What are black people going to do about the Supreme Court's essential overturning of Brown v, Board of Ed, now barring just about all forms of affirmative action?
My guess? Nothing.
Blacks went into the streets over the Rodney King beating. But that was because the issue - police conduct - was immediately relevant to so many of their lives. Those blacks to whom higher education is immediately relevant - mostly middle and upper middle class - no longer need affirmative action. They know the techniques whites use to place their kids where they want them. And they don't much care about the fates of the lesser of their brethren. Meanwhile, those blacks who need affirmative action for the most part don't care about it. Statistics indicate lower and lower percentages of blacks applying to college, even when affirmative action is available. They have been developing a culture which doesn't want higher education - at least, not the kind you can get at a university.
This is not a uniquely black problem. How many whites are in the streets over the Iraq war? Over the impeachment-worthy offenses of the Bush administration? Over income inequality? How many whites are boycotting Jet Blue, which has little interest in taking care of its customers?
What conservatives understand - and liberals don't - is that the American public in large part no longer understands the concept of concerted action. The government and corporations keep them satiated with entertainment, scandal and just enough leeway for upward mobility to guarantee that there will be a story in the paper every week about someone who's made it big. They don't have the interest or the energy to take a stand that requires physical - or even intellectual - movement.
And the reason for this is the lack of leaders who know the concept and want to use it to get something done.
Think about the fact that blacks have not had a rabble-rousing leader since the deaths of King and Malcolm X. That is, for forty years. (Jackson and Sharpton? They are followers, not leaders. They wait for some part of the black public to get upset and then they step in, mostly for their own benefit.)
Nor have whites, for that matter. Gore? Clinton? Kerry? Which of them stirred the public? Which of them actually led?
It occurred to me back in the '60's that the murders of the Kennedys, King and others were part of a concerted effort to decapitate American populism. Okay, it's a conspiracy theory. But if such an effort was made, it worked. All the big people were gunned down. Now all we have are small people - and our current president, the smallest of all.
And that is why no Democrat is stirring the people now. Hillary may be effective in running a campaign, but her supporters are not people who are out for the common good - they all have their niche interests which they think she satisfies. And the public's apparent perception that Obama is all talk and no action, all self-interest, all desire for the keys to the kingdom, is probably not far off the mark.
What's the answer? God knows. The rise of a true leader has always been a matter of luck, of someone being in the right place at the right time. The world has not seen such leaders in a very long time. The last one I can think of is Yasser Arafat, and by the time he was through he was as corrupt and co-opted as anyone else. It would seem that we are doomed, in our times, to be led by little people. But maybe that's a good thing. In a world where self-interest is the only operative impulse, a real leader, mobilizing a public which has lost comprehension of public action, might easily turn out to be a dictator.
You know who gets it? Osama bin Laden. Do we have to leave the concept of effective leadership to the only guys in the world who want to see us dead?
BLOG POSTS
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 28, 2007
LITTLE CREATURES
If ever I doubt that people ever cared about anything outside themselves, I listen to Talking Heads. Listened tonight to "Nothing But Flowers" and my God I miss the intelligence, the irony, and the message. What little creatures we have become - and in such a short time!
Check out the video.
Check out the video.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
THIS IS A BAD CONGRESS?
This is for people who say Congress is not taking care of business:
Great news! The U.S. House of Representatives today approved a new historic level of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The bill provides a $35 million increase to the NEA - the largest in the history of the agency! This accomplishment didn’t come easily -- the debate took place over two days and of the many amendments offered to the bill, three specifically targeted cuts to the NEA.
Below are the details of the debate, the votes and what’s up next!
The floor action began with Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-WA) outlining his support for the NEA. He recalled how the Congressional Hearing on the arts that his subcommittee held on Arts Advocacy Day helped to provide a basis for this increase, he stated, “the committee has acted to provide the funding so arts can reach even more broadly into American communities with a richer variety of programs.”
Mr. Dicks was joined on the House floor by Congressional Arts Caucus Co-chairs Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Chris Shays (R-CT). Mrs. Slaughter cited the Arts & Economic Prosperity III report stating that the arts mean, “$12.6 billion in Federal Government tax revenues, and 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs…Simply put, in every way, investment in the arts is sound public policy.” Mr. Shays added his support to the increase in NEA funding by speaking about his personal life and how his parents introduced him to the value of the arts.
For the opposition, Representatives Rob Bishop (R-UT), Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) and Doug Lamborn (R-CO) each offered an amendment that sought to cut funding for the NEA. While the amendments from Reps. Bishop and Lamborn sought to reduce NEA funding in order to fund other programs, the Brown-Waite amendment was written to solely cut funds from the agency. She stated on the House floor, “Americans are tired of wasteful Washington spending and are unwilling to pay for this so-called art with their tax dollars. Don’t reward the National Endowment for polishing trash and call it art.”
All three ‘weakening’ amendments were debated for 10 minutes apiece on the House floor and then were called for a recorded vote. Each one went down to defeat. Based on how they voted on the Bishop Amendment, you can click here to thank your Member of Congress for his or her vote to strengthen the NEA, or express your disappointment with their vote to weaken the agency. Final passage of the House Interior Appropriations bill was approved by a vote of 272-155.
Great news! The U.S. House of Representatives today approved a new historic level of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). The bill provides a $35 million increase to the NEA - the largest in the history of the agency! This accomplishment didn’t come easily -- the debate took place over two days and of the many amendments offered to the bill, three specifically targeted cuts to the NEA.
Below are the details of the debate, the votes and what’s up next!
The floor action began with Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks (D-WA) outlining his support for the NEA. He recalled how the Congressional Hearing on the arts that his subcommittee held on Arts Advocacy Day helped to provide a basis for this increase, he stated, “the committee has acted to provide the funding so arts can reach even more broadly into American communities with a richer variety of programs.”
Mr. Dicks was joined on the House floor by Congressional Arts Caucus Co-chairs Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Chris Shays (R-CT). Mrs. Slaughter cited the Arts & Economic Prosperity III report stating that the arts mean, “$12.6 billion in Federal Government tax revenues, and 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs…Simply put, in every way, investment in the arts is sound public policy.” Mr. Shays added his support to the increase in NEA funding by speaking about his personal life and how his parents introduced him to the value of the arts.
For the opposition, Representatives Rob Bishop (R-UT), Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL) and Doug Lamborn (R-CO) each offered an amendment that sought to cut funding for the NEA. While the amendments from Reps. Bishop and Lamborn sought to reduce NEA funding in order to fund other programs, the Brown-Waite amendment was written to solely cut funds from the agency. She stated on the House floor, “Americans are tired of wasteful Washington spending and are unwilling to pay for this so-called art with their tax dollars. Don’t reward the National Endowment for polishing trash and call it art.”
All three ‘weakening’ amendments were debated for 10 minutes apiece on the House floor and then were called for a recorded vote. Each one went down to defeat. Based on how they voted on the Bishop Amendment, you can click here to thank your Member of Congress for his or her vote to strengthen the NEA, or express your disappointment with their vote to weaken the agency. Final passage of the House Interior Appropriations bill was approved by a vote of 272-155.
JENNIFER L. POZNER
For using the Huffington Post to call Barbara Walters the contemptible fraud and panderer she is.
BARTON GELMAN AND JO BECKER
For their series of Washington Post articles laying out what should have been obvious years ago: Dick Cheney is our president, and George Bush serves essentially the same function as Queen Elizabeth. Would that mean that Cheney is actually in the executive branch?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
LUCK
Since I can't seem to shut up, I thought - for my last blog post on bullshit - I would explain why this is my last blog post on bullshit.
Two things drove me to it. First was the million NBC paid to Paris Hilton for her first post-jail interview. But it was really the second that got me - that is, the fact that Dick Cheney said the vice president is not part of the executive; the fact that he chose to say it; the reasons he chose to say it; and, most importantly, that he was not impeached, committed or at least laughed out of town. Cheney is pure evil, and the fact that he was not challenged suggests that there is evil aplenty afoot, and that bullshit is the natural order of things now.
Well, it's exhausting to chronicle an endless stream of bullshit, not to mention that it doesn't do any good. So, as I said, I'm just going to let the bullshit wash over me and end up someplace else, while I hunt for the occasional honest man.
Wish me luck. We'll need it.
Two things drove me to it. First was the million NBC paid to Paris Hilton for her first post-jail interview. But it was really the second that got me - that is, the fact that Dick Cheney said the vice president is not part of the executive; the fact that he chose to say it; the reasons he chose to say it; and, most importantly, that he was not impeached, committed or at least laughed out of town. Cheney is pure evil, and the fact that he was not challenged suggests that there is evil aplenty afoot, and that bullshit is the natural order of things now.
Well, it's exhausting to chronicle an endless stream of bullshit, not to mention that it doesn't do any good. So, as I said, I'm just going to let the bullshit wash over me and end up someplace else, while I hunt for the occasional honest man.
Wish me luck. We'll need it.
THE FOUR
Today commending the four who are on the wrong side of the 5/4 split in the Supreme Court, for having the guts to go to work every day knowing all they can do is sit there and watch their brethren gut the Constitution; and knowing too that there's no way they can get away from this horror as long as Bush, or one like him, is President.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
DIOGENES
Okay. So I lied. Again.
Notwithstanding that, I guess I am stuck with my ethics. So from this point until some undetermined future point I will be writing only about persons with ethics I approve - or maybe I might include the rare public person who actually tells the truth about anything at all. I figure this will significantly cut down on the number of my posts. So far, I am right about that.
I have found only two people to mention so far: General Taguba and Seymour Hersh. You know what they've said about Abu Ghraib.
I'll be out there doing the Diogenes thing.
Notwithstanding that, I guess I am stuck with my ethics. So from this point until some undetermined future point I will be writing only about persons with ethics I approve - or maybe I might include the rare public person who actually tells the truth about anything at all. I figure this will significantly cut down on the number of my posts. So far, I am right about that.
I have found only two people to mention so far: General Taguba and Seymour Hersh. You know what they've said about Abu Ghraib.
I'll be out there doing the Diogenes thing.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
SUSPENDING
After opening two newspapers this morning and seeing more stupidity than I could handle, I have decided to take a break from thinking about the world. This blog will be suspended until at least September 1. Then we'll see how nuts things are.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
PATHOLOGICAL
You read Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker about new Abu Ghraib revelations and, putting this info together with everything else you know, it suddenly occurs to you that the Bush administration has never told the truth about anything.
This raises two possibilities:
If you have to lie about everything you do, wouldn't that suggest to you that what you were doing was wrong?
And:
People who fib about everything are called pathological liars.
This raises two possibilities:
If you have to lie about everything you do, wouldn't that suggest to you that what you were doing was wrong?
And:
People who fib about everything are called pathological liars.
OUT OF HAND
David Brooks talks about the conflict between Robert Kagan and John Ikenberry of Princeton. Ikenberry says "the U.S. will not face one big threat in the coming decades. Instead, there will be a “diffuse, shifting and uncertain” array of security challenges: collapsing nation-states, global warming, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, pandemics, energy scarcity and so on. Therefore, the U.S. can’t pursue a grand strategy against a specific enemy. It has to embrace what Ikenberry calls a “milieu-based approach.” In essence, the U.S. would make itself the center of a series of new global institutions where nations could come together and solve common problems."
"Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment argues that this sort of global system would be workable if the great powers shared common political principles. But Russia, China and the U.S., among others, do not have common understandings or interests, so it will only lead to paralysis. Instead, Kagan sees a world that will look as it’s always looked — a world of competing nations, vying for power. This world in his view will also have three main features. First, continued U.S. dominance. Even events of the past few years have not undermined American economic and military supremacy. For the foreseeable future, the world will have one big global power, and a number of regional ones. Second, increasing regional competition. Nationalism is back, Kagan argues, if it ever went away. Third, an overarching rivalry between democracy and autocracy. A few years ago, democracy seemed on the march, but now authoritarian governments are confident and thriving. Russia, China and other nations have an interest in seeing autocracy spread and in staving off democratic reform. In the future, Kagan concludes, the U.S. is going to have to stabilize regional conflicts and gradually push back against the autocratic tide. The U.S. will also remain the most ardent champion of liberty in the face of Islamist anti-modernism. American predominance is not a danger. It’s the only thing standing between us and regression to a more dangerous world."
Okay.
I dismiss Kagan out of hand. These guys have been so wrong so often I wonder why they still get printed. Well, I don't really wonder. These opinions are useful for people with certain agendae. But if they believe him, they're not half as smart as they think.
As for Ikenberry: Things are so fluid now that any kind of prediction is essentially worthless. Absolutely everything is up for grabs. Yin and yang are operating beautifully - everything they do turns out to have opposite results. But I think that strengthens Ikenberry's position: the only way to deal with this much uncertainty is to set up international structures which are designed to deal with uncertainty, rather than let things fester the way Bush does. I mean, this is so simple and basic I don't understand why it's an issue.
As for the return of nationalism: if it does happen - which I so far doubt - it will not be so much nationalism as the use of the state as the mechanism for an anti-capitalist, anti-globalization effort.
Nations exist now only as mechanisms to keep people under control - to generate and guarantee support for the capitalist globalist order, like, for example, providing an army to use for their purposes and bread and circuses to keep the dumber orders content. Otherwise the nation - under leaders like Bush - does nothing for its citizens and is useless to them.
Self-identification continues to be increasingly less based on nationality. Nations are being torn apart from both ends - from the top by the wealthy whose primary loyalty is to the global wealth community and not to where they live, and from the bottom by groups who insist on keeping their (essentially) tribal identities. Al-Qaeda is the perfect paradigm.
But a nation could be useful as a mechanism to overthrow the current financial order. In other words, it isn't nationalism, but revolution, which may be at hand. "The people" could be mobilized by the state to redistribute wealth and power to a different group, or class, than the one which has them now. I.e., Chavez.
But I don't want to make the mistake these guys make - of trying to predict the unpredictable.
"Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment argues that this sort of global system would be workable if the great powers shared common political principles. But Russia, China and the U.S., among others, do not have common understandings or interests, so it will only lead to paralysis. Instead, Kagan sees a world that will look as it’s always looked — a world of competing nations, vying for power. This world in his view will also have three main features. First, continued U.S. dominance. Even events of the past few years have not undermined American economic and military supremacy. For the foreseeable future, the world will have one big global power, and a number of regional ones. Second, increasing regional competition. Nationalism is back, Kagan argues, if it ever went away. Third, an overarching rivalry between democracy and autocracy. A few years ago, democracy seemed on the march, but now authoritarian governments are confident and thriving. Russia, China and other nations have an interest in seeing autocracy spread and in staving off democratic reform. In the future, Kagan concludes, the U.S. is going to have to stabilize regional conflicts and gradually push back against the autocratic tide. The U.S. will also remain the most ardent champion of liberty in the face of Islamist anti-modernism. American predominance is not a danger. It’s the only thing standing between us and regression to a more dangerous world."
Okay.
I dismiss Kagan out of hand. These guys have been so wrong so often I wonder why they still get printed. Well, I don't really wonder. These opinions are useful for people with certain agendae. But if they believe him, they're not half as smart as they think.
As for Ikenberry: Things are so fluid now that any kind of prediction is essentially worthless. Absolutely everything is up for grabs. Yin and yang are operating beautifully - everything they do turns out to have opposite results. But I think that strengthens Ikenberry's position: the only way to deal with this much uncertainty is to set up international structures which are designed to deal with uncertainty, rather than let things fester the way Bush does. I mean, this is so simple and basic I don't understand why it's an issue.
As for the return of nationalism: if it does happen - which I so far doubt - it will not be so much nationalism as the use of the state as the mechanism for an anti-capitalist, anti-globalization effort.
Nations exist now only as mechanisms to keep people under control - to generate and guarantee support for the capitalist globalist order, like, for example, providing an army to use for their purposes and bread and circuses to keep the dumber orders content. Otherwise the nation - under leaders like Bush - does nothing for its citizens and is useless to them.
Self-identification continues to be increasingly less based on nationality. Nations are being torn apart from both ends - from the top by the wealthy whose primary loyalty is to the global wealth community and not to where they live, and from the bottom by groups who insist on keeping their (essentially) tribal identities. Al-Qaeda is the perfect paradigm.
But a nation could be useful as a mechanism to overthrow the current financial order. In other words, it isn't nationalism, but revolution, which may be at hand. "The people" could be mobilized by the state to redistribute wealth and power to a different group, or class, than the one which has them now. I.e., Chavez.
But I don't want to make the mistake these guys make - of trying to predict the unpredictable.
TOO LATE
Hamas takes over Gaza, and all of a sudden the US is in a flurry of activity. This administration never learned the basic law of medicine - that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The whole idea of essentially invalidating Hamas' election validation was never going to work. Let's suppose America elected Al Gore president and Israel steps in and says they're going to work to overthrow that result - how would we feel about that? Grateful? (Hey, didn't that happen, anyway?)
So now they're giving Abbas money so the Palestinians will be grateful to us? There's a time for such measures, and I'm afraid it's long gone. At this point we buy nothing with our cash - after all, we offered 25 million for bin Laden's head, and got no takers. It's not about money anymore; it only used to be.
Hamas may have been Israel's enemy, but it was not America's. Perhaps Israel was unable to talk to Hamas, but we could have. It would not have hurt to help Hamas to legitimize itself while we exercised a moderating influence over it. But, of course, when you make Hamas the enemy of the US, it ultimately becomes that enemy - and its world view could be quickly adjusted to include that attitude.
Too late, boys. The Palestinians are choosing, and ain't nothing you can do about it except recognize truth and deal with it. Oh, yeah, that's Bush's strong suit, ain't it?
The whole idea of essentially invalidating Hamas' election validation was never going to work. Let's suppose America elected Al Gore president and Israel steps in and says they're going to work to overthrow that result - how would we feel about that? Grateful? (Hey, didn't that happen, anyway?)
So now they're giving Abbas money so the Palestinians will be grateful to us? There's a time for such measures, and I'm afraid it's long gone. At this point we buy nothing with our cash - after all, we offered 25 million for bin Laden's head, and got no takers. It's not about money anymore; it only used to be.
Hamas may have been Israel's enemy, but it was not America's. Perhaps Israel was unable to talk to Hamas, but we could have. It would not have hurt to help Hamas to legitimize itself while we exercised a moderating influence over it. But, of course, when you make Hamas the enemy of the US, it ultimately becomes that enemy - and its world view could be quickly adjusted to include that attitude.
Too late, boys. The Palestinians are choosing, and ain't nothing you can do about it except recognize truth and deal with it. Oh, yeah, that's Bush's strong suit, ain't it?
Monday, June 18, 2007
KEEP LOOKING
Not to crow or anything, but a new LA Times/Bloomberg polls bears out things I've been saying for a long time now.
A good-sized majority of the public want a Democrat to win the presidency in 2008. But not any Democrat they've heard of yet.
Hillary? Some responders said they would vote for any Republican rather than her. They think she's condescending and arrogant (which she seems to be), or doesn't have the integrity to do the right thing. Rudy Giuliani has a 10% lead over her, because he's "got some honesty to him." (Really? Some work has to be done on that guy's rep.) The press and the Democrats completely ignore the fact that she is female - sometimes I think that's a press/Republican scam to get her nominated - but responders said they would not vote for any woman.
Al Gore? They still believe he has no personality - as if having a personality is what makes a great president. Well, it does help, though, doesn't it.
Obama is still leading Republicans, but don't tell me there's not a good-sized constituency which will not elect a black man president.
Keep looking, Democrats. It does not yet appear that you've got someone who can win this thing.
A good-sized majority of the public want a Democrat to win the presidency in 2008. But not any Democrat they've heard of yet.
Hillary? Some responders said they would vote for any Republican rather than her. They think she's condescending and arrogant (which she seems to be), or doesn't have the integrity to do the right thing. Rudy Giuliani has a 10% lead over her, because he's "got some honesty to him." (Really? Some work has to be done on that guy's rep.) The press and the Democrats completely ignore the fact that she is female - sometimes I think that's a press/Republican scam to get her nominated - but responders said they would not vote for any woman.
Al Gore? They still believe he has no personality - as if having a personality is what makes a great president. Well, it does help, though, doesn't it.
Obama is still leading Republicans, but don't tell me there's not a good-sized constituency which will not elect a black man president.
Keep looking, Democrats. It does not yet appear that you've got someone who can win this thing.
Friday, June 15, 2007
PETARD
So Hamas routs Fatah in the Gaza Strip and the Western powers reassure Abbas of their support. What kind of support? The likelihood of Abbas having any success against Hamas is about the same as the odds of an imposed peace in Iraq. The only support any outside country could give him is an invasion of Gaza. My guess is that's coming soon, from Israel. That will fail, and Israel will take strike 2 from Hamas. It will be some years before Hamas can do serious damage to Israel, but I am willing to bet that all parties will let this situation fester that long.
Hey, if you wanted to support Abbas, you should have done it years ago. This is called being hoist by your own petard.
Hey, if you wanted to support Abbas, you should have done it years ago. This is called being hoist by your own petard.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
BUSY
Paris Hilton: "Now, I would like to make a difference ... God has given me this chance."
Damn, I knew God was busy with something important! Because I was praying for a book deal, and it wasn't happening.
Damn, I knew God was busy with something important! Because I was praying for a book deal, and it wasn't happening.
HOW IT WORKS
Once in a while I have to point out something good.
The 4th Circuit has affirmed what should have been obvious: that our Constitution does not allow the president to confine US residents indefinitely as enemy combatants without being charged.
Did anybody seriously doubt the truth of this? I can't think of anything more fundamental and obvious.
But appeals will be taken, until a court is found which will reverse this decision. And, if Republicans remain in control, soon you will not be able to find a court to uphold Constitutional rights. See, their judges don't need the Constitution to protect someone's rights. If the party involved is someone they like, they can just make up a right, or an exception to the lack of rights of everybody else. If the party is someone they don't like, the party doesn't get the help.
The 4th Circuit has affirmed what should have been obvious: that our Constitution does not allow the president to confine US residents indefinitely as enemy combatants without being charged.
Did anybody seriously doubt the truth of this? I can't think of anything more fundamental and obvious.
But appeals will be taken, until a court is found which will reverse this decision. And, if Republicans remain in control, soon you will not be able to find a court to uphold Constitutional rights. See, their judges don't need the Constitution to protect someone's rights. If the party involved is someone they like, they can just make up a right, or an exception to the lack of rights of everybody else. If the party is someone they don't like, the party doesn't get the help.
EVIDENCE?
This is how things work in our modern age:
One of our generals asserts that Iran is helping the Taliban.
This is counterintuitive, since the Taliban are Sunni and Iran is Shia. Iran is giving considerable assistance to Hamid Karzai's Afghan government.
But it's possible that Iran might be, as the general says, hedging its bets. There is a small movement out there toward unifying Sunni and Shia, at least against US policy. So what evidence does the general have?
The Taliban are getting better at fighting - and "I have heard officials in the Afghan government say that the Iranian government has provided some support to political opponents of the Karzai administration. I suspect that's probably true. And I don't doubt that somewhere the Iranians may have helped the Taliban."
That is a total of NO evidence. But two weeks ago Tony Blair could tell the Economist: "It is clear the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from .. elements of the Iranian regime." And of course there's the stuff Bush smokes.
What blows me away is: this is how they got us into Iraq; they got caught at it; the whole world knows what they did; and they're doing it again!
Do they think we can't recognize the signs? Do they actually understand their techniques, or are they taking them by rote from some neocon book out there that tells them which lies will supposedly work? I have to assume they presume massive public stupidity. And I find it personally insulting.
We need a break from this lying manipulation. Blair, I hope, is going to a rest home where they won't let him speak. But I've seen enough lying in the Republican debates to know we are at serious risk of never-ending disgust.
One of our generals asserts that Iran is helping the Taliban.
This is counterintuitive, since the Taliban are Sunni and Iran is Shia. Iran is giving considerable assistance to Hamid Karzai's Afghan government.
But it's possible that Iran might be, as the general says, hedging its bets. There is a small movement out there toward unifying Sunni and Shia, at least against US policy. So what evidence does the general have?
The Taliban are getting better at fighting - and "I have heard officials in the Afghan government say that the Iranian government has provided some support to political opponents of the Karzai administration. I suspect that's probably true. And I don't doubt that somewhere the Iranians may have helped the Taliban."
That is a total of NO evidence. But two weeks ago Tony Blair could tell the Economist: "It is clear the Taliban is receiving support, including arms from .. elements of the Iranian regime." And of course there's the stuff Bush smokes.
What blows me away is: this is how they got us into Iraq; they got caught at it; the whole world knows what they did; and they're doing it again!
Do they think we can't recognize the signs? Do they actually understand their techniques, or are they taking them by rote from some neocon book out there that tells them which lies will supposedly work? I have to assume they presume massive public stupidity. And I find it personally insulting.
We need a break from this lying manipulation. Blair, I hope, is going to a rest home where they won't let him speak. But I've seen enough lying in the Republican debates to know we are at serious risk of never-ending disgust.
Monday, June 11, 2007
ABOVE THE LAW
Robert Bork, who has done as much as anyone to destroy the rights of victims of personal injuries, has sued the Yale Club of New York because he fell off their dais and hurt himself.
You know, I'm convinced that in their back of their heads these guys believe that even though they trash the rights of everybody else (which they would have had they been successful), their own rights in the same areas would remain unscathed. This is a corollary to Nixon's theory that he was above the law. There is an entire cadre of public people who are convinced that they have reached that status themselves. And a whole bunch of lawyers prepared to argue their case.
You know, I'm convinced that in their back of their heads these guys believe that even though they trash the rights of everybody else (which they would have had they been successful), their own rights in the same areas would remain unscathed. This is a corollary to Nixon's theory that he was above the law. There is an entire cadre of public people who are convinced that they have reached that status themselves. And a whole bunch of lawyers prepared to argue their case.
USED
According to Bill Moyers, when Northwest Airlines came out of bankruptcy its CEO took home $26 million, while the pilots and attendants took 40% pay cuts. According to a pilot Moyers interviewed, the $26 million could have covered either the expanded health care costs the workers now have to pay, or the pension benefit contributions the company didn't make. Seems to me the message the young will take from this: knock pilot and attendant off your list of possible jobs.
So - don't be surprised if in a couple of years your pilot is a Mexican illegal, and there is no live flight attendant - just a lady with a red dot on her forehead on a television screen describing just how good those peanuts used to be.
So - don't be surprised if in a couple of years your pilot is a Mexican illegal, and there is no live flight attendant - just a lady with a red dot on her forehead on a television screen describing just how good those peanuts used to be.
FARSIGHTED
I don't know who said the following but it was on Stephanopoulos and it's a doozy:
"The scary part about Putin's Russia is not Communism revives, but it's a more fascistic sort of state capitalism, you know, where people are allowed to get really wealthy and powerful and the government is in cahoots with the oligarchs ... There is a possibility of a real rivalry on a scary scale in 5 or 10 years."
By that definition we've got a fascistic sort of state capitalism - and the only people who need to be scared of Russia are the people whose economic interests Russian competition would damage.
What condition is it - farsightedness - when you can see what's far away but not what's in front of your nose?
Edit. Note: The term "farsightedness" is not seen here in its praiseful connotation, just the medical connotation of localized blindness.
"The scary part about Putin's Russia is not Communism revives, but it's a more fascistic sort of state capitalism, you know, where people are allowed to get really wealthy and powerful and the government is in cahoots with the oligarchs ... There is a possibility of a real rivalry on a scary scale in 5 or 10 years."
By that definition we've got a fascistic sort of state capitalism - and the only people who need to be scared of Russia are the people whose economic interests Russian competition would damage.
What condition is it - farsightedness - when you can see what's far away but not what's in front of your nose?
Edit. Note: The term "farsightedness" is not seen here in its praiseful connotation, just the medical connotation of localized blindness.
WHO?
John McCain and George Stephanopoulos have agreed that al Qaeda are already coming after us at home. The evidence cited? The recent events related to JFK.
Now, the authorities have clearly stated that the JFK group of whackos had no known connection to al Qaeda.
So - who is it that is already coming after us at home? It has to be a more inclusive group than al Qaeda. Is it all Islamofascists - that fascinating term? All non-citizen Muslims? (Can't be that because one of the JFK guys was a citizen.) All Muslims? All foreigners? Who is it that threatens us? They keep telling us we're in a war, and we don't even know who we're fighting.
Now, the authorities have clearly stated that the JFK group of whackos had no known connection to al Qaeda.
So - who is it that is already coming after us at home? It has to be a more inclusive group than al Qaeda. Is it all Islamofascists - that fascinating term? All non-citizen Muslims? (Can't be that because one of the JFK guys was a citizen.) All Muslims? All foreigners? Who is it that threatens us? They keep telling us we're in a war, and we don't even know who we're fighting.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
DIATRIBE
From Steven Weber on the Huffpo:
Even her Dickensian moniker couldn't be more indicative of her flimsy nature or more prescient of her fate if her name were Darfur Yert or Mississippi Backalley.
Paris Hilton is the apotheosis of a glitzy, leisure saturated culture which holds 'round the clock champagne, maid service, mints on the pillow and a paper strip across the toilet seat higher than a college education. A vacant, opulently adorned master suite of a life which makes Marie Antionette's look like Mother Theresa's. The society column has become the front page, the roué and the gadabout our spokesmen.
Forget the Peace Corps or backpacking across Europe---attaining credibility and experience is as simple as being filmed giving a night vision blow job. Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio? is no longer sung but shrieked as though by a wild-eyed parent who's seen its child abducted by a chortling wraith, whose menace isn't apparent by dripping fangs, needlelike claws or rakishly cocked turban but by its glassy eyes, sickly smile and its predilection for wanting to be photographed on red carpets.
Hilton's unabashedly shrill cry of "Mommy mommy!" as she was limousined to the hoosegow was not that of a spoiled baby mewling in her own mushy diaper but a desperate call to her extended family of zeitgeist amoebae, the fret-or-flaunt instinct from a cornered celeb-rodent, exhorting the gelatinous mass of bling-encrusted bubble skulls to all use their Sidekicks to text message in unison, creating a massive Andromeda Strain super-culture and launching a digital kamikaze assault upon her captors, bravely sacrificing their minutes in order to free their leader from the binds of civic responsibility.
A true-life, virtually unbelievable culture criminal, the embodiment of all that America® and it's affiliates (America-Lite, America Xtra Caff, McJesus, HistoryBeGone!, etc.) export to its citizenry and the world, she is like one of those characters at the end of Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" walking around endlessly reciting books they have committed to memory in impart to future bookless generations the ingredients essential to humanity: knowledge, curiosity, imagination, the adhesive substances that bind the bricks of civilization. Only, Paris Hilton walks by herself in an isolated part of the forest, barely able to keep a Bazooka Joe comic in her head, stumbling over the big words and encouraging not mere passing scorn or fringe amusement but outright worship.
Surely there are people and events that are more relevant, more crucial to our enlightenment, development or enjoyment than the kitschy spectacle of a boney moneybag traipsing across the substrate of the decent, struggling people who make less than minimum wage and have inadequate health care so that she and Lindsey and W and Dick and all the other Anti-Christs (wake up Creationists! It's them!!!!) can continue to inspire the youth of this nation to spend the money it doesn't have, forsake sacrifice and introspection and curiosity and not give a flying, sequined shit about anyone or anything...but Paris.
Maybe slightly over the top (we don't actually know how stupid Paris is - by the way, has anyone published the extent of her education?) - but God I love it when I see nasty prose like this that actually says something I think. Take that, Rush Limbaugh!
Or, as Milton Berle used to say ... what the hell was it he used to say?
Even her Dickensian moniker couldn't be more indicative of her flimsy nature or more prescient of her fate if her name were Darfur Yert or Mississippi Backalley.
Paris Hilton is the apotheosis of a glitzy, leisure saturated culture which holds 'round the clock champagne, maid service, mints on the pillow and a paper strip across the toilet seat higher than a college education. A vacant, opulently adorned master suite of a life which makes Marie Antionette's look like Mother Theresa's. The society column has become the front page, the roué and the gadabout our spokesmen.
Forget the Peace Corps or backpacking across Europe---attaining credibility and experience is as simple as being filmed giving a night vision blow job. Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio? is no longer sung but shrieked as though by a wild-eyed parent who's seen its child abducted by a chortling wraith, whose menace isn't apparent by dripping fangs, needlelike claws or rakishly cocked turban but by its glassy eyes, sickly smile and its predilection for wanting to be photographed on red carpets.
Hilton's unabashedly shrill cry of "Mommy mommy!" as she was limousined to the hoosegow was not that of a spoiled baby mewling in her own mushy diaper but a desperate call to her extended family of zeitgeist amoebae, the fret-or-flaunt instinct from a cornered celeb-rodent, exhorting the gelatinous mass of bling-encrusted bubble skulls to all use their Sidekicks to text message in unison, creating a massive Andromeda Strain super-culture and launching a digital kamikaze assault upon her captors, bravely sacrificing their minutes in order to free their leader from the binds of civic responsibility.
A true-life, virtually unbelievable culture criminal, the embodiment of all that America® and it's affiliates (America-Lite, America Xtra Caff, McJesus, HistoryBeGone!, etc.) export to its citizenry and the world, she is like one of those characters at the end of Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" walking around endlessly reciting books they have committed to memory in impart to future bookless generations the ingredients essential to humanity: knowledge, curiosity, imagination, the adhesive substances that bind the bricks of civilization. Only, Paris Hilton walks by herself in an isolated part of the forest, barely able to keep a Bazooka Joe comic in her head, stumbling over the big words and encouraging not mere passing scorn or fringe amusement but outright worship.
Surely there are people and events that are more relevant, more crucial to our enlightenment, development or enjoyment than the kitschy spectacle of a boney moneybag traipsing across the substrate of the decent, struggling people who make less than minimum wage and have inadequate health care so that she and Lindsey and W and Dick and all the other Anti-Christs (wake up Creationists! It's them!!!!) can continue to inspire the youth of this nation to spend the money it doesn't have, forsake sacrifice and introspection and curiosity and not give a flying, sequined shit about anyone or anything...but Paris.
Maybe slightly over the top (we don't actually know how stupid Paris is - by the way, has anyone published the extent of her education?) - but God I love it when I see nasty prose like this that actually says something I think. Take that, Rush Limbaugh!
Or, as Milton Berle used to say ... what the hell was it he used to say?
GREEN?
HGTV has a new show called "Red Hot and Green." It's about decorating (more to the point redecorating) your house with green materials. So let me ask you this:
What's more green?
Replacing pvc window blinds (which wind up in landfills) with blinds made of organic material (remember: they have to be manufactured; they don't grow on trees that way. The materials have to get to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer has to use electricity to make the blinds)
Or
Doing nothing - leaving the place alone.
The show doesn't get it. Do you?
What's more green?
Replacing pvc window blinds (which wind up in landfills) with blinds made of organic material (remember: they have to be manufactured; they don't grow on trees that way. The materials have to get to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer has to use electricity to make the blinds)
Or
Doing nothing - leaving the place alone.
The show doesn't get it. Do you?
Saturday, June 09, 2007
WHAT WE WANT
What is it America wants in a president?
Is it somebody who has a brain, is religiously quiescent (meaning he keeps his faith, or lack of it, to himself), is not psychotic, not neurotic, does not hold beliefs that are contrary to reality, does not have an agenda that helps only part of the public, knows how to reason, knows how to make things happen and does not look at the presidency as his chance to learn how to run a government? In other words, someone you look at and breathe a sigh of relief?
Or is it somebody we'd like to have a beer with?
Personally, I'd love to have a beer with some of the brighter candidates. I wouldn't vote for anyone I actually could have a beer with. Oh, well, maybe in my next life. But I must say I have had no chance for a sigh of relief so far. And this tends to make me very tense.
Is it somebody who has a brain, is religiously quiescent (meaning he keeps his faith, or lack of it, to himself), is not psychotic, not neurotic, does not hold beliefs that are contrary to reality, does not have an agenda that helps only part of the public, knows how to reason, knows how to make things happen and does not look at the presidency as his chance to learn how to run a government? In other words, someone you look at and breathe a sigh of relief?
Or is it somebody we'd like to have a beer with?
Personally, I'd love to have a beer with some of the brighter candidates. I wouldn't vote for anyone I actually could have a beer with. Oh, well, maybe in my next life. But I must say I have had no chance for a sigh of relief so far. And this tends to make me very tense.
EXHAUSTING
In the last Republican debate, John McCain thanked a woman who had lost a son in the Iraq war for her sacrifice.
Excuse me?
Did she make her son enlist? Did she force him to stay in the army when he wanted to leave? Did she just not object when her son decided to go to war?
You can thank the son (he's dead, though, so he probably doesn't much care.) But what are we thanking her for? Oh, I guess she must be a hero, like the people who died at Virginia Tech. If you die, you're a hero; if your son dies, you're a hero. If your nephew dies ... are you a hero? Yes or no?
"Hero" used to mean someone who made a choice that put him or her at risk for the benefit of someone outside him or herself. What choices did these people make? I don't get it.
There is no longer a relationship between words and real meaning. It is absolutely exhausting to even try to think these days.
McCain also said immigration was a national security issue. Damn, we already have twelve million Mexican terorists in our midst! No wonder everybody wants to make them go home.
Giuliani is still insisting that Iraq was central on terrorism.
Anyone who lies, is intellectually dishonest (or worse muddle-headed) needs to do us a favor and go away. We cannot afford another four years with an idiot president, or worse, a smart president who is convinced we are idiots.
Excuse me?
Did she make her son enlist? Did she force him to stay in the army when he wanted to leave? Did she just not object when her son decided to go to war?
You can thank the son (he's dead, though, so he probably doesn't much care.) But what are we thanking her for? Oh, I guess she must be a hero, like the people who died at Virginia Tech. If you die, you're a hero; if your son dies, you're a hero. If your nephew dies ... are you a hero? Yes or no?
"Hero" used to mean someone who made a choice that put him or her at risk for the benefit of someone outside him or herself. What choices did these people make? I don't get it.
There is no longer a relationship between words and real meaning. It is absolutely exhausting to even try to think these days.
McCain also said immigration was a national security issue. Damn, we already have twelve million Mexican terorists in our midst! No wonder everybody wants to make them go home.
Giuliani is still insisting that Iraq was central on terrorism.
Anyone who lies, is intellectually dishonest (or worse muddle-headed) needs to do us a favor and go away. We cannot afford another four years with an idiot president, or worse, a smart president who is convinced we are idiots.
NOT QUALIFIED
Any candidate who did not read the National Intelligence Estimate before voting for the Iraq war is not qualified to be SENATOR, let alone president. Telling us how busy you were just doesn't cut it. If you don't know what you're voting for, go home and let someone else do it.
HAPPENING
Someone raised an interesting point on a blog today: since globalization seems to be working so well for the wealthy, why not put it to work for the working class? I.e., allow them to cross borders freely and seek the best employment anywhere they can find it? Everyone is a global citizen. What's wrong with that?
There are two problems with the proposal - or maybe they're really not problems. The first is that you have to give up the idea of the nation state, because there is simply no need for it. Other sorts of alliance - for protective purposes or otherwise - would make more sense. Corporations, for example. Or international unions. The nation becomes just one more tool for the internationally mobile, those who can manipulate it to their benefit (subsidies, contracts, any of the myriad ways the government takes money widely and distributes it narrowly - although willingness to give the government money by way of taxes would disintegrate if nobody needed the government). Or the government might be useful as a safety net - it could launch its citizens into the world like a trampoline and be there to catch them if they fall, sort of a kind of insurance company. We could even keep flags and politics, as a sort of irrelevant but entertaining reality show. We wouldn't need a national defense, since there wouldn't be any nations to attack us. We could be attacked by corporations, though, like al Qaeda Inc. But in that case the attack would be focused on something other than the nation, and it would be up to that something to defend itself - unless we wanted to add to the insurance functions of what was left of the nation the obligation to defend people who hold its citizenship.
I don't know. It doesn't sound so bad. In fact it sounds sort of like the world was in the days of the guilds. We have assumed all this time that nationalism was a good thing. Maybe we've been wrong about that. We assumed that monotheism was a good thing too, and that certainly doesn't seem to be working out.
If, however, we don't use the rump nation as a safety net - and I doubt corporations or workers groups would want to pay for that rather than provide their own safety nets - the only workers who are going to benefit are those who have high skills and those who will work for low wages and can afford to travel to where they are. Everyone else - except the rich - get screwed.
Does this sound like fantasy? Myself, I think it is already happening. Better keep it in mind if you are making long-range plans.
There are two problems with the proposal - or maybe they're really not problems. The first is that you have to give up the idea of the nation state, because there is simply no need for it. Other sorts of alliance - for protective purposes or otherwise - would make more sense. Corporations, for example. Or international unions. The nation becomes just one more tool for the internationally mobile, those who can manipulate it to their benefit (subsidies, contracts, any of the myriad ways the government takes money widely and distributes it narrowly - although willingness to give the government money by way of taxes would disintegrate if nobody needed the government). Or the government might be useful as a safety net - it could launch its citizens into the world like a trampoline and be there to catch them if they fall, sort of a kind of insurance company. We could even keep flags and politics, as a sort of irrelevant but entertaining reality show. We wouldn't need a national defense, since there wouldn't be any nations to attack us. We could be attacked by corporations, though, like al Qaeda Inc. But in that case the attack would be focused on something other than the nation, and it would be up to that something to defend itself - unless we wanted to add to the insurance functions of what was left of the nation the obligation to defend people who hold its citizenship.
I don't know. It doesn't sound so bad. In fact it sounds sort of like the world was in the days of the guilds. We have assumed all this time that nationalism was a good thing. Maybe we've been wrong about that. We assumed that monotheism was a good thing too, and that certainly doesn't seem to be working out.
If, however, we don't use the rump nation as a safety net - and I doubt corporations or workers groups would want to pay for that rather than provide their own safety nets - the only workers who are going to benefit are those who have high skills and those who will work for low wages and can afford to travel to where they are. Everyone else - except the rich - get screwed.
Does this sound like fantasy? Myself, I think it is already happening. Better keep it in mind if you are making long-range plans.
REVULSION
Here's a strange prediction: atheists (include agnostics and "I don't knows") will become a major political force sometime within the next 3-4 years. Revulsion against Christian fundamentalism will lead to a growth in atheist ranks (people will not turn to moderate churches because those churches have been as silent in the face of American fascism as they were when the Nazis came to power.)
I'm giving myself a big lead time margin here, so we'll all have to be patient.
I'm giving myself a big lead time margin here, so we'll all have to be patient.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
STAINLESS
This is what I learned from HGTV:
If you want to sell your house to people with no taste, you have to have stainless steel kitchen appliances.
So what are the hip people using these days?
If you want to sell your house to people with no taste, you have to have stainless steel kitchen appliances.
So what are the hip people using these days?
LITTLE GUY
Are the guys who are working for a pardon for Scooter Libby the same guys who oppose amnesty for immigrants? Wouldn't want to bet that was a "no," would you.
But why should Scooter have to serve time? Paris Hilton's early release proves that justice in America depends on what's in your bank account, or how much TV time you've had. No wonder George Bush thinks he's the king.
There's a guy in Georgia doing ten years for getting a blow job from a 15 year old. If people aren't in the streets over these travesties, what am I getting het up for? Everyone on American Idol knows the secret: don't worry about the little guy, just do anything not to be one.
But why should Scooter have to serve time? Paris Hilton's early release proves that justice in America depends on what's in your bank account, or how much TV time you've had. No wonder George Bush thinks he's the king.
There's a guy in Georgia doing ten years for getting a blow job from a 15 year old. If people aren't in the streets over these travesties, what am I getting het up for? Everyone on American Idol knows the secret: don't worry about the little guy, just do anything not to be one.
HAS TO BE
Defense Secretary Gates says we ought to apply the Korea model to Iraq. The comment displays a complete incomprehension of history.
There was no indigenous revolutionary movement in South Korea. The threat to South Korea was from another state. The U.S. troops which have remained there for 50 years essentially serve as a trip wire to prevent another southward invasion. Since there was no instability in South Korea itself, the country has managed to raise itself, in part because it is protected by the U.S. Army tripwire.
Does any of that sound like Iraq to you?
So far, there has been no threat of an outside invasion. There are huge indigenous revolutionary movements in Iraq. Putting U.S. troops on its borders for the moment would be meaningless - since Iraq is the very definition of an unstable state, troops on the borders would have nothing to do with normalization.
Now. There is, however, another way to look at it.
Sooner or later, things being what they are, it is possible that Iraq may be threatened by another state. Troops on the borders would help to prevent something like that, leaving Iraq free to fuck itself up without outside interference.
If that's your purpose, say so. Don't hide behind a preposterous inapposition. But that isn't really it, is it?
This administration has already decided to keep troops in Iraq "forever." The statement by Gates - echoed by other administration hacks - is just a first attempt to put out an explanation people will buy which does not mention the word "oil."
It has to be all about oil. It has to be.
There was no indigenous revolutionary movement in South Korea. The threat to South Korea was from another state. The U.S. troops which have remained there for 50 years essentially serve as a trip wire to prevent another southward invasion. Since there was no instability in South Korea itself, the country has managed to raise itself, in part because it is protected by the U.S. Army tripwire.
Does any of that sound like Iraq to you?
So far, there has been no threat of an outside invasion. There are huge indigenous revolutionary movements in Iraq. Putting U.S. troops on its borders for the moment would be meaningless - since Iraq is the very definition of an unstable state, troops on the borders would have nothing to do with normalization.
Now. There is, however, another way to look at it.
Sooner or later, things being what they are, it is possible that Iraq may be threatened by another state. Troops on the borders would help to prevent something like that, leaving Iraq free to fuck itself up without outside interference.
If that's your purpose, say so. Don't hide behind a preposterous inapposition. But that isn't really it, is it?
This administration has already decided to keep troops in Iraq "forever." The statement by Gates - echoed by other administration hacks - is just a first attempt to put out an explanation people will buy which does not mention the word "oil."
It has to be all about oil. It has to be.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
CYNICAL
What used to be (or am I a victim of over-fond memories?): people kept their grief to themselves. Decorum, or sense of dignity, prohibited making a public spectacle of themselves.
Now - if your kid's been killed in a hit and run, you can't wait to get on TV. This could be for a variety of reasons - the most nefarious of which is to use the death of your son to authenticate yourself (being on TV is the way to authentication for people who never hope to accomplish anything else significant). Then there's the search for vengeance - you want to go after the killer, or even if you don't you want people to think you're the kind of guy who will take his own revenge. Or you want people to know what a great kid you raised.
Finally, there's the person who wants to use the incident to instruct. They don't want the death to be in vain - they want society to gain something from it, at least an attempt to educate kids about being a bit more careful. Some of these people are quite sincere in these feelings. Some of them are just the parents of the bride - bathing in bathos transferred from the dead child to them.
Ah, I'm too damn cynical. Aren't I?
Now - if your kid's been killed in a hit and run, you can't wait to get on TV. This could be for a variety of reasons - the most nefarious of which is to use the death of your son to authenticate yourself (being on TV is the way to authentication for people who never hope to accomplish anything else significant). Then there's the search for vengeance - you want to go after the killer, or even if you don't you want people to think you're the kind of guy who will take his own revenge. Or you want people to know what a great kid you raised.
Finally, there's the person who wants to use the incident to instruct. They don't want the death to be in vain - they want society to gain something from it, at least an attempt to educate kids about being a bit more careful. Some of these people are quite sincere in these feelings. Some of them are just the parents of the bride - bathing in bathos transferred from the dead child to them.
Ah, I'm too damn cynical. Aren't I?
NEW REAGAN
Repeat this statement 100 times: Fred Thompson is the new Ronald Reagan. And it becomes true.
No need to ask in what ways he's like Reagan, whether those ways are meaningful, or in fact whether we actually want a new Ronald Reagan. This is a striking example of the power of propaganda, used without any necessity to tie the statement to truth. Unless he actually is the new Ronald Reagan. That's the scariest possibility.
No need to ask in what ways he's like Reagan, whether those ways are meaningful, or in fact whether we actually want a new Ronald Reagan. This is a striking example of the power of propaganda, used without any necessity to tie the statement to truth. Unless he actually is the new Ronald Reagan. That's the scariest possibility.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
REALITY
The 2nd Circuit says the FCC is divorced from reality. People say "fuck" for a million reasons, most of which don't have anything to do with sex. The court pointed out that even the Vice President has publicly used the word, and Bush has been caught on tape giving someone the finger. It said that the FCC's broadened policy of fining media outlets for the occasional vulgarity was far too broad and departed from past practice, and that there was no reasoned explanation of it that would pass constitutional muster.
The FCC's response? The ruling is a disappointment for families, and it's the court which is out of touch with reality.
I don't know how we got so lucky as to have this issue decided by Federal judges who actually applied the law (and reason) as opposed to religious gobbledygook. There can't be many of those guys left.
If I had to bet on what the public considers "reality" to be, I'd put my money on the 2nd Circuit's view. Besides, I don't trust people who don't say "fuck" and don't want to hear the word. I'm afraid they're internalizing anger, or lust, and could turn out like Bush, or Nixon.
Fuck you, FCC. God, that feels good!
The FCC's response? The ruling is a disappointment for families, and it's the court which is out of touch with reality.
I don't know how we got so lucky as to have this issue decided by Federal judges who actually applied the law (and reason) as opposed to religious gobbledygook. There can't be many of those guys left.
If I had to bet on what the public considers "reality" to be, I'd put my money on the 2nd Circuit's view. Besides, I don't trust people who don't say "fuck" and don't want to hear the word. I'm afraid they're internalizing anger, or lust, and could turn out like Bush, or Nixon.
Fuck you, FCC. God, that feels good!
Sunday, June 03, 2007
CHUCKLING
The Palm Beach Daily News, a newspaper for billionaires, ran a feature today on dog-friendly hostelries. At the Calistoga Ranch in Napa Valley, dog beds get changed daily with custom-fitted Italian linen sheets. At the Topnotch Resort in Stowe, dogs get nightly turndown service and spa massages. Other facilities provide doggie music and TV, pedicures, swimming, sailing and canine couture. At the Ritz Carlton on South Beach they get a four poster bed with Frette sheets, pet sun lotion and bottles of Evian. They get massages, color and grooming. At the Loews Vanderbilt in Nashville dogs get a professional recording session, sort of karaoke for dogs. It goes on and on.
Things like this proliferate when two things happen: too many people have too much money, and those people have incredibly insipid desires. These facilities are like funerals; they're not for the doggies (or the dead) but for their parents (or the living). I can honestly state that any dog I've ever known would much prefer a stick to a reflexology massage. It must be exhausting - both to parents and pooch - to have to keep up with these endless inventions for staying ahead of the Joneses. But then it's things like this - plus the entire consultant industry - that keep our unemployment rates down and provide livings for con men and satisfactions for fools.
So I'm all for it. Just forgive me for chuckling.
Things like this proliferate when two things happen: too many people have too much money, and those people have incredibly insipid desires. These facilities are like funerals; they're not for the doggies (or the dead) but for their parents (or the living). I can honestly state that any dog I've ever known would much prefer a stick to a reflexology massage. It must be exhausting - both to parents and pooch - to have to keep up with these endless inventions for staying ahead of the Joneses. But then it's things like this - plus the entire consultant industry - that keep our unemployment rates down and provide livings for con men and satisfactions for fools.
So I'm all for it. Just forgive me for chuckling.
CARBON FOOTPRINT
According to the Huffington Post, Texas is our largest producer of carbon dioxide, more than twice the combined total of California and Pennsylvania, which together have twice Texas' population.
We could greatly improve our carbon footprint - and a lot of other situations - if we gave Texas back to Mexico. Too bad it wasn't done before 2000.
We could greatly improve our carbon footprint - and a lot of other situations - if we gave Texas back to Mexico. Too bad it wasn't done before 2000.
POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF
If I were a Democrat running for President, here's what I'd say at the next debate: "We Democrats are in agreement over the main terms of what should be done for America. We have the brightest, most moral, most knowledgeable and most experienced minds in the country, some of them running for this office. If I am elected, I want all of them - Clinton (maybe both Clintons), Obama, Edwards, (etc. - leave out name of candidate making this speech) and Al Gore working with me, in Cabinet positions if they'll accept them, and certainly in significant policy roles. Elect me and you'll get the benefit of every mind on this podium - and maybe even some Republican minds ... if I can find some good ones. That will not include anyone now running for the Republican nomination - with the possible exception of Ron Paul."
FIRST BUS
Rudy Giuliani is a one-issue candidate. And he's earned the right to that issue. In the days after 9/11, when Pataki and Bush and the New York Senators mouthed platitudes, Giuliani's seemingly sincere take-charge statements won him a lot of friends, including me. Everyone knows, or will soon know, that Giuliani is literally insane, but he has as good a right as anyone to run for President as the holder of the Reagan Chair of Political Theater.
So Rudy is all-fear, all-the-time. Actually, when he was mayor of New York, that was his strength there, too - so he ought to feel right at home.
In the aftermath of Iraq, there seems to be an ebbing of terror fear here. That would work against Rudy - if it continued. Whether it continues depends on whether there is another attack before the conventions and, if not, whether the administration is successful in stirring up fears anyway. I doubt the Democrats are prepared to deal with either case. Rudy would be on the first bus to Wherever-It-Turns-Out-To-Be.
So Rudy is all-fear, all-the-time. Actually, when he was mayor of New York, that was his strength there, too - so he ought to feel right at home.
In the aftermath of Iraq, there seems to be an ebbing of terror fear here. That would work against Rudy - if it continued. Whether it continues depends on whether there is another attack before the conventions and, if not, whether the administration is successful in stirring up fears anyway. I doubt the Democrats are prepared to deal with either case. Rudy would be on the first bus to Wherever-It-Turns-Out-To-Be.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT?
This, from the AP, if true, is seriously bad news:
Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states. Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills. As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June. The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.
Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states. Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills. As a result, most lawmakers will not get a chance to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies get their first votes in the full House in June. The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September cannot be amended and are subject to only one hour of debate, precluding challenges to individual projects.
THE REALLY DUMB ONES
A U.S. Attorney in New York said a plot by a suspected Muslim terrorist cell to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, its fuel tanks and a jet fuel artery could have caused "unthinkable" devastation. That is, if they could ever get their hands on some explosives. And if authorities hadn't been tracking them for more than a year.
Certainly whoever was tracking these miscreants, who believed their plot would "cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks," destroying the airport, killing several thousand people and destroying parts of New York's borough of Queens, is to be congratulated for good police work. The plot was hatched a decade ago by a baggage handler at JFK who had a mistaken impression of how much damage could be done (not likely "unthinkable devastation") and who hadn't worked at the airport since 1995 and whose information on airport operations was significantly outdated. The U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force had been right on top of them.
It seems odd to me that each of the U.S. based "terrorist plots" discovered seem to involve blacks (these were from Guyana and Trinidad) who make up groups with no capability of actually doing anything. And that each group discovered is claimed to be incredibly dangerous. Does the fact that in the years since 9/11 no one has been arrested in America with any provable ties to al Qaeda or serious Islamist credentials mean there's no significant plotting been done in the U.S., or just that we only seem able to catch the really dumb ones?
And is the announcement of this plot by a U.S. attorney intended to prove that Republican appointees actually do something a little more than push Republican causes? I'd like to hear a lot more about this woman.
Certainly whoever was tracking these miscreants, who believed their plot would "cause greater destruction than in the Sept. 11 attacks," destroying the airport, killing several thousand people and destroying parts of New York's borough of Queens, is to be congratulated for good police work. The plot was hatched a decade ago by a baggage handler at JFK who had a mistaken impression of how much damage could be done (not likely "unthinkable devastation") and who hadn't worked at the airport since 1995 and whose information on airport operations was significantly outdated. The U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force had been right on top of them.
It seems odd to me that each of the U.S. based "terrorist plots" discovered seem to involve blacks (these were from Guyana and Trinidad) who make up groups with no capability of actually doing anything. And that each group discovered is claimed to be incredibly dangerous. Does the fact that in the years since 9/11 no one has been arrested in America with any provable ties to al Qaeda or serious Islamist credentials mean there's no significant plotting been done in the U.S., or just that we only seem able to catch the really dumb ones?
And is the announcement of this plot by a U.S. attorney intended to prove that Republican appointees actually do something a little more than push Republican causes? I'd like to hear a lot more about this woman.
Friday, June 01, 2007
SHRINKING?
From the Huffington Post:
With ice cream sundaes, iPod giveaways, spa days and yoga classes, a group of Orthodox rabbis in the Washington area is employing decidedly unorthodox methods to address a growing problem: the fading involvement of Jews in local Jewish life. Although the region has one of the largest and youngest Jewish communities in the country, recent studies have found that a shrinking proportion of Jews-- as elsewhere in the country -- is joining synagogues, community centers, Jewish schools and other centers of Jewish life.
All the information I have seen til now has indicated that young Jews are flocking to the church - let's call it, for these purposes, what it is. Have we been getting hyped?
There's also info out there that evangelical Christianity is not doing so well in keeping their youngsters in the flock. Well, if they're ever let out of home schools, that's the risk.
Good news, maybe. I can hope.
With ice cream sundaes, iPod giveaways, spa days and yoga classes, a group of Orthodox rabbis in the Washington area is employing decidedly unorthodox methods to address a growing problem: the fading involvement of Jews in local Jewish life. Although the region has one of the largest and youngest Jewish communities in the country, recent studies have found that a shrinking proportion of Jews-- as elsewhere in the country -- is joining synagogues, community centers, Jewish schools and other centers of Jewish life.
All the information I have seen til now has indicated that young Jews are flocking to the church - let's call it, for these purposes, what it is. Have we been getting hyped?
There's also info out there that evangelical Christianity is not doing so well in keeping their youngsters in the flock. Well, if they're ever let out of home schools, that's the risk.
Good news, maybe. I can hope.
BORING
I get really tired of pointing to Bush appointments which were made for ideological reasons and either disregard the work the appointee is going to do or intend to essentially eliminate that work. Because he keeps doing it. But here it is, from Daily Kos:
George W. Bush announced the nomination of James Holsinger to become the Surgeon General of the United States. Said Bush: As America's chief health educator, he will be charged with providing the best scientific information available on how Americans can make smart choices that improve their health and reduce their risk of illness and injury.
Holsinger and his wife founded Hope Springs Community Church in a warehouse at 1109 Versailles Road. Calhoun called it a socially diverse congregation with a "very vital recovery ministry." It serves the homeless and those with addictions to drugs, alcohol and sex; and it has a Spanish-language Hispanic congregation with its own pastor. Hope Springs also ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian, Calhoun said. "We see that as an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle," he said. "We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle."
Where does he find these people? Here's the answer. And here's more. Plus we do know that Holsinger contributed more than $23,000 to the Republican Party and its candidates from 1997 to 2007, according to public records. Well, that certainly qualifies him.
I always figure Surgeon Generals are weird, anyway. It's like the American poet laureate always writes for Reader's Digest, or the winner of the Nobel in literature has a novel about social life in a very small town in a very little province in the Indian subcontinent. Surgeon General appointments are aimed at perfection within the genre: C. Everett Koop? Exactly right. Someone you never heard of and never will again whose contribution to medicine is the purchase of tongue depressors for the State of Illinois made out of recycled plastic and really cheap.
George W. Bush announced the nomination of James Holsinger to become the Surgeon General of the United States. Said Bush: As America's chief health educator, he will be charged with providing the best scientific information available on how Americans can make smart choices that improve their health and reduce their risk of illness and injury.
Holsinger and his wife founded Hope Springs Community Church in a warehouse at 1109 Versailles Road. Calhoun called it a socially diverse congregation with a "very vital recovery ministry." It serves the homeless and those with addictions to drugs, alcohol and sex; and it has a Spanish-language Hispanic congregation with its own pastor. Hope Springs also ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian, Calhoun said. "We see that as an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle," he said. "We have people who seek to walk out of that lifestyle."
Where does he find these people? Here's the answer. And here's more. Plus we do know that Holsinger contributed more than $23,000 to the Republican Party and its candidates from 1997 to 2007, according to public records. Well, that certainly qualifies him.
I always figure Surgeon Generals are weird, anyway. It's like the American poet laureate always writes for Reader's Digest, or the winner of the Nobel in literature has a novel about social life in a very small town in a very little province in the Indian subcontinent. Surgeon General appointments are aimed at perfection within the genre: C. Everett Koop? Exactly right. Someone you never heard of and never will again whose contribution to medicine is the purchase of tongue depressors for the State of Illinois made out of recycled plastic and really cheap.
WHAT YOU DID
Paris Hilton doesn't think she should have to go to jail. The thing is, she's too important to go to jail: we'll all be so bereft without her imminent presence. (This is a specious argument anyway: thanks to our marvelous media, we are going to have more of her imminent presence when she's in jail than we've had of her, lately, out of it.)
Paris Hilton needs to go to jail. She wilfully broke the law. We aren't yet willing to extend the Nixon Doctrine (whatever the president does is legal) to celebrities. And jail will be good for her. Look what it did for Judith Miller.
Scooter Libby doesn't think he should have to go to jail. The thing is, he's too important to go to jail, and he's accomplished too much to go to jail, according to his lawyer. He's dedicated to promoting freedom abroad and keeping American citizens safe at home. (That's why he outed a covert agent working on WMD?) He is alleged to have helped win the Gulf War, assisted the transition to Democracy in Eastern Europe, and played a role in the largest nuclear arms reduction in history. (That last one I have no idea what they're talking about. As to the others, I assume Libby's typist also assisted in those things; does she get to skate on perjury too?)
Phil Spector invented the Wall of Sound and made some of the greatest records ever made. Records which had far more influence than Scooter Libby ever did. However, if Spector shot somebody, he has to go to jail.
It ain't what you did, it's what you did - if you follow me.
Paris Hilton needs to go to jail. She wilfully broke the law. We aren't yet willing to extend the Nixon Doctrine (whatever the president does is legal) to celebrities. And jail will be good for her. Look what it did for Judith Miller.
Scooter Libby doesn't think he should have to go to jail. The thing is, he's too important to go to jail, and he's accomplished too much to go to jail, according to his lawyer. He's dedicated to promoting freedom abroad and keeping American citizens safe at home. (That's why he outed a covert agent working on WMD?) He is alleged to have helped win the Gulf War, assisted the transition to Democracy in Eastern Europe, and played a role in the largest nuclear arms reduction in history. (That last one I have no idea what they're talking about. As to the others, I assume Libby's typist also assisted in those things; does she get to skate on perjury too?)
Phil Spector invented the Wall of Sound and made some of the greatest records ever made. Records which had far more influence than Scooter Libby ever did. However, if Spector shot somebody, he has to go to jail.
It ain't what you did, it's what you did - if you follow me.
NOT EASY
Looking at David Broder's column today, talking about our expanded ground forces moving "deeper into Baghdad neighborhoods while terrorists plant their diabolical explosive charges along the roads ....where they know U.S. convoys will pass." etc.
Dear Mr. Broder:
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY FIGHTING AGAINST AN OCCUPYING ARMY ARE NOT TERRORISTS. GOT IT? AND EXPLOSIVE CHARGES PLANTED IN ROADS ARE NOT DIABOLICAL - THEY ARE LAND MINES, WHICH HAVE BEEN USED BY A LOT OF FIGHTERS IN A LOT OF PLACES FOR A VERY LONG TIME. IF THE IRAQI RESISTANCE HAD F-16'S, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THEM DIABOLICAL BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING USED BY THE RESISTANCE? OR DO YOU CONSIDER WARFARE TO BE ETHICAL ONLY WHEN IT COSTS A FORTUNE?
Sir, you have been writing for a very long time. So by now you should have eliminated any tendency toward sloppy language. Sloppy thinking? That's not so easy to fix.
Dear Mr. Broder:
PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY FIGHTING AGAINST AN OCCUPYING ARMY ARE NOT TERRORISTS. GOT IT? AND EXPLOSIVE CHARGES PLANTED IN ROADS ARE NOT DIABOLICAL - THEY ARE LAND MINES, WHICH HAVE BEEN USED BY A LOT OF FIGHTERS IN A LOT OF PLACES FOR A VERY LONG TIME. IF THE IRAQI RESISTANCE HAD F-16'S, WOULD YOU CONSIDER THEM DIABOLICAL BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING USED BY THE RESISTANCE? OR DO YOU CONSIDER WARFARE TO BE ETHICAL ONLY WHEN IT COSTS A FORTUNE?
Sir, you have been writing for a very long time. So by now you should have eliminated any tendency toward sloppy language. Sloppy thinking? That's not so easy to fix.
WAY OUT
A recent event in Baghdad suggests an Iraq solution that might satisfy everyone's needs.
It's always been expected that Iraqi Shia would not welcome al Qaeda into Iraq. Now it appears that there are also Sunni groups who don't want al Qaeda around. A few days ago, in the Amariyah district, Sunni residents called on American troops to fight al Qaeda, which was disrupting the area. If theirs is a widespread attitude, the time is ripe for the following:
Our troops immediately disengage from any fighting or attempts to control those who are fighting only for power over Iraq, or for sectarian dominance, without any goal of attacking America. I.e., the ones who aren't going to follow us home. If Shiites (or Sunnis) want to turn Iraq into an Islamic state, fine. An Islamic state is not per se a threat to us. If they want to form a caliphate, same. Only when their goal is to attack or undermine us or any Western government is it necessary for us to deal with them. (I'll even throw Israel into the deal; if a group threatens Israel, they can be our business - but only if Israel deals with its Palestinian problem rather than let things fester, as they have, to the point where Palestinians are radicalized by frustration and Islamist out of fury.)
We don't have to pull out of Iraq. We have to disengage. We don't have to train the Iraqi army - that's Iraq's problem now. We don't have to provide Iraqis with security - they are going to have to resolve their own disputes, and sooner rather than later would be the best way to avoid things spiraling into complete disaster. Stand aside and let them fight it out. Whoever wins - Shia, Sunni, Kurd or any or all - we deal with them as an independent state. We do not conclude that because they are Muslims they are bad. We do not conclude that an Islamist state must be shunned by us. We do not conclude that a nuclear Islamist state is more threatening than anyone else with the bomb, unless, as I said, they make threats against us which come out of their own ideology or goals and are not just understandable reactions to our actions. We engage in normal diplomacy with them - including aiding them (if they ask for it) to accomplish things that don't cause problems for us.
Our troops concentrate on hitting al Qaeda type operations. Maybe we don't need troops for that - maybe just special ops guys. We respond to requests from Iraqis to help them get rid of al Qaeda. That's it. Sum and substance. Everyone's problems solved. We're not on the edge of war with Iran. Our soldiers are not getting killed except in the fight we started on after 9/11. Our expenses are down. Iraq is free to do with itself as it wishes, with the guarantee that we will keep al Qaeda types out.
The only interest this doesn't take care of is the Cheney focus on oil. I'm not going to comment on that.
It's always been expected that Iraqi Shia would not welcome al Qaeda into Iraq. Now it appears that there are also Sunni groups who don't want al Qaeda around. A few days ago, in the Amariyah district, Sunni residents called on American troops to fight al Qaeda, which was disrupting the area. If theirs is a widespread attitude, the time is ripe for the following:
Our troops immediately disengage from any fighting or attempts to control those who are fighting only for power over Iraq, or for sectarian dominance, without any goal of attacking America. I.e., the ones who aren't going to follow us home. If Shiites (or Sunnis) want to turn Iraq into an Islamic state, fine. An Islamic state is not per se a threat to us. If they want to form a caliphate, same. Only when their goal is to attack or undermine us or any Western government is it necessary for us to deal with them. (I'll even throw Israel into the deal; if a group threatens Israel, they can be our business - but only if Israel deals with its Palestinian problem rather than let things fester, as they have, to the point where Palestinians are radicalized by frustration and Islamist out of fury.)
We don't have to pull out of Iraq. We have to disengage. We don't have to train the Iraqi army - that's Iraq's problem now. We don't have to provide Iraqis with security - they are going to have to resolve their own disputes, and sooner rather than later would be the best way to avoid things spiraling into complete disaster. Stand aside and let them fight it out. Whoever wins - Shia, Sunni, Kurd or any or all - we deal with them as an independent state. We do not conclude that because they are Muslims they are bad. We do not conclude that an Islamist state must be shunned by us. We do not conclude that a nuclear Islamist state is more threatening than anyone else with the bomb, unless, as I said, they make threats against us which come out of their own ideology or goals and are not just understandable reactions to our actions. We engage in normal diplomacy with them - including aiding them (if they ask for it) to accomplish things that don't cause problems for us.
Our troops concentrate on hitting al Qaeda type operations. Maybe we don't need troops for that - maybe just special ops guys. We respond to requests from Iraqis to help them get rid of al Qaeda. That's it. Sum and substance. Everyone's problems solved. We're not on the edge of war with Iran. Our soldiers are not getting killed except in the fight we started on after 9/11. Our expenses are down. Iraq is free to do with itself as it wishes, with the guarantee that we will keep al Qaeda types out.
The only interest this doesn't take care of is the Cheney focus on oil. I'm not going to comment on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
