)
This much is clear - with this Supreme Court, the more opportunities they are given to destroy American democracy, the worse our situation may get.
I don't think we realize yet how terrible the consequences of Bush's election may be.
And assuming they did that, what then? Does Congress defy the Court? What good would that do when Bush has been given the ammunition to ignore Congress completely, and the Court will sustain whatever he does? Does Congress impeach Scalia, Alito and Roberts? Are we looking at treason trials? Civil war? (Anyone looking forward to a civil war with a military which has become increasingly Christian fundamentalist?)
This much is clear - with this Supreme Court, the more opportunities they are given to destroy American democracy, the worse our situation may get.
I don't think we realize yet how terrible the consequences of Bush's election may be.
PATHETIC
Paris Hilton is going to jail because she violated her parole by driving with a suspended license. Her defense? Her aides didn't tell her she wasn't allowed to drive.
This would be funny - here's an American icon who is either too stupid to understand a basic law or too arrogant to believe it applied to her - if it weren't a metaphor for the state of America now. There are far too many people in this country who believe they are far too important - or far too rich - to be constrained by laws. You can blame that on the Bush Administration, which has operated on - and articulated - that principle over and over.
Hilton's mother called the prosecutor "pathetic." Of course, it's Hilton who's pathetic - and not just her but everyone who worships her. As for Bush, he's pathetic too - but the consequences of his absurdity, unfortunately, are not.
This would be funny - here's an American icon who is either too stupid to understand a basic law or too arrogant to believe it applied to her - if it weren't a metaphor for the state of America now. There are far too many people in this country who believe they are far too important - or far too rich - to be constrained by laws. You can blame that on the Bush Administration, which has operated on - and articulated - that principle over and over.
Hilton's mother called the prosecutor "pathetic." Of course, it's Hilton who's pathetic - and not just her but everyone who worships her. As for Bush, he's pathetic too - but the consequences of his absurdity, unfortunately, are not.
Friday, May 04, 2007
ANYWAY
A new report by the DOD Task Force on Mental Health says 38% of active duty army, 31% of marines and 49% of National Guard report traumatic brain injury or PTSD resulting from their service in Iraq.
Just when you thought all the homeless guys beside the highway - Vietnam vets - were dying out, and there would be less people capable of going postal, we prepare a new generation to fill their shoes.
Ah, what the hell, right, George? They never would have amounted to much anyway.
Just when you thought all the homeless guys beside the highway - Vietnam vets - were dying out, and there would be less people capable of going postal, we prepare a new generation to fill their shoes.
Ah, what the hell, right, George? They never would have amounted to much anyway.
DISMANTLE GM
Let's face it: GM will never recover its sales in the North American market. Here's why: the other day I saw a beautiful little sports car. Then I noticed it was a Pontiac and I said "ugh." I don't care how many neat little designs American car makers put out. That would have worked twenty years ago, but not now. American marques can't get no respect no more.
Here's how to recreate an American auto Leviathan: GM should sell all its assets to a new corporation nobody's heard of. The new company should hire the GM labor force - not the management idiots who ran the company into the ground, but the real talent at GM - the ones who design - or at least can design - and build the cars.
Then put the cars out under a completely new name. It'll take a while, but if they're hot the cars will sell sooner or later. And if they're better than the Japanese, it will be sooner.
Here's how to recreate an American auto Leviathan: GM should sell all its assets to a new corporation nobody's heard of. The new company should hire the GM labor force - not the management idiots who ran the company into the ground, but the real talent at GM - the ones who design - or at least can design - and build the cars.
Then put the cars out under a completely new name. It'll take a while, but if they're hot the cars will sell sooner or later. And if they're better than the Japanese, it will be sooner.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
ONCE IN A WHILE
In the '80s, insurance companies pushed through no-fault auto coverage all over America, promising lower premiums. The intent behind the bills was to cut insurer costs by driving out attorneys and paying less on claims.
Now - in Florida at least - the same insurance companies want to do away with no-fault - because the doctors are charging them too much. They're still paying nothing on personal injury claims - it's the docs, not the injured, who are benefiting now.
So the screwers become the screwees - geez, who could have predicted that? And now the screwees are running TV ads touting the benefits of holding negligent drivers responsible - ads that oculd have been, and were, run by trial lawyers in the beginning of the no-fault fight.
Well, I'm for doing away with no-fault - but not because the docs are fucking the carriers. How about doing something good for the public once in a while?
Now - in Florida at least - the same insurance companies want to do away with no-fault - because the doctors are charging them too much. They're still paying nothing on personal injury claims - it's the docs, not the injured, who are benefiting now.
So the screwers become the screwees - geez, who could have predicted that? And now the screwees are running TV ads touting the benefits of holding negligent drivers responsible - ads that oculd have been, and were, run by trial lawyers in the beginning of the no-fault fight.
Well, I'm for doing away with no-fault - but not because the docs are fucking the carriers. How about doing something good for the public once in a while?
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
THE BEST
From John Aravosis, the best comment on Bush I have ever seen:
He thinks none of us have ever been around 4 year old children before.
He thinks none of us have ever been around 4 year old children before.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
WILL WE?
From Think Progress:
A forthcoming biography of Condoleezza Rice, excerpted by Newsweek, examines the ties between President Bush and Condoleezza Rice:
Rice was drawn to Bush. “First of all, I thought he was wonderful to be around,” she recalled, sitting on the couch in her State Department office. “He was warm and funny and easy to be around. I thought he had just an incredibly inquisitive mind … You could barely finish an explanation before he was digging into it.”
Bush was also a bad boy. And Rice, according to friends and family, had a thing for bad boys…
Rice’s friends insisted the attraction to Bush was platonic, but Brenda Hamberry-Green, her Palo Alto hairdresser, who had spent years commiserating with Rice over how hard it was for successful black women to find a good man, noticed a change when Rice started working for Bush. “He fills that need,” Hamberry-Green decided. “Bush is her feed.” …
“There was this connective stuff–that was really fully under way by the summer of 1999,” said Rice’s friend Coit “Chip” Blacker. “There’s a funny kind of transfer of energy and ideas that’s almost–not random, but unstructured. It’s as though they’re Siamese twins joined at the frontal lobe.”
Frankly, this sounds looney-tunes. But if it's true, and this is her judgment, then tell me: how did Stanford survive her? And will we?
A forthcoming biography of Condoleezza Rice, excerpted by Newsweek, examines the ties between President Bush and Condoleezza Rice:
Rice was drawn to Bush. “First of all, I thought he was wonderful to be around,” she recalled, sitting on the couch in her State Department office. “He was warm and funny and easy to be around. I thought he had just an incredibly inquisitive mind … You could barely finish an explanation before he was digging into it.”
Bush was also a bad boy. And Rice, according to friends and family, had a thing for bad boys…
Rice’s friends insisted the attraction to Bush was platonic, but Brenda Hamberry-Green, her Palo Alto hairdresser, who had spent years commiserating with Rice over how hard it was for successful black women to find a good man, noticed a change when Rice started working for Bush. “He fills that need,” Hamberry-Green decided. “Bush is her feed.” …
“There was this connective stuff–that was really fully under way by the summer of 1999,” said Rice’s friend Coit “Chip” Blacker. “There’s a funny kind of transfer of energy and ideas that’s almost–not random, but unstructured. It’s as though they’re Siamese twins joined at the frontal lobe.”
Frankly, this sounds looney-tunes. But if it's true, and this is her judgment, then tell me: how did Stanford survive her? And will we?
PERSONIFICATION OF DEATH
Senator James Inhofe, the guy who says that global warming is a vast left-wing conspiracy, is now also saying that weapons of mass destruction were never given by the Republicans as a reason for the invasion of Iraq. He says it was the press that came up with that justification.
Why has Oklahoma sent us the stupidest senator ever? Because Oklahoma is next to Texas, which has given us the stupidest president, the stupidest attorney general, the stupidest White House counsel, etc. etc. etc. It's as if the genetic pool in those states has been knocked askew by inbreeding. It almost makes you believe that moronism is a geographic phenomenon. (This is how the Democrats are trying to prove me wrong.)
But actually, we're not talking stupid here. We're talking psychopathy. These people have downgraded reality and morality until they are mere alternatives to an ungrounded belief system, and then chosen the belief system as their core. (This is a perfect example of how the process works. And this is how the press helps to make it possible.)
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: the above describes most Nazis. But at the top of the Nazi pyramid were people who were not deluded but purposely set out to bring about the mass illness that was Nazism. Those leaders can only be described as evil. Compare them to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. These men are not misguided. They are the personification of death.
Why has Oklahoma sent us the stupidest senator ever? Because Oklahoma is next to Texas, which has given us the stupidest president, the stupidest attorney general, the stupidest White House counsel, etc. etc. etc. It's as if the genetic pool in those states has been knocked askew by inbreeding. It almost makes you believe that moronism is a geographic phenomenon. (This is how the Democrats are trying to prove me wrong.)
But actually, we're not talking stupid here. We're talking psychopathy. These people have downgraded reality and morality until they are mere alternatives to an ungrounded belief system, and then chosen the belief system as their core. (This is a perfect example of how the process works. And this is how the press helps to make it possible.)
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: the above describes most Nazis. But at the top of the Nazi pyramid were people who were not deluded but purposely set out to bring about the mass illness that was Nazism. Those leaders can only be described as evil. Compare them to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. These men are not misguided. They are the personification of death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
