People say people who believe in conspiracy theories are lunatics, or at least have overactive imaginations. But some conspiracy theories are so supported by logic, available information and gut feelings that to disbelieve them requires illogic, ignorance and lack of emotion – or a good reason to deny them. Which raises the question of what that reason might be.
Here’s a conspiracy theory:
There has been a group within America that has been working toward totalitarian government in the U.S. since, at the latest, right after World War II. They have been associated with the Republican party – although all Republicans are not associated with them. I am going to call them Totalitarius.
Their perceptions during the Second World War, and immediately afterward, led them to believe that totalitarianism could work. Nazism, after all, was extremely successful – it did not defeat itself. (It was taken down by invasion, and by Nazism’s one mistake – which was to entrust one man – Hitler – with total power, thus magnifying the errors he made, which could have been corrected if Nazism had been run by a true coalition of leaders.) And at the time, Stalinism was looking pretty effective, too.
The aim of Totalitarius has been to benefit their own small contingent at the expense of everyone else. Their goals have been wealth and power – nothing ideological. They simply want to be able to do whatever they want to do, and to take whatever they want to take – not only from Americans, but from the world at large.
Eisenhower identified them as the military/industrial complex. That may or may not have been an accurate appellation back then. Now, however, the group has become much wider, and includes people whose fortunes have been made in many different ways. I’ll discuss that aspect further on.
They had what can be characterized as one enemy in America – political progressives who stood for, at a minimum, social justice and the preservation of democracy as the founders had understood it. It was necessary to destroy the effectiveness of these progressives in order to facilitate the upward distribution of wealth, and to do that Totalitarius enlisted the support of the American people. Not because they valued that support, but, because we are a theoretical democracy, Totalitarius needed their votes.
They got those votes through extremely effective use of propaganda.
To define propaganda I’m using Jacques Ellul’s book of that title. As my reading expands, I hope to expand the definition.
The purpose of propaganda is not primarily to change people’s beliefs. It does not, if it is done well, appeal to reason. It does not try to convince. (The historical error of Democrats is to try to convince by ideas explained rationally. Progressives believe they act on rational beliefs – a construct which is inherently suspicious – and conclude therefore that most others will, too. Democrats may connect with the public on a particular issue position which is supported by rational analysis, but that’s just a coincidence of consonant motivations. For the most part, when they talk issues, Democrats are talking to themselves. That does not mean that Democrats should not talk on the issues. It means that in talking on the issues, they should not be relying on logic but should be using the talk to operate other propaganda levers.)
The purpose of propaganda is to provoke action. And the action which Totalitarius needs from those it is propagandizing is, in America, primarily a vote. You could never feel entirely secure if you took America over by methods outside the political system – for example, military coup d’etat – because the myth of democracy (I use the term “myth” in the sense of “story,” not “fallacy) is so deeply rooted that you are bound to meet up with at least fairly strong permanent resistance. You must come to power by manipulating the legitimate political system. It must be remembered that in both Germany and Russia (countries which had much weaker democratic traditions than ours) totalitarians came to power through the vote.
As Ellul puts it, one uses propaganda not to change adherence to a doctrine but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action. It is not to transform an opinion, but to arouse an active and mythical belief. It does not address the intelligence, or attempt to create public opinion. It aims at either passive or active participation in the totalitarian effort. It attempts to short-circuit thought and decision. The citizen must not know that he is being shaped by outside forces. Some central core in him must be reached and manipulated to produce the appropriate action.
It helps to create circumstances which separate thought from action. It aims to make people do things without thinking them through – either because they are not given the time to think, or the information to use in thinking, or because they have lost the habit of rational thinking entirely.
You take away time to think by creating a situation where people feel they must devote all their time to finding the wherewithal to live (and, of course, by defining “living” to include expensive things which used to be considered luxuries and are now considered essential to a reasonable lifestyle.) You take away information by controlling the media and removing the teaching of thinking, and civics, from school curricula, and directing education nearly exclusively to providing the tools for economic survival. And people will always rather entertain themselves than think. And that, I believe, is exactly where we are at these days.
You can manipulate people to act contrary to their own deepest convictions, and even against their own economic interests (see Thomas Franks’ “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”) What people do does not have to be consistent with what they say they believe.
Ellul says there are two stages to propaganda: “pre-propaganda” and active propaganda. Active propaganda is directed toward making people do a particular thing at a particular time. Pre-propaganda is the work that conditions people to fall for the active propaganda when it is used.
Pre-propaganda does not have a precise ideological objective. It is a continuous, slow, imperceptible process of creating feelings or stereotypes to be called upon when necessary. (To understand how and why this works, read David Brock’s “The Republican Noise Machine.”)
It does not confront people’s core beliefs and myths. It seeks to use the myths, to redefine or redirect them. For example: Totalitarius (in this case, George Bush and the neocons) talks endlessly about “freedom” or “democracy” while it works constantly to eliminate both.
The goal is not to successfully manipulate everyone. There are some people whose thinking will not be swayed by pre-propaganda. There are others who do not need to be swayed – they already possess the myths the propagandist needs to create. Pre-propaganda – particularly when the vote is the ultimate target - is directed at those who are in the middle ground. They may have strong convictions, but they are not certain why they hold them, and so these convictions offer no defense to propaganda, which is more likely to slide around them in a flank attack than confront them directly. As Ellul puts it, they may not believe what the propaganda says, but they don’t believe the opposition either. Ellul calls these the marginal men. And all you have to do with such people is to keep them ambiguous. Either they will choose not to vote because they don’t trust anyone; or you can distract them from voting by bread-and-circuses; or you can change their perceptions of the myths they operate under, and get them to vote your way without understanding why they are doing it. At some later point, when you have wrecked democracy, you may need to eliminate ambiguous people or spend more time on their “education.” But before the takeover, you just need to neutralize them.
Tomorrow we will look at how Totalitarius has succeeded with pre-propaganda in America.
BLOG POSTS
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
YOUR THIRD
The Bush administration is suing Bloomberg's company for discriminating against pregnant women?
Is this the kind of thing Bush usually does? Like defend or enforce the rights of anyone other than his friends?
Or does he maybe have a reason to make Bloomberg look bad? Like - that Bloomberg abandoned the Republican Party? And might make an independent run for president?
It's really sad when your first thought is that Bush is pulling something. And your second. And your third.
Is this the kind of thing Bush usually does? Like defend or enforce the rights of anyone other than his friends?
Or does he maybe have a reason to make Bloomberg look bad? Like - that Bloomberg abandoned the Republican Party? And might make an independent run for president?
It's really sad when your first thought is that Bush is pulling something. And your second. And your third.
SMOKER'S REVENGE
Wow! A new study confirms that women who drink even one drink a day have a 10% increased risk of breast cancer. The risk seems to go up 10% per drink.
Here's my prediction: a year from now a new study shows that women who drink not only increase theIR own chances of breast cancer, but also the chances of women who sit next to them.
Man, I can't wait til they move all the bars outdoors. Oh, wait, in New York they won't even be able to drink on the street.
Smoker's revenge.
Here's my prediction: a year from now a new study shows that women who drink not only increase theIR own chances of breast cancer, but also the chances of women who sit next to them.
Man, I can't wait til they move all the bars outdoors. Oh, wait, in New York they won't even be able to drink on the street.
Smoker's revenge.
EMPATHY DEFICIT
Fascinating.
At the Democrats' debate at Dartmouth, Tim Russert asked the candidates for their favorite Bible verses. Most of them cited the Golden Rule, one way or another. Obama talked at some length about the "empathy deficit" these days - people not giving a damn about anyone but themselves and their own. That, of course, is something I drone on and on about.
So they understand what's wrong - and I didn't think they did. But can any of them make America understand?
At the Democrats' debate at Dartmouth, Tim Russert asked the candidates for their favorite Bible verses. Most of them cited the Golden Rule, one way or another. Obama talked at some length about the "empathy deficit" these days - people not giving a damn about anyone but themselves and their own. That, of course, is something I drone on and on about.
So they understand what's wrong - and I didn't think they did. But can any of them make America understand?
INFECTION
Sometimes I get depressed when I realize that I live in a time when America is marked by mindless hatred, absurdity, irrationality, lies, vituperation, calumnies. Then I remember that it has mostly been so.
Just in my own consciousness: the hatred of Germans in World War I; the hatred after that of the left and the labor movement; the hatred of Jews and immigrants and anyone not "us" in the 30's, with Father Coughlin and America First; the hatred of the left once again from the 50's on, the hatred of blacks, the hatred of Mexicans.
I just need to remind myself now and again that in return for the economic blessings of America and the relative freedom and mobility we get, we have to put up with a large population who have not got the message of tolerance and never will.
The difference between then and now, though, is more personal. It has to do with what being Jewish means in America.
When Jews first started coming here in large numbers, they were far too busy trying to eat to involve themselves in movements. By the time they had begun to establish themselves, we were in the period of high antisemitism. Those that had the time for it became socialists.
If you stop to think about it, the Holocaust was a blessing - and not a much disguised one - for American Jews. What the Nazis did so horrified much of the world that antisemitism became abhorrent, impossible. In the late '40s and early '50s, quotas against Jews were lifted everywhere - in the banks, the universities, country clubs, trades, etc. Jews were free to do anything they wished. After a while, they didn't even have to keep up pretenses by changing their names, or their religion, or their noses, or their speech.
The memory of oppression was, however, still so fresh that those Jews who were capable of thinking of something besides themselves and their personal well-being identified with other downtrodden groups - the blacks, for instance, in the '60s civil rights movement. And with movements that fought against other injustices: the anti-Vietnam protests, the ACLU, the ADL (which was then more to the left than the right.) How many Jews were for Nixon? Not a lot. How many Jews were for Reagan? Another question entirely.
Somewhere along the line many Jews got tired of social consciousness. It was exhausting and thankless work. The blacks hated Jews even after Goodman and Schwerner died for them. Besides, it was more fun to make money and play golf. And if you were for Reagan, you were for America. Jews who no longer felt the need to assimilate socially (they could marry goyim now, at least if their parents were dead) somehow still felt the need to assimilate politically. Many Jews started turning right. And kept on going.
It never occurred to me in '64 that Goldwater was symbolic. Most Jews supported Johnson, even Kennedy (though many were deathly afraid of a Catholic president.)Maybe even Carter. Clinton, pretty much. But they supported Bush I, too - because he supported Israel.
I know there are plenty of Jews out there who still have a social conscience - who believe (or maybe it's more than belief, maybe it's in the wiring) that Jews, because of their history, have a fundamental role in making the world more civilized, cultured and kind. But there are far too many who don't, and they have a lot of money, and they are using it to repress people they don't like.
Maybe this isn't really new - but it's new in my experience. Maybe to make a lot of bucks you have to be a shit - but I don't think so. Something fundamental is happening in the genes, or there is a mental illness which has spread into the race. Wouldn't it be absurd if Hitler had it backwards - that instead of Jews infecting the world, the world was infecting Jews?
Just in my own consciousness: the hatred of Germans in World War I; the hatred after that of the left and the labor movement; the hatred of Jews and immigrants and anyone not "us" in the 30's, with Father Coughlin and America First; the hatred of the left once again from the 50's on, the hatred of blacks, the hatred of Mexicans.
I just need to remind myself now and again that in return for the economic blessings of America and the relative freedom and mobility we get, we have to put up with a large population who have not got the message of tolerance and never will.
The difference between then and now, though, is more personal. It has to do with what being Jewish means in America.
When Jews first started coming here in large numbers, they were far too busy trying to eat to involve themselves in movements. By the time they had begun to establish themselves, we were in the period of high antisemitism. Those that had the time for it became socialists.
If you stop to think about it, the Holocaust was a blessing - and not a much disguised one - for American Jews. What the Nazis did so horrified much of the world that antisemitism became abhorrent, impossible. In the late '40s and early '50s, quotas against Jews were lifted everywhere - in the banks, the universities, country clubs, trades, etc. Jews were free to do anything they wished. After a while, they didn't even have to keep up pretenses by changing their names, or their religion, or their noses, or their speech.
The memory of oppression was, however, still so fresh that those Jews who were capable of thinking of something besides themselves and their personal well-being identified with other downtrodden groups - the blacks, for instance, in the '60s civil rights movement. And with movements that fought against other injustices: the anti-Vietnam protests, the ACLU, the ADL (which was then more to the left than the right.) How many Jews were for Nixon? Not a lot. How many Jews were for Reagan? Another question entirely.
Somewhere along the line many Jews got tired of social consciousness. It was exhausting and thankless work. The blacks hated Jews even after Goodman and Schwerner died for them. Besides, it was more fun to make money and play golf. And if you were for Reagan, you were for America. Jews who no longer felt the need to assimilate socially (they could marry goyim now, at least if their parents were dead) somehow still felt the need to assimilate politically. Many Jews started turning right. And kept on going.
It never occurred to me in '64 that Goldwater was symbolic. Most Jews supported Johnson, even Kennedy (though many were deathly afraid of a Catholic president.)Maybe even Carter. Clinton, pretty much. But they supported Bush I, too - because he supported Israel.
I know there are plenty of Jews out there who still have a social conscience - who believe (or maybe it's more than belief, maybe it's in the wiring) that Jews, because of their history, have a fundamental role in making the world more civilized, cultured and kind. But there are far too many who don't, and they have a lot of money, and they are using it to repress people they don't like.
Maybe this isn't really new - but it's new in my experience. Maybe to make a lot of bucks you have to be a shit - but I don't think so. Something fundamental is happening in the genes, or there is a mental illness which has spread into the race. Wouldn't it be absurd if Hitler had it backwards - that instead of Jews infecting the world, the world was infecting Jews?
QUESTIONS
A word of advice:
Antisemitism is a contemptible mindset. It condemns a race/nation/religion on the basis of what it supposedly is, not what it does. Jews can be hated only because they are Jews.
But - when you do bad things that hurt people; when people begin to resent you justifiably because of the way you deal with them; and when you keep it up long enough that resentment turns to hate, then people begin to hate you not just for what you do but also for what you are - because it is assumed that what you do shows who you are.
In the case of Jews, that hatred becomes antisemitism.
So you need to be careful what you do. You need to recognize the humanity of people you don't agree with. I don't believe there's much antisemitism out there now, but I can see it coming if people begin to understand what some American Jews - who claim to speak for all Jews - have been doing and - more to the point - how these Jews look at others.
Norman Podhoretz - you need to ask yourself some questions.
Antisemitism is a contemptible mindset. It condemns a race/nation/religion on the basis of what it supposedly is, not what it does. Jews can be hated only because they are Jews.
But - when you do bad things that hurt people; when people begin to resent you justifiably because of the way you deal with them; and when you keep it up long enough that resentment turns to hate, then people begin to hate you not just for what you do but also for what you are - because it is assumed that what you do shows who you are.
In the case of Jews, that hatred becomes antisemitism.
So you need to be careful what you do. You need to recognize the humanity of people you don't agree with. I don't believe there's much antisemitism out there now, but I can see it coming if people begin to understand what some American Jews - who claim to speak for all Jews - have been doing and - more to the point - how these Jews look at others.
Norman Podhoretz - you need to ask yourself some questions.
HE'S GOD AND WE'RE NOT
Norman Podhoretz sounds like a nice, rational being - but he is in fact a sociopath divorced from reality. Check out the podcast of his 9/26/07 appearance on On Point with Tom Ashcroft in which he advocates intervention anywhere in the world which does not fit his definition of a democracy - a definition, by the way, which he never quite gives, like his definition of Islamofascism (he invented the word) which Ashcroft asked him to clarify and he could, or would, not. Here is a guy with the ultimate arrogance: he sits above the world and decides what everyone needs, and casually prescribes - like God on Kol Nidre night - who shall live (a diplomatic solution) and who shall die (by being warred upon). I find him contemptible and dangerous.
Here's the really interesting part: a caller said "I think we need to start talking about the Judeofascism of Norman Podhoretz and the fact that ... America was driven to commit a Holocaust in the Middle East at the behest of the Jewish lobby ..."
Podhoretz' response: "I'm not going to argue with the blatant antisemitism of that question." He can call people Islamofascists but no one can call him a Judeofascist. He won't discuss Jewish influence on American foreign policy. Any criticism of his views is motivated by antisemitism. Of course I understand that: he's God, and we're not.
Fuck him.
Here's the really interesting part: a caller said "I think we need to start talking about the Judeofascism of Norman Podhoretz and the fact that ... America was driven to commit a Holocaust in the Middle East at the behest of the Jewish lobby ..."
Podhoretz' response: "I'm not going to argue with the blatant antisemitism of that question." He can call people Islamofascists but no one can call him a Judeofascist. He won't discuss Jewish influence on American foreign policy. Any criticism of his views is motivated by antisemitism. Of course I understand that: he's God, and we're not.
Fuck him.
START OVER
There are only two possible reasons for the existence of Leiberman-Kyle:
1) To gin up for a war against Iran; or
2) To improve Republican chances to take back Congress and hold the presidency.
As I have said before, Republicans need an outside enemy in order to disguise what they are doing in this country. Adding Iran to the pile increases the size of that "enemy." and makes it certain that "enemy" will be around for a while - 50 years?
(Once they have bombed Iran to hell, I wonder who they'll look to next. My guess would be Mexico. If they can convince America that Mexico is Muslim, that puts a deadly "enemy" even closer than Cuba was. God damn it, is it possible that all this crap about immigration is a prelude to creating a Mexican "enemy"?)
The other way to look at it, though, is that the Republicans did not need this measure to brand Iran the enemy - they have been doing that since Iraq turned to shit. Towards the end of making Iran an "enemy," this bill was not necessary. So it seems more likely that they are looking to attack Iran.
There are also only two reasons why Democrats voted for this bill:
1) They really believe that Iran is a threat - which suggests a) that they believe Republican propaganda and/or b) that they are as grave a threat to us as Republicans.
2) They didn't want to be outmaneuvered by the Republicans. So they voted for the bill - which means they were outmaneuvered by the Republicans. Suggesting that those Democrats do not have the integrity, brains or guts to stand up for the truth or to do what they may even know is best for America.
It's times like these that I think: a plague on both your houses. The kind of plague that wipes the slate clean and lets us start over again.
1) To gin up for a war against Iran; or
2) To improve Republican chances to take back Congress and hold the presidency.
As I have said before, Republicans need an outside enemy in order to disguise what they are doing in this country. Adding Iran to the pile increases the size of that "enemy." and makes it certain that "enemy" will be around for a while - 50 years?
(Once they have bombed Iran to hell, I wonder who they'll look to next. My guess would be Mexico. If they can convince America that Mexico is Muslim, that puts a deadly "enemy" even closer than Cuba was. God damn it, is it possible that all this crap about immigration is a prelude to creating a Mexican "enemy"?)
The other way to look at it, though, is that the Republicans did not need this measure to brand Iran the enemy - they have been doing that since Iraq turned to shit. Towards the end of making Iran an "enemy," this bill was not necessary. So it seems more likely that they are looking to attack Iran.
There are also only two reasons why Democrats voted for this bill:
1) They really believe that Iran is a threat - which suggests a) that they believe Republican propaganda and/or b) that they are as grave a threat to us as Republicans.
2) They didn't want to be outmaneuvered by the Republicans. So they voted for the bill - which means they were outmaneuvered by the Republicans. Suggesting that those Democrats do not have the integrity, brains or guts to stand up for the truth or to do what they may even know is best for America.
It's times like these that I think: a plague on both your houses. The kind of plague that wipes the slate clean and lets us start over again.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
LEIBERMAN-KYLE
Jim Webb pointed out in Congress that the Leiberman-Kyle amendment could wind up being the same kind of "authorization" for war that the so-called Iraq resolution was.
How fucking dumb are the Democrats who voted for it?
How fucking dumb are the Democrats who voted for it?
MISJUDGED
I just watched a podcast of Donald Trump on Fox News (catch it at Crooks & Liars, titled "Trump on Fox."
I take back every bad word I ever said about this guy. He's rich, and yet he's dead right on politics. Okay, I'd vote for him.
Mea culpa, Donald. I misjudged you badly.
I take back every bad word I ever said about this guy. He's rich, and yet he's dead right on politics. Okay, I'd vote for him.
Mea culpa, Donald. I misjudged you badly.
NO NUKES
Apparently Fox News is now going 24/7 pushing for an American attack on Iran.
Fox does not do that without someone in this administration giving them the go-ahead. I suspect it's Cheney, trying to undercut Rice (who is eminently undercuttable).
I'm completely for freedom of speech around here - but if it's ok, via the Patriot Actm to undercut that freedom, then I'm for a bit of Abraham Lincoln treatment. People who are preaching something this dangerous should be locked up without access to habeas corpus. Do I think Fox - and Cheney - are more dangerous than bin Laden? Well - so far bin Laden ain't got nukes.
The other point, coupled with other news, is this: Republicans are never going to quit this stuff. We are going to have to live with insanity like this until long after I have thrown off this mortal coil. I don't know about you, but I'm so exhausted by it that death is beginning to look like a relief. I do feel bad for ten-year-olds. What they're going to live through beggars the imagination.
Fox does not do that without someone in this administration giving them the go-ahead. I suspect it's Cheney, trying to undercut Rice (who is eminently undercuttable).
I'm completely for freedom of speech around here - but if it's ok, via the Patriot Actm to undercut that freedom, then I'm for a bit of Abraham Lincoln treatment. People who are preaching something this dangerous should be locked up without access to habeas corpus. Do I think Fox - and Cheney - are more dangerous than bin Laden? Well - so far bin Laden ain't got nukes.
The other point, coupled with other news, is this: Republicans are never going to quit this stuff. We are going to have to live with insanity like this until long after I have thrown off this mortal coil. I don't know about you, but I'm so exhausted by it that death is beginning to look like a relief. I do feel bad for ten-year-olds. What they're going to live through beggars the imagination.
A FEW WORDS ON MYANMAR
After the havoc wreaked by the monotheistic "faiths" these last years, it is exhilarating to see Buddhist monks standing up for freedom as we used to understand it, before Bush redefined the word. I should not be exhilarated - they are being killed. But I am.
As Myanmar re-enacts Tienanmin Square, critically important information is coming out of the country via blogs. The next time I hear an American pundit dismiss blogging as junk, I'm going to wish him a quick trip to Hell.
As we witness the only real fight for democracy going on anywhere in the world, I wonder why we haven't heard from all those folks who were so concerned about democracy that they invaded Iraq to make sure Iraqis got it.
As Myanmar re-enacts Tienanmin Square, critically important information is coming out of the country via blogs. The next time I hear an American pundit dismiss blogging as junk, I'm going to wish him a quick trip to Hell.
As we witness the only real fight for democracy going on anywhere in the world, I wonder why we haven't heard from all those folks who were so concerned about democracy that they invaded Iraq to make sure Iraqis got it.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
TO HELL WITH THEM
Thanks to an article in Vanity Fair, I now know who we have to thank for the nightmare we have been living through since January, 2001. It's the mainstream media, of course, whose sly innuendo and sometimes outright statements painted Al Gore as a liar and a stiff. I grant you Gore did a lot to lose himself the presidency, but it was these guys who made the race close enough for the Republicans to steal it using the Supreme Court.
The names on the list are surprising. Here they are:
Frank Rich: referring to the canard that Gore had claimed the book Love Story was about him: "What's bizarre, if all too revealing ... is not that he inflated his past but that he would think that being likened to the insufferable preppy Harvard hockey player Oliver Barrett 4th was something to brag about in the first place."
The truth on that one: Gore gave an interview to the Times in which, while reminiscing about his days at Harvard, he said that he and Tipper had been the models for the couple in Love Story. Erich Segal, the author, was a friend of Gore's, and had apparently said something to reporters in Tennessee. The reporters had gotten the story wrong - but they said what Gore said they said. Gore's comment to the Times reporter was offhand, meant to prove nothing.
Maureen Dowd: the choice between Bush and Gore comes down to a choice between a pious smarty-pants and an amiable idler. "Al Gore is desperate to get chicks. Married chicks. Single chicks. Old chicks. Young chicks. If he doesn't stop turning off women, he'll never be president." Dowd was apparently sexually turned on by Bush. She wrote: "You don't often get to see a Presidential candidate bloom right before your eyes." Dowd also cast doubt on Gore's Love Story claim. And this beaut: "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating."
These two, since the Iraq war, have been lambasting Bush in language it has given me great pleasure to read. But since they were casually wrong about Gore, why should I trust them on Bush? And if I can't trust them, I have no reason to read them. Which I will not be doing from now on.
Brian Williams: His comments: "Here is a guy taking off his suits ... This is the virtual sweater look - what's going on here? ... He's wearing these polo shirts that don't always look natural on him." Very important stuff, no? But playing right into the innuendo. I have been watching Williams religiously. Not any more.
Chris Matthews: He is always suspect - he goes hot and cold on people, including Bush - which he might claim proves objectivity. He said Gore claimed to have invented the internet (see below)
The whole thing began on the Times with the reporting of Katharine Seelye. She's been attacked all over the internet for her anti-Gore slant. I didn't see it. Now I know.
Gore had made the statement that he had taken the initiative through bills in Congress in creating the internet. That was true; even Newt Gingrich said so. Then the Republicans went after him, saying that Gore claimed he had invented the internet. Lou Dobbs called this a case study in delusions of grandeur. Matthews picked up the hue and cry, and then the whole press piled on.
From this point Seelye, who covered Gore for the times, slanted her coverage to make Gore seem a liar and a sneak. Some comments she made: referring to a speech in Tennessee (Gore's state, remember): "He also made an appeal based on what he described as his hard work for the state - as if a debt were owed in return for years of service." Re Gore's urging voters to vote in a primary: "Vice President Goere may have questioned the effects of the internal combustion engine, but not when it comes to transportation to the polls. Today he exhorted a union audience in Knoxville, Iowa to pile into vans - not cars, but gas guzzling vans - and haul friends to the Iowa caucuses ..." Or: "Vice President Gore was back to business as usual today - trolling for money." She ultimately wrote a story under the headline QUESTIONS OF VERACITY HAVE LONG DOGGED GORE, Ceci Connolly at the Washington Post was even worse. Time Magazine writer Margaret Carlson told Don Imus the girls were simply having fun. That fun resulted in 76% of stories about Gore in early 2000 being focused on either lying or scandal. And then these bitches complained that Gore was unfriendly to them!
David Broder: "But, my, how he went on about what he wants to do as president. I almost nodded off."
Katie Couric, after one of the debates: "They could hear you audibly sighing or sounding exasperated as Governor Bush was answering questions. Do you think that's presidential behavior?"
Here's Gore on his reaction to this stupidity: "I tried not to let it affect me, but if you know that day after day the fileter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you're just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you ... You're reduced to saying, "Today, here's the message: reduce pollution" and not necessarily by XYZ, out of fear that it will be, well, "Today he talked about belching cows."
I damn all these media people to hell. Recognizing that I have just reduced my news sources to Maher, Olbermann and Stewart. And, I guess, Vanity Fair.
The names on the list are surprising. Here they are:
Frank Rich: referring to the canard that Gore had claimed the book Love Story was about him: "What's bizarre, if all too revealing ... is not that he inflated his past but that he would think that being likened to the insufferable preppy Harvard hockey player Oliver Barrett 4th was something to brag about in the first place."
The truth on that one: Gore gave an interview to the Times in which, while reminiscing about his days at Harvard, he said that he and Tipper had been the models for the couple in Love Story. Erich Segal, the author, was a friend of Gore's, and had apparently said something to reporters in Tennessee. The reporters had gotten the story wrong - but they said what Gore said they said. Gore's comment to the Times reporter was offhand, meant to prove nothing.
Maureen Dowd: the choice between Bush and Gore comes down to a choice between a pious smarty-pants and an amiable idler. "Al Gore is desperate to get chicks. Married chicks. Single chicks. Old chicks. Young chicks. If he doesn't stop turning off women, he'll never be president." Dowd was apparently sexually turned on by Bush. She wrote: "You don't often get to see a Presidential candidate bloom right before your eyes." Dowd also cast doubt on Gore's Love Story claim. And this beaut: "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating."
These two, since the Iraq war, have been lambasting Bush in language it has given me great pleasure to read. But since they were casually wrong about Gore, why should I trust them on Bush? And if I can't trust them, I have no reason to read them. Which I will not be doing from now on.
Brian Williams: His comments: "Here is a guy taking off his suits ... This is the virtual sweater look - what's going on here? ... He's wearing these polo shirts that don't always look natural on him." Very important stuff, no? But playing right into the innuendo. I have been watching Williams religiously. Not any more.
Chris Matthews: He is always suspect - he goes hot and cold on people, including Bush - which he might claim proves objectivity. He said Gore claimed to have invented the internet (see below)
The whole thing began on the Times with the reporting of Katharine Seelye. She's been attacked all over the internet for her anti-Gore slant. I didn't see it. Now I know.
Gore had made the statement that he had taken the initiative through bills in Congress in creating the internet. That was true; even Newt Gingrich said so. Then the Republicans went after him, saying that Gore claimed he had invented the internet. Lou Dobbs called this a case study in delusions of grandeur. Matthews picked up the hue and cry, and then the whole press piled on.
From this point Seelye, who covered Gore for the times, slanted her coverage to make Gore seem a liar and a sneak. Some comments she made: referring to a speech in Tennessee (Gore's state, remember): "He also made an appeal based on what he described as his hard work for the state - as if a debt were owed in return for years of service." Re Gore's urging voters to vote in a primary: "Vice President Goere may have questioned the effects of the internal combustion engine, but not when it comes to transportation to the polls. Today he exhorted a union audience in Knoxville, Iowa to pile into vans - not cars, but gas guzzling vans - and haul friends to the Iowa caucuses ..." Or: "Vice President Gore was back to business as usual today - trolling for money." She ultimately wrote a story under the headline QUESTIONS OF VERACITY HAVE LONG DOGGED GORE, Ceci Connolly at the Washington Post was even worse. Time Magazine writer Margaret Carlson told Don Imus the girls were simply having fun. That fun resulted in 76% of stories about Gore in early 2000 being focused on either lying or scandal. And then these bitches complained that Gore was unfriendly to them!
David Broder: "But, my, how he went on about what he wants to do as president. I almost nodded off."
Katie Couric, after one of the debates: "They could hear you audibly sighing or sounding exasperated as Governor Bush was answering questions. Do you think that's presidential behavior?"
Here's Gore on his reaction to this stupidity: "I tried not to let it affect me, but if you know that day after day the fileter is going to be so distorted, inevitably that has an impact on the kinds of messages that you try and force through the filter. Anything that involves subtlety or trusting the reporters in their good sense and sense of fairness in interpretation, you're just not going to take a risk with something that could be easily distorted and used against you ... You're reduced to saying, "Today, here's the message: reduce pollution" and not necessarily by XYZ, out of fear that it will be, well, "Today he talked about belching cows."
I damn all these media people to hell. Recognizing that I have just reduced my news sources to Maher, Olbermann and Stewart. And, I guess, Vanity Fair.
AHMADINEJAD AT COLUMBIA
Introducing Ahmadinejad at Columbia, the school's president Lee Bollinger told the Iranian he exhibited all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. Um - if I remember correctly, Ahmadinejad was democratically elected - unlike our president, one might say. And calling Iran's president petty - well, isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle ...? Bollinger said the Iranian was "either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated." I've heard Ahmadinejad talk. He is not uneducated - unlike ... um ... well, you know who. Brazenly provocative? Sure. And who else do we know who's like that?
Bollinger went on to say that it was well documented that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism and accused Iran of fighting a proxy war against the US in Iraq. Whether Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism depends on whether you consider Hezbollah terrorists or a legitimate political movement. And I have yet to see the evidence - which the US constantly says it has but does not reveal - of what Iran is doing in Iraq. But if they are fighting a proxy war there - well, who lives in the region, them or us?
Bollinger said he doubted Ahmadinejad would have the intellectual courage to answer these attacks. I have seen no indication that Ahmadinejad lacks any sort of courage. If he did, he wouldn't have pissed so many people off. Here was Ahmadinejad's response to that comment: "In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty. Nonetheless, I shall not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment."
Sounds pretty intellectually courageous to me. Although I doubt it's true.
Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is absurd, of course. (Although he went on to say that if the Holocaust did occur, Palestinians should not have to pay the price for it - not an unreasonable position in a truly moral world, although unfortunately the Palestinians have been selected to pay the price, and for the protection of Jews, somebody had to pay it.) And I have no idea whether there are homosexuals in Iran - one would assume there would have to be, but they may be pretty well closeted, considering conditions. But there are other things Ahmadinejad said which should not be so easily dismissed.
For example: "If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question other people who just want nuclear power?" Well, we are the self-appointed defenders of the world against Islamofascism - although the only people I've heard talking about using nukes these days are American. Ahmadinejad said he saw no reason to build nuclear weapons; if they were worth anything, he said, Russia would have used them in Afghanistan. That is a very simplistic - and possibly disingenuous - statement; nukes are a weapon against geography, and there were no targets in Afghanistan. There are plenty of reasons Iran might want to build nukes - not the least of which are the threats coming out of the US. Whether or not we are heading into a long-term "clash of civilizations," if America thinks we are, Iran would be wise to prepare for same.
He said Iran could not recognize Israel "because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and usurpation and it consistently threatens its neighbors." All true, folks - though Israel is not unique in the region on that. Under the same argument, the US could refuse to recognize a Palestinian state. But you have to wonder what Iran really thinks - how much of what Ahmadinejad says is simply posturing, and how much of it represents the views of the Iranian population. I don't think it's wise for the US to condemn another nation and threaten it with war because it elected a jerk to its presidency. There's a tit for that tat.
There was much else in the New York Times' article on the Columbia visit. On the whole, it's my impression that it was Ahmadinejad who behaved like an adult - a somewhat warped adult, true, but engaging on the issues. Bollinger was the infant. Shame on him.
In an interview with the AP, Ahmadinejad said:
Iran holds no violent intentions against the US, Israel or its neighbors; it is not providing weapons in Iraq, supporting terrorism or developing nuclear weapons. He said the problems in the Middle East can be settled through dialogue, good will and free elections. He believes talks with the US will be fruitful if both sides are honest and serious. He ruled out a first-strike against Israel and does not believe the US will attack Iran - he thinks that's just election talk. He pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency is inspecting Iranian nuclear facilities on an ongoing basis. He said Iran would not provide weapons in Iraq because insecurity in Iraq and Afghanistan undermines Iran's national security.
Whether all this is true or not, it's the sort of rational comment I would love to hear from the people who claim to be governing us.
Bollinger went on to say that it was well documented that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism and accused Iran of fighting a proxy war against the US in Iraq. Whether Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism depends on whether you consider Hezbollah terrorists or a legitimate political movement. And I have yet to see the evidence - which the US constantly says it has but does not reveal - of what Iran is doing in Iraq. But if they are fighting a proxy war there - well, who lives in the region, them or us?
Bollinger said he doubted Ahmadinejad would have the intellectual courage to answer these attacks. I have seen no indication that Ahmadinejad lacks any sort of courage. If he did, he wouldn't have pissed so many people off. Here was Ahmadinejad's response to that comment: "In Iran, tradition requires when you invite a person to be a speaker, we actually respect our students enough to allow them to make their own judgment, and don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in with a series of complaints to provide vaccination to the students and faculty. Nonetheless, I shall not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment."
Sounds pretty intellectually courageous to me. Although I doubt it's true.
Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial is absurd, of course. (Although he went on to say that if the Holocaust did occur, Palestinians should not have to pay the price for it - not an unreasonable position in a truly moral world, although unfortunately the Palestinians have been selected to pay the price, and for the protection of Jews, somebody had to pay it.) And I have no idea whether there are homosexuals in Iran - one would assume there would have to be, but they may be pretty well closeted, considering conditions. But there are other things Ahmadinejad said which should not be so easily dismissed.
For example: "If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question other people who just want nuclear power?" Well, we are the self-appointed defenders of the world against Islamofascism - although the only people I've heard talking about using nukes these days are American. Ahmadinejad said he saw no reason to build nuclear weapons; if they were worth anything, he said, Russia would have used them in Afghanistan. That is a very simplistic - and possibly disingenuous - statement; nukes are a weapon against geography, and there were no targets in Afghanistan. There are plenty of reasons Iran might want to build nukes - not the least of which are the threats coming out of the US. Whether or not we are heading into a long-term "clash of civilizations," if America thinks we are, Iran would be wise to prepare for same.
He said Iran could not recognize Israel "because it is based on ethnic discrimination, occupation and usurpation and it consistently threatens its neighbors." All true, folks - though Israel is not unique in the region on that. Under the same argument, the US could refuse to recognize a Palestinian state. But you have to wonder what Iran really thinks - how much of what Ahmadinejad says is simply posturing, and how much of it represents the views of the Iranian population. I don't think it's wise for the US to condemn another nation and threaten it with war because it elected a jerk to its presidency. There's a tit for that tat.
There was much else in the New York Times' article on the Columbia visit. On the whole, it's my impression that it was Ahmadinejad who behaved like an adult - a somewhat warped adult, true, but engaging on the issues. Bollinger was the infant. Shame on him.
In an interview with the AP, Ahmadinejad said:
Iran holds no violent intentions against the US, Israel or its neighbors; it is not providing weapons in Iraq, supporting terrorism or developing nuclear weapons. He said the problems in the Middle East can be settled through dialogue, good will and free elections. He believes talks with the US will be fruitful if both sides are honest and serious. He ruled out a first-strike against Israel and does not believe the US will attack Iran - he thinks that's just election talk. He pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency is inspecting Iranian nuclear facilities on an ongoing basis. He said Iran would not provide weapons in Iraq because insecurity in Iraq and Afghanistan undermines Iran's national security.
Whether all this is true or not, it's the sort of rational comment I would love to hear from the people who claim to be governing us.
Monday, September 24, 2007
GROW UP
Anti-war activists who are castigating Democrats for being complicit in the continuation of the Iraq war are making a huge political mistake - even if they are right.
They are enabling the pundits to make the case that there is no difference between Republican and Democratic guilt on the war - therefore removing the primary incentive for voting Democratic.
The truth is that the only way this war is going to be ended voluntarily by the US is through the replacement of a large percentage of obstructive Republican congressmen. The 2008 congressional election is at least as important as the presidential race. Republicans must be reduced to a powerless contingent which can be safely ignored when important progressive legislation is at stake.
What anti-war activists - particularly moveon.org - have to do is: forget about making any significant changes for the duration of this Congress and Bush's term. The national publicity must be kept up, but the money and time and efforts should be dedicated to working on the state level to change the color of Congress, as well as attacking Republican presidential candidates as "more of the same." They need to reocgnize that they are dealing with something we didn't have to deal with on Vietnam (other than Nixon, of course) - a large contingent of completely unscrupulous, idelogically driven and well-funded Republicans who cannot be expected to do anything other than what they already do.
I don't want to hear any more anti-Pelosi talk from activists when there are hundreds of targets they need to take on and remove from office.
The anti-war movement needs to grow up, and do it fast. But I should add that I suspect that the Democrats have not done enough by way of sitting down with these activists to convince them that they will do the right thing when they have the votes. This all seems so simple to me. Why is it not happening?
They are enabling the pundits to make the case that there is no difference between Republican and Democratic guilt on the war - therefore removing the primary incentive for voting Democratic.
The truth is that the only way this war is going to be ended voluntarily by the US is through the replacement of a large percentage of obstructive Republican congressmen. The 2008 congressional election is at least as important as the presidential race. Republicans must be reduced to a powerless contingent which can be safely ignored when important progressive legislation is at stake.
What anti-war activists - particularly moveon.org - have to do is: forget about making any significant changes for the duration of this Congress and Bush's term. The national publicity must be kept up, but the money and time and efforts should be dedicated to working on the state level to change the color of Congress, as well as attacking Republican presidential candidates as "more of the same." They need to reocgnize that they are dealing with something we didn't have to deal with on Vietnam (other than Nixon, of course) - a large contingent of completely unscrupulous, idelogically driven and well-funded Republicans who cannot be expected to do anything other than what they already do.
I don't want to hear any more anti-Pelosi talk from activists when there are hundreds of targets they need to take on and remove from office.
The anti-war movement needs to grow up, and do it fast. But I should add that I suspect that the Democrats have not done enough by way of sitting down with these activists to convince them that they will do the right thing when they have the votes. This all seems so simple to me. Why is it not happening?
WHY?
The hatred, even contempt, between Republicans and Democrats, or progressives and conservatives (generically - I don't contend that every adherent to one of these despises adherents of the other) seems to me at least as intense as Shia-Sunni hatred, beginning on the Republican side and spreading to Democrats. So why aren't Americans assassinating each other? Where is the difference between the conflicts?
Is it that the Shia-Sunni conflict is so much older? I don't think so. The basis for all these hatreds is probably inculcated in kids, who don't care - or may not even know - how long they've been going on.
Is it that the Shia-Sunni conflict is religious? There are a lot of religious aspects to the American conflict, too.
Is it that so many Americans don't see politics as relevant to their lives? That would eliminate many combatants, but doesn't explain why the people who do participate aren't murdering each other.
I suspect that despite our murder rate, Americans have accepted the general proposition that violence is no way to resolve disputes. That is certainly true in the political arena. It betokens a high level of civilization even in the least of us - whoever that is.
What do you think?
Is it that the Shia-Sunni conflict is so much older? I don't think so. The basis for all these hatreds is probably inculcated in kids, who don't care - or may not even know - how long they've been going on.
Is it that the Shia-Sunni conflict is religious? There are a lot of religious aspects to the American conflict, too.
Is it that so many Americans don't see politics as relevant to their lives? That would eliminate many combatants, but doesn't explain why the people who do participate aren't murdering each other.
I suspect that despite our murder rate, Americans have accepted the general proposition that violence is no way to resolve disputes. That is certainly true in the political arena. It betokens a high level of civilization even in the least of us - whoever that is.
What do you think?
WORTHLESS
Condoleeza Rice today expressed hope that key Arab nations would attend a Mideast Peace Conference hosted by Bush later this fall.
Must not be too important, though. Otherwise we would have insisted they attend. Like Carter, Clinton, Bush One did.
What Rice actually said was: "We hope that the invitations would include ..." certain Arab countries. I.e., she's hoping not that they come but that they get invited. Isn't she issuing the invitations? Or has she left it to someone else? What good is she, anyway? If I were she, I would find my own behavior humiliating.
Perhaps the most amazing thing she said was that the US was holding the conference because it was taking advantage of expressed interest in Israel and among the Palestinians in actually resolving the issues between them. I.e., the US has sat around holding its dick rather than pushing the parties toward peace. Actually, it's been holding Israel's dick. Actually, there has been no new expression of interest in peace. Actually, there's an election coming up here, and somebody's figured out Rice has been getting paid for doing nothing for over six years.
Donald Rumsfeld has been given a teaching position at Stanford. People are protesting. Wait til this worthless woman tries to go home.
Must not be too important, though. Otherwise we would have insisted they attend. Like Carter, Clinton, Bush One did.
What Rice actually said was: "We hope that the invitations would include ..." certain Arab countries. I.e., she's hoping not that they come but that they get invited. Isn't she issuing the invitations? Or has she left it to someone else? What good is she, anyway? If I were she, I would find my own behavior humiliating.
Perhaps the most amazing thing she said was that the US was holding the conference because it was taking advantage of expressed interest in Israel and among the Palestinians in actually resolving the issues between them. I.e., the US has sat around holding its dick rather than pushing the parties toward peace. Actually, it's been holding Israel's dick. Actually, there has been no new expression of interest in peace. Actually, there's an election coming up here, and somebody's figured out Rice has been getting paid for doing nothing for over six years.
Donald Rumsfeld has been given a teaching position at Stanford. People are protesting. Wait til this worthless woman tries to go home.
AMAZING
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Al Gore and the leaders of 80 nations met at the UN today to discuss global warming. Bush didn't go. He did, however, attend a little dinner thrown by the UN Secretary General, and Thursday and Friday he's going to run his own global warming summit with 16 nations attending.
It's so Bush. These two events prove two crucial points: that Bush believes that we are (or he is) too important to meet on an equal basis with the rest of the world, and that if we're not running the conference, it isn't worth going to. In both cases, because he wants to control the agenda and not be compelled in the slightest to honor anyone else's ideas.
That's how we got into the war, isn't it? Amazing. What an asshole.
Bush will never learn. I hope we do.
It's so Bush. These two events prove two crucial points: that Bush believes that we are (or he is) too important to meet on an equal basis with the rest of the world, and that if we're not running the conference, it isn't worth going to. In both cases, because he wants to control the agenda and not be compelled in the slightest to honor anyone else's ideas.
That's how we got into the war, isn't it? Amazing. What an asshole.
Bush will never learn. I hope we do.
REASON ENOUGH
Ahmadinejad has come to New York, he says, because Americans have been denied "correct information" and he wants to give them a chance to hear a different voice.
Well, he's certainly right about that.
The AP reports there are protests, but they don't say who's protesting. (I will bet, however, that you can guess.) It also reported that 40 elected officials and civic leaders decried his visit. As to the elected officials, what a surprise! We don't elect people willing to buck (or lead) public opinion, even when that opinion may be demonstrably whacked. As to the civic leaders, who are they, exactly? Once you know that, you know where the protests are coming from and what they really mean.
They wouldn't let him go to Ground Zero, too. Politicians said this would violate sacred ground. They must have been New Yorkers, who tend to believe that all of Manhattan is sacred since 9/11. And who am I to disagree? What city has better restaurants and more millionaires? But it does make you wonder, doesn't it, why the Japanese don't bar Americans from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Which brings up another point: exactly why would Ahmadinejad violate this sacred space? They're not trying to say Iranians blew up the towers, are they? Everybody knows it was Saddam Hussein.
He can't go there either because we don't like him, or he's a Muslim, or both. Never mind that Iran is Shia and al Qaeda is Sunni. How would we know those two sects have been implacable enemies?
This is what Bush has done to us, and the world. And we're too stupid to understand.
Ahmadinejad said he wanted to go to Ground Zero because "usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps air your views about the root causes of such incidents." No, dude, you don't go there to air your views. Does anyone go to Lourdes to say that Jesus doesn't heal? Whether he truly wants to pay respects or wants a good photo op is something we'll never know now. But we could have asked the same question of Bush in 2001.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman asked this question: "What kind of damage will the U.S. face by Ahmadinejad visiting the site?" The answer is: the same kind of damage America faced when Janet Jackson showed us her tit. We'd throw a tantrum. That's reason enough.
Well, he's certainly right about that.
The AP reports there are protests, but they don't say who's protesting. (I will bet, however, that you can guess.) It also reported that 40 elected officials and civic leaders decried his visit. As to the elected officials, what a surprise! We don't elect people willing to buck (or lead) public opinion, even when that opinion may be demonstrably whacked. As to the civic leaders, who are they, exactly? Once you know that, you know where the protests are coming from and what they really mean.
They wouldn't let him go to Ground Zero, too. Politicians said this would violate sacred ground. They must have been New Yorkers, who tend to believe that all of Manhattan is sacred since 9/11. And who am I to disagree? What city has better restaurants and more millionaires? But it does make you wonder, doesn't it, why the Japanese don't bar Americans from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Which brings up another point: exactly why would Ahmadinejad violate this sacred space? They're not trying to say Iranians blew up the towers, are they? Everybody knows it was Saddam Hussein.
He can't go there either because we don't like him, or he's a Muslim, or both. Never mind that Iran is Shia and al Qaeda is Sunni. How would we know those two sects have been implacable enemies?
This is what Bush has done to us, and the world. And we're too stupid to understand.
Ahmadinejad said he wanted to go to Ground Zero because "usually you go to these sites to pay your respects. And also to perhaps air your views about the root causes of such incidents." No, dude, you don't go there to air your views. Does anyone go to Lourdes to say that Jesus doesn't heal? Whether he truly wants to pay respects or wants a good photo op is something we'll never know now. But we could have asked the same question of Bush in 2001.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman asked this question: "What kind of damage will the U.S. face by Ahmadinejad visiting the site?" The answer is: the same kind of damage America faced when Janet Jackson showed us her tit. We'd throw a tantrum. That's reason enough.
EGOMANIAC
The pundits are now calling Alan Greenspan a hypocrite because he supported Bush's tax cuts knowing what they would result in. They're right, but they're just about as late as Greenspan's Bush condemnation. Here's what I've said about Greenspan here, and when I said it.
2/17/05 - And when are we going to get rid of Greenspan? He's a shill for his own industry, has no credibility and is probably verging on senile dementia by now.
3/4/05 - Yes yes yes! I've been saying it, and now he's proved it: Alan Greenspan is a secret agent for the GOP! (This was a long post and bears re-reading in its entirety.)
4/23/05 - Now that Alan Greenspan has come out of the closet and declared himself a supporter of radical right financial proposals, can't we treat him with the same contempt we have for the rest of them?
8/27/05 - According to the Washington Post, "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Friday that recent gains in U.S. home prices, stock values and other forms of wealth may be temporary and could easily erode if long-term interest rates rise."
"At the conference's opening session Friday, Greenspan was lauded by current and former colleagues and other analysts for his performance and wisdom as Fed chief. "When the score is toted up, we think he has a legitimate claim to being the greatest central banker who ever lived," wrote former Fed vice chairman Alan S. Blinder and Ricardo Reis, both Princeton University economists, in a paper presented Friday."
Excuse me? Just who is the guy who's been raising interest rates around here? Oh, I know Greenspan can only raise short-term interest rates - but if they continue to go up, it would be financial idiocy to keep long-term rates low.
8/27/06 - Home sales are down. Prices soon will be. The only dispute is as to whether there will be a crash or a "soft landing.
This is the second time in recent years that the Federal Reserve has implemented a bubble and then brought it down, by manipulating interest rates. They implemented this bubble by drastically dropping interest rates, and they have implemented the crash by raising them.
Since they did the same thing in the dot com bubble, it can't be reasonably suggested that the Fed didn't know exactly what result it would produce. It's also hard to believe that the Fed could not have figured out an interest rate policy that would have been more moderate, less rote and knee-jerk, and prevented both bubbles and the subsequent crashes. So it has to be true that the Fed intended to create these bubbles, and then to pop them. Why?
Because people with a lot of money are making money at both ends, first by feeding the bubble and then by picking up the scraps of the crash. The only people who get hurt by bubbles or crashes are little people who don't have the inside knowledge to invest more wisely.
This is why I have said Alan Greenspan was a rat.
Call me an egomaniac, but I conclude if you want to understand world affairs you ought to be reading this blog.
2/17/05 - And when are we going to get rid of Greenspan? He's a shill for his own industry, has no credibility and is probably verging on senile dementia by now.
3/4/05 - Yes yes yes! I've been saying it, and now he's proved it: Alan Greenspan is a secret agent for the GOP! (This was a long post and bears re-reading in its entirety.)
4/23/05 - Now that Alan Greenspan has come out of the closet and declared himself a supporter of radical right financial proposals, can't we treat him with the same contempt we have for the rest of them?
8/27/05 - According to the Washington Post, "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Friday that recent gains in U.S. home prices, stock values and other forms of wealth may be temporary and could easily erode if long-term interest rates rise."
"At the conference's opening session Friday, Greenspan was lauded by current and former colleagues and other analysts for his performance and wisdom as Fed chief. "When the score is toted up, we think he has a legitimate claim to being the greatest central banker who ever lived," wrote former Fed vice chairman Alan S. Blinder and Ricardo Reis, both Princeton University economists, in a paper presented Friday."
Excuse me? Just who is the guy who's been raising interest rates around here? Oh, I know Greenspan can only raise short-term interest rates - but if they continue to go up, it would be financial idiocy to keep long-term rates low.
8/27/06 - Home sales are down. Prices soon will be. The only dispute is as to whether there will be a crash or a "soft landing.
This is the second time in recent years that the Federal Reserve has implemented a bubble and then brought it down, by manipulating interest rates. They implemented this bubble by drastically dropping interest rates, and they have implemented the crash by raising them.
Since they did the same thing in the dot com bubble, it can't be reasonably suggested that the Fed didn't know exactly what result it would produce. It's also hard to believe that the Fed could not have figured out an interest rate policy that would have been more moderate, less rote and knee-jerk, and prevented both bubbles and the subsequent crashes. So it has to be true that the Fed intended to create these bubbles, and then to pop them. Why?
Because people with a lot of money are making money at both ends, first by feeding the bubble and then by picking up the scraps of the crash. The only people who get hurt by bubbles or crashes are little people who don't have the inside knowledge to invest more wisely.
This is why I have said Alan Greenspan was a rat.
Call me an egomaniac, but I conclude if you want to understand world affairs you ought to be reading this blog.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
GIVE ME A CLUE
So I'm listening to a podcast of NPR's Washington Week with Gwen Ifill - and who are her sponsors? Boeing - a major defense contractor - and the National Mining Association which is ... well, you know what it is. And they actually get to deliver pitches for themselves! Not like the old days, when financial support to NPR got you a one-line acknowledgement.
What is going on here? NPR and these sorts of guys used to be sworn enemies. I understand why NPR's doing it - they're half broke. But what does it mean, beside that? Are these guys trying to endear themselves to NPR's liberal audience? (I don't think so.) Or is this what the Bush administration has brought to NPR - financing so antithetical to NPR's mission that if NPR says something these guys don't like, they pull the plug on NPR? Is this the usual war by other means?
Somebody give me a clue here.
What is going on here? NPR and these sorts of guys used to be sworn enemies. I understand why NPR's doing it - they're half broke. But what does it mean, beside that? Are these guys trying to endear themselves to NPR's liberal audience? (I don't think so.) Or is this what the Bush administration has brought to NPR - financing so antithetical to NPR's mission that if NPR says something these guys don't like, they pull the plug on NPR? Is this the usual war by other means?
Somebody give me a clue here.
Friday, September 21, 2007
THANKS
Anybody listening to Leiberman lately? Like when he asked Petraeus if it was time for us to send troops into Iran?
Thank you, Connecticut. I hope you have a productive Yom Kippur. You're going to need it, and besides, you owe it to Joe.
Thank you, Connecticut. I hope you have a productive Yom Kippur. You're going to need it, and besides, you owe it to Joe.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
MAYBE WE SHOULD FORGET IT
I hate to put it this way, but the death of Abdul Sattar Abu Risha may be the best thing, from America's POV, that has happened in Iraq. Sunni tribals are so pissed they are going to go after al Qaeda in a big way. The outcome is likely to be that al Qaeda ceases to be a factor in Iraq. When that happens, Bush runs out of fear-mongering ploys, and it may be possible to move toward a political solution simply by stopping the al Qaeda talk.
Or so we can hope. Of course, what this means is that what America does or doesn't do in Iraq plays no part in the ultimate resolution of the conflict. Which should have been obvious some time ago. Iraqis will end this war, if they want it to end. They will set up a political structure when they want to. That may be after a bloodbath, but it's their bloodbath and if they want to have it, why shouldn't they?
The one suggestion I've heard that makes a lot of sense is that the US should now be planning for the evacuation of Iraqis, when we leave, who have either been of service or could serve as the "seeds" of a democratic Iraq. We've done this before, in Vietnam. Maybe this time we won't have to be throwing choppers into the sea and abandoning people who've been loyal to us. On the other hand, who are you going to trust to make these plans? Maybe we should forget it until the next presidency.
Or so we can hope. Of course, what this means is that what America does or doesn't do in Iraq plays no part in the ultimate resolution of the conflict. Which should have been obvious some time ago. Iraqis will end this war, if they want it to end. They will set up a political structure when they want to. That may be after a bloodbath, but it's their bloodbath and if they want to have it, why shouldn't they?
The one suggestion I've heard that makes a lot of sense is that the US should now be planning for the evacuation of Iraqis, when we leave, who have either been of service or could serve as the "seeds" of a democratic Iraq. We've done this before, in Vietnam. Maybe this time we won't have to be throwing choppers into the sea and abandoning people who've been loyal to us. On the other hand, who are you going to trust to make these plans? Maybe we should forget it until the next presidency.
FASCISM?
Why is air travel so disgusting today?
Because the government stopped regulating the airlines, and the airlines sole concern is their bottom line. Nobody cares about the passengers.
I recognize that many airlines are having trouble making a profit. But answers to their problems should not include "screw the passenger."
What I'm hoping is that, if things continue to get worse, people start concluding that they'd rather stay put than subject themselves to the miserable flying experience. I have. I don't want to fly anymore.
Here are two more don'ts, while I'm at it:
Unless they were literally defrauded, don't bail out people who made dumb real estate decisions. I realize we are now in the habit of bailing out stupidity - Bush and Halliburton come to mind. But come on, if you don't hit the jackpot when you're playing slots, you don't look to the government to provide it to you. I know Americans are highly risk-averse, but that pertains to personal safety, not financial. Worse, a bailout only encourages predatory lenders to create a whole new batch of so-called victims; and if it doesn't do that, it encourages more building, which isn't exactly what we need. A green building is better than one that wasn't, but the greenest thing is to LEAVE THE LAND ALONE.
And -
Don't give immunity to the telecommunications firms who fed private information to the government. They knew what they were doing. They didn't have to do it. If they had wanted to protect themselves from lawsuits alleging illegality, they could have brought the issue up to Congress before they stampeded themselves into complying with Bush and Cheney and Gonzalez et al. If they had, we'd have known about it long before we did. Republicans always say they are about individual responsibility - but although they insist a corporation should be treated like an individual before the law, they don't seem to hold corporations responsible for anything.
I was going to say that this is a fascist attitude, but I looked at a number of online definitions of the word and almost none of them defined fascism the way I remember it. Most dictionaries now define a fascist government as authoritarian, brutal, racist.
For example, Merriam Webster online: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
Now, fascist governments certainly can be guilty of all of the above. But so were the Soviet Communists, and no one could call them fascists. The above is a definition (and a pretty loose one) of "totalitarianism," not fascism. If we are defining fascism like that, it's no wonder the Repubs call bin Laden an Islamofascist.
There was one definition of "fascism" online which I could respect: "a political system in which all power of government is vested in a person or group with no other power to balance and limit the activities of the government. Fascist governments are often closely associated with large corporations and sometimes with extreme nationalism and racist activities. Modern fascism is often called "CORPORATISM"."
What defined fascism in Italy (where it was invented) was a partnership of government and corporations to press all activities, and all individuals, into the service of the state. It worked the same way in Germany; it was Hitler's excesses in other areas (like actions against the Jews) that, in the course of sloppy lexicological thinking, led the definition to its current one.
That definition I like? Sounds like Republicans. I'll apply it to bin Laden when he goes corporate.
Because the government stopped regulating the airlines, and the airlines sole concern is their bottom line. Nobody cares about the passengers.
I recognize that many airlines are having trouble making a profit. But answers to their problems should not include "screw the passenger."
What I'm hoping is that, if things continue to get worse, people start concluding that they'd rather stay put than subject themselves to the miserable flying experience. I have. I don't want to fly anymore.
Here are two more don'ts, while I'm at it:
Unless they were literally defrauded, don't bail out people who made dumb real estate decisions. I realize we are now in the habit of bailing out stupidity - Bush and Halliburton come to mind. But come on, if you don't hit the jackpot when you're playing slots, you don't look to the government to provide it to you. I know Americans are highly risk-averse, but that pertains to personal safety, not financial. Worse, a bailout only encourages predatory lenders to create a whole new batch of so-called victims; and if it doesn't do that, it encourages more building, which isn't exactly what we need. A green building is better than one that wasn't, but the greenest thing is to LEAVE THE LAND ALONE.
And -
Don't give immunity to the telecommunications firms who fed private information to the government. They knew what they were doing. They didn't have to do it. If they had wanted to protect themselves from lawsuits alleging illegality, they could have brought the issue up to Congress before they stampeded themselves into complying with Bush and Cheney and Gonzalez et al. If they had, we'd have known about it long before we did. Republicans always say they are about individual responsibility - but although they insist a corporation should be treated like an individual before the law, they don't seem to hold corporations responsible for anything.
I was going to say that this is a fascist attitude, but I looked at a number of online definitions of the word and almost none of them defined fascism the way I remember it. Most dictionaries now define a fascist government as authoritarian, brutal, racist.
For example, Merriam Webster online: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
Now, fascist governments certainly can be guilty of all of the above. But so were the Soviet Communists, and no one could call them fascists. The above is a definition (and a pretty loose one) of "totalitarianism," not fascism. If we are defining fascism like that, it's no wonder the Repubs call bin Laden an Islamofascist.
There was one definition of "fascism" online which I could respect: "a political system in which all power of government is vested in a person or group with no other power to balance and limit the activities of the government. Fascist governments are often closely associated with large corporations and sometimes with extreme nationalism and racist activities. Modern fascism is often called "CORPORATISM"."
What defined fascism in Italy (where it was invented) was a partnership of government and corporations to press all activities, and all individuals, into the service of the state. It worked the same way in Germany; it was Hitler's excesses in other areas (like actions against the Jews) that, in the course of sloppy lexicological thinking, led the definition to its current one.
That definition I like? Sounds like Republicans. I'll apply it to bin Laden when he goes corporate.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
BARNEY
A prisoner at Guantanamo was forced to listen to Eminem played at ear-splitting level 24 hours a day for weeks. If that isn't torture, I don't know what is. Matter of fact, even a couple of solid weeks of "Good Vibrations" could ruin your month.
They also used Barney the Dinosaur's music that way. Does that explain why so many American kids are mindless?
They also used Barney the Dinosaur's music that way. Does that explain why so many American kids are mindless?
FOOD OR FREEDOM?
At Florida Atlantic University, students were offered free food if they gave up their First Amendment rights for one day.
Those who took the food were ushered into an area representing a fictional country with no First Amendment. They were not allowed to sit together because there was no freedom of assembly. They were told they couldn't file grievances when they complained they were not allowed to eat what they wanted. They were not allowed to use their cell phones.
Some of them got the message.
It's sad that it takes something like this to make college students understand what the First Amendment is ... but better late than never. Several other Florida universities will be repeating the event. It's a good idea, and it should go national. It would also help if the schools' curricula were designed to teach students what they HAVE to know.
Those who took the food were ushered into an area representing a fictional country with no First Amendment. They were not allowed to sit together because there was no freedom of assembly. They were told they couldn't file grievances when they complained they were not allowed to eat what they wanted. They were not allowed to use their cell phones.
Some of them got the message.
It's sad that it takes something like this to make college students understand what the First Amendment is ... but better late than never. Several other Florida universities will be repeating the event. It's a good idea, and it should go national. It would also help if the schools' curricula were designed to teach students what they HAVE to know.
DOLE
I see a headline that says "Dole issues worldwide recall of bagged salad mix" and I think ... Dole works for Viagra. They don't make salad.
I'm media stupefied.
I'm media stupefied.
ANYWAY
Iraq is throwing out Blackwater USA, which fields mercenaries to protect US diplomats, for shooting eight civilians after a car bomb attack.
Condoleeza Rice, hoping to head this off - after all, if Blackwater is gone, more soldiers will have to come in - has promised to hold wrongdoers accountable. Yeah, like she did after all the other Blackwater shootings.
But I guess she'll stop Maliki from throwing them out, because Maliki never does anything anyway.
Condoleeza Rice, hoping to head this off - after all, if Blackwater is gone, more soldiers will have to come in - has promised to hold wrongdoers accountable. Yeah, like she did after all the other Blackwater shootings.
But I guess she'll stop Maliki from throwing them out, because Maliki never does anything anyway.
Monday, September 17, 2007
NOT GOOD
Which religion gives you the easiest way to get to Heaven?
Islam: You have to pray a lot. You have to obey a lot of rules. You have to make a pilgrimage. You have to fast days for a whole month (although you can stuff yourself all night.) You might have to kill people. You might have to kill yourself. Islam is very difficult.
Catholicism: You have to confess your sins. All of them. On a regular basis. You have to do penance. In the old days you could buy your way into Heaven; now you can't - although plopping cash in the basket doesn't hurt.
Evangelical Christianity: You have to accept Christ as your Saviour. That's about it.
Judaism: Not sure there is a Heaven. If there is, you ought to repent on Yom Kippur, although there are no guarantees - God still makes the decision, and it doesn't have to be a just one. Some Jews believe you have to obey a lot of rules - but they're not sure that gets you to Heaven, either.
The best parts of Judaism have nothing to do with Heaven. They are rules for dealing with other people. I'm not talking about the rules that say Jews are better than everyone else. I'm talking about the Golden Rule. Christians have this rule, too - although in their case if you follow it you have a better chance of salvation. I believe Islam has the same rule, too - but it isn't much emphasized. You have to hunt to find it. Most people don't.
The problem is all these religions, these days, are becoming like Islam. They focus on God, not people. That's not good.
Islam: You have to pray a lot. You have to obey a lot of rules. You have to make a pilgrimage. You have to fast days for a whole month (although you can stuff yourself all night.) You might have to kill people. You might have to kill yourself. Islam is very difficult.
Catholicism: You have to confess your sins. All of them. On a regular basis. You have to do penance. In the old days you could buy your way into Heaven; now you can't - although plopping cash in the basket doesn't hurt.
Evangelical Christianity: You have to accept Christ as your Saviour. That's about it.
Judaism: Not sure there is a Heaven. If there is, you ought to repent on Yom Kippur, although there are no guarantees - God still makes the decision, and it doesn't have to be a just one. Some Jews believe you have to obey a lot of rules - but they're not sure that gets you to Heaven, either.
The best parts of Judaism have nothing to do with Heaven. They are rules for dealing with other people. I'm not talking about the rules that say Jews are better than everyone else. I'm talking about the Golden Rule. Christians have this rule, too - although in their case if you follow it you have a better chance of salvation. I believe Islam has the same rule, too - but it isn't much emphasized. You have to hunt to find it. Most people don't.
The problem is all these religions, these days, are becoming like Islam. They focus on God, not people. That's not good.
A TEST
India wanted to dredge a shipping channel between it and Sri Lanka. The Archaeological Survey of India pointed out the shoals were the result of several millenia of wave action and sedimentation. But no, right-wing Hindus claim this is an insult to their beliefs that Rama built these shoals with the help of the monkey god Hanuman. Now they're in the streets.
Here's your two-part test:
(1) name as many religions as you can which do not have a contingent of fundamentalist whackos.
(2) explain why fundamentalist whackos have become so prominent in so many religions at the same time.
Here's your two-part test:
(1) name as many religions as you can which do not have a contingent of fundamentalist whackos.
(2) explain why fundamentalist whackos have become so prominent in so many religions at the same time.
WHAT?
Allegedly there has been an attack in Iraq on a State Department motorcade which was guarded by private contractors - i.e., mercenaries.
This is the real secret of Iraq: Bush has a private army there whose forces probably come close to equaling our military contingency.
If the motivation for pulling out troops is to allow Iraqis to resolve their political differences themselves, in whatever way and with whatever means they want to, then the contractors need to be pulled out too. If the motivation for pulling out troops is to stop the killing of American troops, there's no need to pull out the contractors. They are voluntarily in Iraq; they should not be the subjects of our concern.
It's a potential have-your-cake-and-eat-it scenario. Democrats could easily say that by pulling out troops we protect our boys and girls and yet maintain the necessary presence in Iraq. They don't say that. They never mention these contractors. That leaves them vulnerable to the false attack that they are putting Iraq at risk.
Why don't they discuss these contractors? What's going on that we don't know?
This is the real secret of Iraq: Bush has a private army there whose forces probably come close to equaling our military contingency.
If the motivation for pulling out troops is to allow Iraqis to resolve their political differences themselves, in whatever way and with whatever means they want to, then the contractors need to be pulled out too. If the motivation for pulling out troops is to stop the killing of American troops, there's no need to pull out the contractors. They are voluntarily in Iraq; they should not be the subjects of our concern.
It's a potential have-your-cake-and-eat-it scenario. Democrats could easily say that by pulling out troops we protect our boys and girls and yet maintain the necessary presence in Iraq. They don't say that. They never mention these contractors. That leaves them vulnerable to the false attack that they are putting Iraq at risk.
Why don't they discuss these contractors? What's going on that we don't know?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
YOUR LOSS
Up until a short while ago I could get podcasts of NYT columnists like Rich, Dowd and Krugsman. Now they're gone, in accordance with the NYT's insistence that we have to pay to read their stuff.
Here's some news for the NYT: I always found them informative, but I don't need to read them. I can pretty much figure things out for myself. If you want to limit your own influence, go ahead. But I ain't paying to hear or read a point of view I already know and could write myself.
It's your loss, not mine.
Here's some news for the NYT: I always found them informative, but I don't need to read them. I can pretty much figure things out for myself. If you want to limit your own influence, go ahead. But I ain't paying to hear or read a point of view I already know and could write myself.
It's your loss, not mine.
WHAT ARE THEY DOING?
A fairly recent blog at Huffington Post points out that 24% of American women have taken an all-female vacation recently, and 40% plan to do so.
All-male vacations (hunting-type things) used to be the norm, until women started bitching about being excluded from things. Now women want to exclude men from things. This is a sign that women feel the war has been won - they are moving beyond equality to dominance and role reversal. And they may be right.
Here's what I've been thinking about: what are they doing with their girlfriends on those trips? Since I postulated some time ago that this country was moving to a place where women have decided they don't need men for sex ... well ... you get the idea.
All-male vacations (hunting-type things) used to be the norm, until women started bitching about being excluded from things. Now women want to exclude men from things. This is a sign that women feel the war has been won - they are moving beyond equality to dominance and role reversal. And they may be right.
Here's what I've been thinking about: what are they doing with their girlfriends on those trips? Since I postulated some time ago that this country was moving to a place where women have decided they don't need men for sex ... well ... you get the idea.
THE BLAME
Getting back to my theory that the Republicans have set up the next president (likely a Democrat) for defeat after four years, Hale Stewart blogs at Huffington Post that they have accomplished the same result by running the deficit so high and allowing the value of the dollar to drop so low that the next president will have to raise taxes and cut essential spending, making him or her about as unpopular as can be.
Again, the answer is the same: place the blame where it belongs.
Again, the answer is the same: place the blame where it belongs.
OVER
Social and religious conservatives are holding a presidential debate in Fort Lauderdale. Nobody's showing up except Huckabee and Ron Paul.
If Ron Paul didn't go, the whole idea would be absurd. Exactly what are they going to debate? They're all claiming the same values. All you'd hear would be "I agree" or, at the most, "I have better values." What a colossal bore.
Goodbye, Christians. You're just about over - as soon as we get The Idiot out of there.
If Ron Paul didn't go, the whole idea would be absurd. Exactly what are they going to debate? They're all claiming the same values. All you'd hear would be "I agree" or, at the most, "I have better values." What a colossal bore.
Goodbye, Christians. You're just about over - as soon as we get The Idiot out of there.
WOW
Several thousand marched in Washington against the war.
Next thing you know, Jimi Hendrix will rise from the dead.
Next thing you know, Jimi Hendrix will rise from the dead.
TOO LATE?
The AP reports Hamas is training for an expected IsraelI attack in the Gaza Strip after Palestinians fired rockets from there into southern Israel.
One assumes if Hamas didn't want to be attacked it would stop firing rockets into Isreal. One assumes, therefore, that Hamas wants to be attacked, their assumption being that it won't take much resistance on their part to trigger a new anti-Israel response in much of the Arab world and even get them sympathy from non-Arabs. Or they might think they can pull off what Hezbollah did in Lebanon - that is, declare victory over Israel by simply surviving Israeli attack.
This is not going to stop any time soon. It's not going to stop until moderates take control of Hamas - the likelihood of which is pretty slim - or Israel wipes them out completely. But I am quite certain Israel was aware when they handed over the Gaza Strip that they were still going to get rocketed from there. That doesn't make the decision to withdraw a bad one.
Israel's problem is that it cannot agree on where its national interests lie - no surprise there; these are after all Jews. If, for religious reasons, its national interest lies in retaining the West Bank and Gaza, that can only be accomplished militarily. Israel will have to accept war until every Palestinian capable of resistance has been killed. It doesn't make for a very nice lifestyle. But then God will reward in Paradise.
If economic reasons are advanced for holding these territories, I would have to call that delusional. Israel can succeed economically inside its old borders. This argument is like New Jersey saying it can only succeed if it annexes part of Pennsylvania and New York. If good brains were being annexed along with the territory, you might concede some logic to the plan. But I don't expect Israel is going to benefit from annexing a whole lot of Arab brains.
If security reasons are advanced for holding these territories, I would have to call that delusional as well. It doesn't matter much whether armed people who hate you are under your direct control or outside your fence. Modern technology being what is, even the Atlantic ocean is not a sufficient barrier to hold off the barbarians. And the Irish attacks on Britain tend to prove that direct control does not much reduce the threat.
If, as I believe, it is Israel's national interest to live in peace, that interest calls for a withdrawal from the West Bank (although I would support Israeli retention of Jerusalem), and a focus on regional economic development, particularly sufficient Palestinian development that Palestinians would have no reason except "honor" to insist on the return of former Palestinian land inside Israel. Israel needs to cooperate, and to have the guts to attempt a long-term solution, something it has never really done.
That's not to say this plan would work in the short term. Maybe not even long term, depending on how stupid the Arabs are about it. If Palestinians are not interested in what Israel would have to offer, Israel's best course would be to ignore Palestinians - accepting what damage Palestinians will continue to inflict and concentrating on Israel's own well-being. If you can't turn Huns into democrats, best thing is to leave them alone. Sooner or later, one hopes, after they've festered long enough, some Palestinians might figure out there is a better way.
That is, unless it's already too late.
One assumes if Hamas didn't want to be attacked it would stop firing rockets into Isreal. One assumes, therefore, that Hamas wants to be attacked, their assumption being that it won't take much resistance on their part to trigger a new anti-Israel response in much of the Arab world and even get them sympathy from non-Arabs. Or they might think they can pull off what Hezbollah did in Lebanon - that is, declare victory over Israel by simply surviving Israeli attack.
This is not going to stop any time soon. It's not going to stop until moderates take control of Hamas - the likelihood of which is pretty slim - or Israel wipes them out completely. But I am quite certain Israel was aware when they handed over the Gaza Strip that they were still going to get rocketed from there. That doesn't make the decision to withdraw a bad one.
Israel's problem is that it cannot agree on where its national interests lie - no surprise there; these are after all Jews. If, for religious reasons, its national interest lies in retaining the West Bank and Gaza, that can only be accomplished militarily. Israel will have to accept war until every Palestinian capable of resistance has been killed. It doesn't make for a very nice lifestyle. But then God will reward in Paradise.
If economic reasons are advanced for holding these territories, I would have to call that delusional. Israel can succeed economically inside its old borders. This argument is like New Jersey saying it can only succeed if it annexes part of Pennsylvania and New York. If good brains were being annexed along with the territory, you might concede some logic to the plan. But I don't expect Israel is going to benefit from annexing a whole lot of Arab brains.
If security reasons are advanced for holding these territories, I would have to call that delusional as well. It doesn't matter much whether armed people who hate you are under your direct control or outside your fence. Modern technology being what is, even the Atlantic ocean is not a sufficient barrier to hold off the barbarians. And the Irish attacks on Britain tend to prove that direct control does not much reduce the threat.
If, as I believe, it is Israel's national interest to live in peace, that interest calls for a withdrawal from the West Bank (although I would support Israeli retention of Jerusalem), and a focus on regional economic development, particularly sufficient Palestinian development that Palestinians would have no reason except "honor" to insist on the return of former Palestinian land inside Israel. Israel needs to cooperate, and to have the guts to attempt a long-term solution, something it has never really done.
That's not to say this plan would work in the short term. Maybe not even long term, depending on how stupid the Arabs are about it. If Palestinians are not interested in what Israel would have to offer, Israel's best course would be to ignore Palestinians - accepting what damage Palestinians will continue to inflict and concentrating on Israel's own well-being. If you can't turn Huns into democrats, best thing is to leave them alone. Sooner or later, one hopes, after they've festered long enough, some Palestinians might figure out there is a better way.
That is, unless it's already too late.
INFANTILE
I am not going to read Robert Draper's Book - I've heard all about Bush that I want to hear - but comments in reviews lead me to ask: have we ever had a president as infantile as Georgie? This is a little man in a great big suit.
ESTHER
Madonna is in Israel for a Kabbalah conference. Shimon Peres is entertaining her. Israel will take all the help it can get.
Oh, yeah, she's changed her name to Esther.
Oh, yeah, she's changed her name to Esther.
GOOD THING
Arctic ice has dropped to its lower level ever, a half million square miles less than in 2005. About 1/3 of the ice covering has disappeared in two years.
But not to worry. This is great news for the cruise industry, because ships going from Europe to Asia can cut right through the polar regions and not have to sail all the way down to the Panama Canal and use up all that oil. Not only that, it's suspected that 25% of the earth's undiscovered oil and gas are under there. So we'll have plenty of fuel to run our air conditioners when the temperature in NY hits 120 degrees.
See? Global warming is a really good thing.
But not to worry. This is great news for the cruise industry, because ships going from Europe to Asia can cut right through the polar regions and not have to sail all the way down to the Panama Canal and use up all that oil. Not only that, it's suspected that 25% of the earth's undiscovered oil and gas are under there. So we'll have plenty of fuel to run our air conditioners when the temperature in NY hits 120 degrees.
See? Global warming is a really good thing.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
LOGIC
Some North Koreans visited Syria. The American government says that they were there to give the Syrians nuclear equipment.
They cite absolutely no evidence for this conclusion.
This is a classic logic fallacy: A has nuclear technology, A visits B, therefore A is giving B nuclear technology. The only way this thinking "works" - in some weird way - is if you add one more element: that we hate A and B.
It's sort of like this proposition: we hate al Qaeda. We hate Iraq. We're going to attack Iraq because we hate al Qaeda.
Or this one, based on a direct quote from the American spokesman: North Korea is bad. Iran is bad. Iraqis are bad. North Koreans are in Iraq and Iran. Therefore something really bad must be going on.
I'm not one to credit Syrians for saying anything true - they're as likely as any Arab to fantasize - but their comment this time that these accusations are a "new American spin to cover up" for Israel's attack on Syria last month may be worth more scrutiny than those American accusations.
As long as our government insists on making unsupported accusations, we have no business believing anything they say.
They cite absolutely no evidence for this conclusion.
This is a classic logic fallacy: A has nuclear technology, A visits B, therefore A is giving B nuclear technology. The only way this thinking "works" - in some weird way - is if you add one more element: that we hate A and B.
It's sort of like this proposition: we hate al Qaeda. We hate Iraq. We're going to attack Iraq because we hate al Qaeda.
Or this one, based on a direct quote from the American spokesman: North Korea is bad. Iran is bad. Iraqis are bad. North Koreans are in Iraq and Iran. Therefore something really bad must be going on.
I'm not one to credit Syrians for saying anything true - they're as likely as any Arab to fantasize - but their comment this time that these accusations are a "new American spin to cover up" for Israel's attack on Syria last month may be worth more scrutiny than those American accusations.
As long as our government insists on making unsupported accusations, we have no business believing anything they say.
HOW ABOUT YOU?
In response to attempts to get Congress to pass national catastrophe insurance for people whose property is destroyed by wild weather, intended to spread the risk of loss across the entire American population, the Bush administration says: you chose to live where you live, you pay the price. Particularly including very high insurance premiums.
The response targets coastal Florida residents who have been badly hit by hurricanes in the past few years and whose homeowners' insurance premiums have gone through the roof. You chose to live on the coast, it says; you have to pay for the risk.
At first hand there seems to be a certain logic to the position, particularly if you built recently in a hurricane zone. But it's really typical Republican stuff. Here's what it really means:
1) As for coastal Florida, according to Bush, you only get to live there if you're rich enough to afford exorbitant premiums. I.e., Bush's position is a part of the class war he's been waging since the day he got into office.
2) It's another denigration of the social contract - i.e., according to Bush, nobody owes anything to anyone except themselves. There is no shared responsibility. This is the same reasoning behind his attempted destruction of Social Security, and is a fundamental tenet of Republicanism, particularly as practice by the Texas-inspired. You might point out that we have national flood insurance which shifts the risk of flood loss to the population as a whole - but if you did that Bush might wake up and do away with it.
3) It's what the insurance companies want him to say. They certainly do not want to see another program which hurts their profits on homeowners insurance, particularly in catastrophe-prone districts where they charge big premiums and pay out little or nothing.
I just want to point out that the people whose houses got blown away by tornadoes in Kansas chose to live where they live, too. I guess they won't be getting any help. And as climate change wrenches our weather system loose and bizarre weather events start happening everywhere (as they already are), a whole lot of people are going to be hurt by Bush's position. But then we're not supposed to believe in climate change. And we've already seen how much Bush cares about people, in New Orleans - where national castrophe insurance would have been a Godsend.
The guy is just an evil shit. How about you?
The response targets coastal Florida residents who have been badly hit by hurricanes in the past few years and whose homeowners' insurance premiums have gone through the roof. You chose to live on the coast, it says; you have to pay for the risk.
At first hand there seems to be a certain logic to the position, particularly if you built recently in a hurricane zone. But it's really typical Republican stuff. Here's what it really means:
1) As for coastal Florida, according to Bush, you only get to live there if you're rich enough to afford exorbitant premiums. I.e., Bush's position is a part of the class war he's been waging since the day he got into office.
2) It's another denigration of the social contract - i.e., according to Bush, nobody owes anything to anyone except themselves. There is no shared responsibility. This is the same reasoning behind his attempted destruction of Social Security, and is a fundamental tenet of Republicanism, particularly as practice by the Texas-inspired. You might point out that we have national flood insurance which shifts the risk of flood loss to the population as a whole - but if you did that Bush might wake up and do away with it.
3) It's what the insurance companies want him to say. They certainly do not want to see another program which hurts their profits on homeowners insurance, particularly in catastrophe-prone districts where they charge big premiums and pay out little or nothing.
I just want to point out that the people whose houses got blown away by tornadoes in Kansas chose to live where they live, too. I guess they won't be getting any help. And as climate change wrenches our weather system loose and bizarre weather events start happening everywhere (as they already are), a whole lot of people are going to be hurt by Bush's position. But then we're not supposed to believe in climate change. And we've already seen how much Bush cares about people, in New Orleans - where national castrophe insurance would have been a Godsend.
The guy is just an evil shit. How about you?
Friday, September 14, 2007
A DIFFERENT LOOK AT IRAQ
Let's take a different look at Iraq:
The long term possible consequences of the invasion of Iraq are every bit as disastrous as the Republicans say they are. Iraq may become a haven for terrorists. It may become either a Shia or Sunni Islamic state (We could live with a Shia state, I believe; we have lived with Iran for nearly thirty years and the consequences have not been so bad. On the other hand, if Iraq becomes a Sunni Islamic state, like Saudi Arabia, we face attack from essentially al Qaeda-ist terrorists.) It could become an Iranian satrapy, putting a very large portion of the world's oil supplies in Iranian hands. And I'm sure there are other potential disasters that haven't occurred to anyone yet.
To really attempt to avoid these disasters takes an American administration truly dedicated to the American national interest, willing to speak the truth not only to Americans but to the rest of the world, and possessing the skill and intelligence to decide what needs to be done, including diplomatic and international efforts and effective chess-playing, and the will to do it. That does not describe the present administration.
George Bush is going to be president for another year. In view of the fact that the military are, in this administration, the only at least partially effective means being used to keep those disasters from occurring, it makes absolutely no sense to withdraw troops now. You do that and you take away from people who have no interest in statesmanship and no way but arms to influence events the only tool they have to at least try to keep us safe.
In fact, for reasons I have laid out in recent posts, this administration has no interest in reducing conflict and making us safer beyond the borders of Bush's term (and for that period only because they don't want to take the blame for a disaster.) It may want to stabilize Iraq for economic reasons, but it certainly has no interest in eliminating terrorism. I suspect Republicans are convinced the next president will be a Democrat. They intend to hand the mess over to him or her lock, stock and barrel. That president may change the mission of our troops but will not be able to withdraw troops until he or she has had a year or two to pursue strategic analysis, diplomacy and other non-military means to stabilize the Middle Eastern regime. It is also probable that that president will be so beholden to the Israel lobby that it will not be able to address that particular irritant.
Republicans anticipate - I might say hope - that Iraq-related disasters will occur during that president's first term. Having been cleansed of George Bush, Republicans can then elect a president and resume the implementation of the plan I've outlined in the last few days.
This is very good strategic thinking. If they wanted to apply such intelligence to solving the problems they created by invading Iraq, I'll bet they could do so. But they don't want to do that. They want the problems to remain.
So Democrats are playing a fool's game when they concentrate on the issue of withdrawing the troops. A lot can happen between February and November, and my bet is that a Democrat who is determined to withdraw the troops is going to look pretty bad come election day.
What Democrats should be doing - for their own and the nation's survival - is making certain the country understands and never forgets who is responsible for getting us into this mess.
The long term possible consequences of the invasion of Iraq are every bit as disastrous as the Republicans say they are. Iraq may become a haven for terrorists. It may become either a Shia or Sunni Islamic state (We could live with a Shia state, I believe; we have lived with Iran for nearly thirty years and the consequences have not been so bad. On the other hand, if Iraq becomes a Sunni Islamic state, like Saudi Arabia, we face attack from essentially al Qaeda-ist terrorists.) It could become an Iranian satrapy, putting a very large portion of the world's oil supplies in Iranian hands. And I'm sure there are other potential disasters that haven't occurred to anyone yet.
To really attempt to avoid these disasters takes an American administration truly dedicated to the American national interest, willing to speak the truth not only to Americans but to the rest of the world, and possessing the skill and intelligence to decide what needs to be done, including diplomatic and international efforts and effective chess-playing, and the will to do it. That does not describe the present administration.
George Bush is going to be president for another year. In view of the fact that the military are, in this administration, the only at least partially effective means being used to keep those disasters from occurring, it makes absolutely no sense to withdraw troops now. You do that and you take away from people who have no interest in statesmanship and no way but arms to influence events the only tool they have to at least try to keep us safe.
In fact, for reasons I have laid out in recent posts, this administration has no interest in reducing conflict and making us safer beyond the borders of Bush's term (and for that period only because they don't want to take the blame for a disaster.) It may want to stabilize Iraq for economic reasons, but it certainly has no interest in eliminating terrorism. I suspect Republicans are convinced the next president will be a Democrat. They intend to hand the mess over to him or her lock, stock and barrel. That president may change the mission of our troops but will not be able to withdraw troops until he or she has had a year or two to pursue strategic analysis, diplomacy and other non-military means to stabilize the Middle Eastern regime. It is also probable that that president will be so beholden to the Israel lobby that it will not be able to address that particular irritant.
Republicans anticipate - I might say hope - that Iraq-related disasters will occur during that president's first term. Having been cleansed of George Bush, Republicans can then elect a president and resume the implementation of the plan I've outlined in the last few days.
This is very good strategic thinking. If they wanted to apply such intelligence to solving the problems they created by invading Iraq, I'll bet they could do so. But they don't want to do that. They want the problems to remain.
So Democrats are playing a fool's game when they concentrate on the issue of withdrawing the troops. A lot can happen between February and November, and my bet is that a Democrat who is determined to withdraw the troops is going to look pretty bad come election day.
What Democrats should be doing - for their own and the nation's survival - is making certain the country understands and never forgets who is responsible for getting us into this mess.
HUNDRED YEARS WAR
Now I see it. Remarkable.
George Bush invades Iraq, destabilizes the country and puts our oil supply in jeopardy. No president will want to be the guy who lost the oil. The oil will remain in jeopardy until Islam reforms itself - about as likely as evangelical christianity calming down.
The Republican plan has succeeded. We have a new Hundred Years War.
George Bush invades Iraq, destabilizes the country and puts our oil supply in jeopardy. No president will want to be the guy who lost the oil. The oil will remain in jeopardy until Islam reforms itself - about as likely as evangelical christianity calming down.
The Republican plan has succeeded. We have a new Hundred Years War.
WE STAY
There are two parts to George Bush's plan for Iraq.
The first is to bring home 30,000 troops by July. He says he can do this because the Surge is working. The 30,000 troops represent the amount sent over in the Surge. One assumes that the Surge has not so altered the situation in Iraq that those troops are not still necessary to pursue its aims. So either Bush is going to need to bring those troops right back to Iraq, as soon as he brings them home - or the Surge never accomplished anything and those troops will not be - and have not been - needed for any useful purpose.
The second is to establish an "enduring relationship" between Iraq and America. He says Iraq's leaders have asked for one. Who might that be? Question 1: who are Iraq's leaders? Maliki? Come on. Sadr? Sure, but I bet he hasn't asked for an enduring relationship. Some Kurd? Probably, and the enduring relationship he wants is to keep both the Shia and Sunni from messing with Kurds.
Bush calls Iraq our "essential ally." He still thinks he's going to create a friendly democracy in Iraq. Neither is likely. He says Iraq needs us because it is fighting for its survival against al Qaeda-ish terrorists. I don't think anyone in Iraq is fighting for its survival - but if anyone is, it's against us, not terrorists.
He wants a formal defense pact aimed at providing enduring US help in combating terrorists and extremists seeking to topple the government, dominate the oil of the Persian Gulf and reverse democratic gains America has secured.
This is all fantasy on a Harry Potter scale. What Iraqi government is he going to sign a defense pact with? When things are sorted out there, Shia-Sunni-wise, the odds are good whoever wins is not going to want a defense pact with us, and likely will not need it. The question is, are they going to be able to get out of it if Maliki signs away Iraqi sovereignty. Will it take a war for them to get us out? Probably, if a Republican succeeds Bush.
The "democratic gains" America has secured are irrelevant as far as Iraqis are concerned. Sooner or later they will create the governing system they want. What I'd like is to force Bush to live under it. Maybe we could buy him a big "ranch" outside Tikrit, plant it with a lot of brush to cut if it doesn't have any ...
There's one nugget of truth in what Bush says. We aren't going to let bad people get the oil. That's why we've been in Iraq, and why we're going to stay - and why no president will ever bring the troops home: because no president will want to be remembered as the guy who lost the oil. And no Congressman either, when push comes to shove.
Will Bush be remembered as the guy who put the oil in jeopardy? Aah, you never know what spin can do.
The first is to bring home 30,000 troops by July. He says he can do this because the Surge is working. The 30,000 troops represent the amount sent over in the Surge. One assumes that the Surge has not so altered the situation in Iraq that those troops are not still necessary to pursue its aims. So either Bush is going to need to bring those troops right back to Iraq, as soon as he brings them home - or the Surge never accomplished anything and those troops will not be - and have not been - needed for any useful purpose.
The second is to establish an "enduring relationship" between Iraq and America. He says Iraq's leaders have asked for one. Who might that be? Question 1: who are Iraq's leaders? Maliki? Come on. Sadr? Sure, but I bet he hasn't asked for an enduring relationship. Some Kurd? Probably, and the enduring relationship he wants is to keep both the Shia and Sunni from messing with Kurds.
Bush calls Iraq our "essential ally." He still thinks he's going to create a friendly democracy in Iraq. Neither is likely. He says Iraq needs us because it is fighting for its survival against al Qaeda-ish terrorists. I don't think anyone in Iraq is fighting for its survival - but if anyone is, it's against us, not terrorists.
He wants a formal defense pact aimed at providing enduring US help in combating terrorists and extremists seeking to topple the government, dominate the oil of the Persian Gulf and reverse democratic gains America has secured.
This is all fantasy on a Harry Potter scale. What Iraqi government is he going to sign a defense pact with? When things are sorted out there, Shia-Sunni-wise, the odds are good whoever wins is not going to want a defense pact with us, and likely will not need it. The question is, are they going to be able to get out of it if Maliki signs away Iraqi sovereignty. Will it take a war for them to get us out? Probably, if a Republican succeeds Bush.
The "democratic gains" America has secured are irrelevant as far as Iraqis are concerned. Sooner or later they will create the governing system they want. What I'd like is to force Bush to live under it. Maybe we could buy him a big "ranch" outside Tikrit, plant it with a lot of brush to cut if it doesn't have any ...
There's one nugget of truth in what Bush says. We aren't going to let bad people get the oil. That's why we've been in Iraq, and why we're going to stay - and why no president will ever bring the troops home: because no president will want to be remembered as the guy who lost the oil. And no Congressman either, when push comes to shove.
Will Bush be remembered as the guy who put the oil in jeopardy? Aah, you never know what spin can do.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
HONOR
The Republican excuses for not leaving Iraq now include the insistence that we need peace with honor - that is, an honorable way to get out. This was precisely Nixon's language re Vietnam, which resulted in our staying there until we couldn't any longer, Nixon declared "peace with honor" and we left.
There is no real relationship between the concepts of "honor" and "Republicanism." Republicans know what the word means, and they don't care about it. The concept of "honor" is what keeps Arabs killing each other (what they're really talking about is "respect") and, as Colbert pointed out, what kept the Confederacy going two years after it should have quit our civil war. The stupider Republicans believe this shit. The smarter ones are using it to seduce those fools who believe there is any honor left in America's involvement in Iraq - or in fact in just about any aspect of American life or policy. It's just another tool to push the plan.
There is no real relationship between the concepts of "honor" and "Republicanism." Republicans know what the word means, and they don't care about it. The concept of "honor" is what keeps Arabs killing each other (what they're really talking about is "respect") and, as Colbert pointed out, what kept the Confederacy going two years after it should have quit our civil war. The stupider Republicans believe this shit. The smarter ones are using it to seduce those fools who believe there is any honor left in America's involvement in Iraq - or in fact in just about any aspect of American life or policy. It's just another tool to push the plan.
CONTINUING THE PLAN
If I were a Republican who wanted to make sure that the plan was continued, who would I support for President?
Romney is an arrogant opportunist with no moral sense who will say anything to get elected. Right now he's my liar, but would he stay that way? I would be afraid that his interests could diverge from mine on the basis of nothing more than what side of the bed he woke up on. I wouldn't give him my support.
Thompson will do anything to make money. As a Republican I would be concerned that he could be bought by the wrong people.
Giuliani, on the other hand, really believes - in his occasional moments of mental competence - in the propaganda on which I have built my plan. He too is a little arrogant, stubborn, convinced of his own worth, more likely to follow his own way than mine and more likely to perceive that I'm manipulating him. But he's the best of a bad bunch, and he's the way I'd go.
Step one: I'd spend my time convincing evangelicals that staying alive on earth - at least until the Rapture - is more important than repressing gays, or being faithful to your wife, or stopping abortions. In other words, I would pursue the plan.
Anyone who thinks even sincere evangelicals will not vote for Giuliani because of his social beliefs - if they're even genuine - is deluding himself. These are the people on whom the plan works best of all. Less sincere evangelicals (like Michael Vick) will sell out their "principles" for almost anything. Count on Giuliani taking the nomination and having the support of the terrified.
Romney is an arrogant opportunist with no moral sense who will say anything to get elected. Right now he's my liar, but would he stay that way? I would be afraid that his interests could diverge from mine on the basis of nothing more than what side of the bed he woke up on. I wouldn't give him my support.
Thompson will do anything to make money. As a Republican I would be concerned that he could be bought by the wrong people.
Giuliani, on the other hand, really believes - in his occasional moments of mental competence - in the propaganda on which I have built my plan. He too is a little arrogant, stubborn, convinced of his own worth, more likely to follow his own way than mine and more likely to perceive that I'm manipulating him. But he's the best of a bad bunch, and he's the way I'd go.
Step one: I'd spend my time convincing evangelicals that staying alive on earth - at least until the Rapture - is more important than repressing gays, or being faithful to your wife, or stopping abortions. In other words, I would pursue the plan.
Anyone who thinks even sincere evangelicals will not vote for Giuliani because of his social beliefs - if they're even genuine - is deluding himself. These are the people on whom the plan works best of all. Less sincere evangelicals (like Michael Vick) will sell out their "principles" for almost anything. Count on Giuliani taking the nomination and having the support of the terrified.
THE PLAN
Why is there a war on terror?
You can't win elections in America if your avowed program and goal is to shift wealth from the poor and middle class to the upper 1 or 2 percent, and to erode democratic protections to that end. What you have to do is distract people from seeing what you're doing. The best way to do that is to make them afraid.
Some people can be made to be afraid of homosexuals, or Jews, or "liberals", or Mexicans. That doesn't work on most people - the ones who are able to think. To make them afraid, you need a military enemy. Preferably one whom you can make people believe is able to and wants to hurt many Americans, one whose entire goal in life is to hurt every American. Preferably one with staying power, so you can keep Americans afraid for decades. Preferably one with a lot of people. Preferably one that sneaks around. Preferably one which can be believed to be hiding in every little town.
Republicans like to take credit for the fall of Communism. But that fall created a huge problem for Republicans - they had nothing to hide behind. Hence eight years of Bill Clinton. Republicans were desperate to replace the Communists with another enemy. Osama bin Laden gave them that chance.
Terrorists have for a long time been considered criminal, and action against them was taken within a criminal justice system. You need to take this campaign against bin Laden out of the concept of criminal behavior and make it a war. How do you do that? You remove justice system protections from terrorists. You set up another system to deal with them, one which is under the control of the military, not civilians. Most of all, you say over and over that this is war.
But a war against bin Laden wouldn't serve. There were not enough real al Qaeda, and al Qaeda didn't have the military power to be a real, encompassing threat. Al Qaeda could have been destroyed in under a year. But if they did that, the Republicans would be in trouble again. They needed to widen the enemy.
A war against Islamic fundamentalists? Better. But still a problem, because this enemy was not quite broad enough, A war against Islam? Still better, still broader. But the best? A war against terror.
The concept of a "war on terror" allows the "enemy" to be replaced when necessary, constantly replenished. Perpetual.
How do you expand the war on bin Laden into a war on terror?
You begin, of course, with rhetoric. Using the phrase over and over alters reality. But that's only the beginning.
If the war against bin Laden was to be expanded, it was important that the core of that hostility - bin Laden himself - remain alive as a source of fear. I.e., you can't capture or kill him, he has to stay out there long enough for you to convince people that the threat has moved beyond just him or just al Qaeda. He has to live long enough to "create" the widening threat. So he is allowed to escape from the trap at Tora Bora and to hide in territory controlled by an ally, a place you do not dare to follow him. That's why Obama was attacked when he said he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden. To do so would be a huge threat to the Republican future.
The next thing you do is expand the enemy's numbers by alleging alliances between bin Laden and other Muslims. Hence Iraq and the allegations of a connection between Saddam and bin Laden. Tying Iraq to al Qaeda also had another advantage - it provided a target which could be defeated by conventional military means in a real war, in battles which 1) make the Republicans look good and 2) prove their thesis.
But a defeated Iraq cannot provoke fear in America. Unless you let it fester into a haven for terrorists. I.e., it was not in the Republicans' best interests to have a functioning democracy - or, indeed, any government - in defeated Iraq. The darker view is that Rumsfeld et al did not refuse to provide enough troops to pacify the country or enough money to rebuild it out of incompetence, but intentionally in order to begin to create the perpetual enemy. And to have a place from which Republicans can say people are coming to attack America.
Next, you further widen the enemy by including Iran. Never mind that it has nothing to do with bin Laden, never mind that it has a different religion, never mind everything except that it is Muslim. In case there are Americans who understand that there are many Iranians who do not hate America, it helps to bully Iran's irascible and unstable president into making direct threats against America (and Israel), and to present Iran's work toward nuclear weapons not as a matter of Iranian national pride but as a plot to obtain the means to destroy America.
By now many Americans are getting the idea that all Muslims want to do America in. The goal of Muslims, in fact, is not a positive one of self-improvement but a negative one of destroying people they are jealous of. They are obsessed with destroying America. That's all they want to do.
Now you can selectively direct America's fear toward any Muslim country, or group of Muslims, or particular Muslims, and convince us that whoever you have just named is an enemy is only the current front or the current agent for the struggle of all of Islam against America. With more than a billion Muslims in this world, we've got a big enough enemy to frighten us for years. But, if the war is against "terror", you can redefine and widen the enemy still further, including just about any apparently hostile act or actor. You get a hundred years of Republican rule.
I'm not saying this is going to work. I am saying that it was the plan. Hard to believe? Too simplistic? Tell me where I'm wrong.
You can't win elections in America if your avowed program and goal is to shift wealth from the poor and middle class to the upper 1 or 2 percent, and to erode democratic protections to that end. What you have to do is distract people from seeing what you're doing. The best way to do that is to make them afraid.
Some people can be made to be afraid of homosexuals, or Jews, or "liberals", or Mexicans. That doesn't work on most people - the ones who are able to think. To make them afraid, you need a military enemy. Preferably one whom you can make people believe is able to and wants to hurt many Americans, one whose entire goal in life is to hurt every American. Preferably one with staying power, so you can keep Americans afraid for decades. Preferably one with a lot of people. Preferably one that sneaks around. Preferably one which can be believed to be hiding in every little town.
Republicans like to take credit for the fall of Communism. But that fall created a huge problem for Republicans - they had nothing to hide behind. Hence eight years of Bill Clinton. Republicans were desperate to replace the Communists with another enemy. Osama bin Laden gave them that chance.
Terrorists have for a long time been considered criminal, and action against them was taken within a criminal justice system. You need to take this campaign against bin Laden out of the concept of criminal behavior and make it a war. How do you do that? You remove justice system protections from terrorists. You set up another system to deal with them, one which is under the control of the military, not civilians. Most of all, you say over and over that this is war.
But a war against bin Laden wouldn't serve. There were not enough real al Qaeda, and al Qaeda didn't have the military power to be a real, encompassing threat. Al Qaeda could have been destroyed in under a year. But if they did that, the Republicans would be in trouble again. They needed to widen the enemy.
A war against Islamic fundamentalists? Better. But still a problem, because this enemy was not quite broad enough, A war against Islam? Still better, still broader. But the best? A war against terror.
The concept of a "war on terror" allows the "enemy" to be replaced when necessary, constantly replenished. Perpetual.
How do you expand the war on bin Laden into a war on terror?
You begin, of course, with rhetoric. Using the phrase over and over alters reality. But that's only the beginning.
If the war against bin Laden was to be expanded, it was important that the core of that hostility - bin Laden himself - remain alive as a source of fear. I.e., you can't capture or kill him, he has to stay out there long enough for you to convince people that the threat has moved beyond just him or just al Qaeda. He has to live long enough to "create" the widening threat. So he is allowed to escape from the trap at Tora Bora and to hide in territory controlled by an ally, a place you do not dare to follow him. That's why Obama was attacked when he said he would go into Pakistan to get bin Laden. To do so would be a huge threat to the Republican future.
The next thing you do is expand the enemy's numbers by alleging alliances between bin Laden and other Muslims. Hence Iraq and the allegations of a connection between Saddam and bin Laden. Tying Iraq to al Qaeda also had another advantage - it provided a target which could be defeated by conventional military means in a real war, in battles which 1) make the Republicans look good and 2) prove their thesis.
But a defeated Iraq cannot provoke fear in America. Unless you let it fester into a haven for terrorists. I.e., it was not in the Republicans' best interests to have a functioning democracy - or, indeed, any government - in defeated Iraq. The darker view is that Rumsfeld et al did not refuse to provide enough troops to pacify the country or enough money to rebuild it out of incompetence, but intentionally in order to begin to create the perpetual enemy. And to have a place from which Republicans can say people are coming to attack America.
Next, you further widen the enemy by including Iran. Never mind that it has nothing to do with bin Laden, never mind that it has a different religion, never mind everything except that it is Muslim. In case there are Americans who understand that there are many Iranians who do not hate America, it helps to bully Iran's irascible and unstable president into making direct threats against America (and Israel), and to present Iran's work toward nuclear weapons not as a matter of Iranian national pride but as a plot to obtain the means to destroy America.
By now many Americans are getting the idea that all Muslims want to do America in. The goal of Muslims, in fact, is not a positive one of self-improvement but a negative one of destroying people they are jealous of. They are obsessed with destroying America. That's all they want to do.
Now you can selectively direct America's fear toward any Muslim country, or group of Muslims, or particular Muslims, and convince us that whoever you have just named is an enemy is only the current front or the current agent for the struggle of all of Islam against America. With more than a billion Muslims in this world, we've got a big enough enemy to frighten us for years. But, if the war is against "terror", you can redefine and widen the enemy still further, including just about any apparently hostile act or actor. You get a hundred years of Republican rule.
I'm not saying this is going to work. I am saying that it was the plan. Hard to believe? Too simplistic? Tell me where I'm wrong.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
FULL OF IT
Let's see. We ran the Sunnis out of power in Iraq, in part because (as Bush said) Saddam had been so nasty to the Shi'ites and the Kurds. And also because they were allied with al Qaeda (Sunnis.) Then we remembered that Iran was Shi'ite - so now we are arming the Sunnis so they can take the country back from the Shi'ites. We are also taking credit for convincing Sunnis to oppose al Qaeda - of course, these Sunnis were always tribal and secular and always hated al Qaeda. Oh yeah, and the Sunnis are led by tribal warlords, and one of them might turn into the next Saddam.
Do you sort of get the picture that we've wasted many lives and billions of dollars? To get where we would have been if we'd never invaded at all?
And, uh, d'ya sorta think Bush is full of shit when he says we invaded to help the Iraqis?
Do you sort of get the picture that we've wasted many lives and billions of dollars? To get where we would have been if we'd never invaded at all?
And, uh, d'ya sorta think Bush is full of shit when he says we invaded to help the Iraqis?
CAN'T DO IT RIGHT
I was thinking back to the days when Democratic political strategists were advising the party to embrace the Jesus voters in order to remain relevant. They were wrong, of course. Jesus voters did not give the Dems the House and Senate in 2006. Their advice was puerile, maybe infantile - a simple-minded prescription for victory without substance or essence, completely disregarding actuality (meaning the actual number of Jesus voters and the importance to the public of other, real issues).
Thing is, these guys are still advising the party. Once again, there is no accountability in America's upper strata. This reminds me of the days when I was in the record business, and I would watch a guy who'd gotten fired from one record company because of complete failure to develop hits get hired by another one at at least the same level. If those guys had had the polling and data analysis skills of political advisers they might have been better able to predict what record would hit. So what's the political adviser's excuse?
If they can't do it right, shouldn't they have to find another career?
Thing is, these guys are still advising the party. Once again, there is no accountability in America's upper strata. This reminds me of the days when I was in the record business, and I would watch a guy who'd gotten fired from one record company because of complete failure to develop hits get hired by another one at at least the same level. If those guys had had the polling and data analysis skills of political advisers they might have been better able to predict what record would hit. So what's the political adviser's excuse?
If they can't do it right, shouldn't they have to find another career?
MY SOLE POINT
A number of prominent Palm Beach County Jews took out a full page ad in the Palm Beach Post proclaiming support for Israel. I have no problem with supporting Israel - in principle - but I have a few problems with things said in the ad:
1) Iran rants about eliminating Israel and moves toward nuclear capacity.
Iran isn't ranting. Ahmedinejad is. Then again, so are the signers of this ad. If we Jews are so smart, shouldn't we be effectively reaching out to Iranian moderates and trying in other ways to calm Iran down, rather than reflexively berating and threatening them?
2) Hizbolla is determined to destroy Israel and take control of Lebanon.
Those are two different things. Sure, they want to control Lebanon. And for so long as there is no Palestinian settlement, they will continue to threaten Israel. Arab rhetoric is inflammatory by nature. Is it wise to match them hyperbole for hyperbole?
3) Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Israel refuses to recognize Hamas' right to exist. Both exist, nevertheless, and will continue to.
4) Islamic Jihad is recruiting hundreds of suicide-murders to kill Israelis.
How many Islamic Jihad bombers have struck in Israel? I pointed out a long time ago that the Intifada is a political and economic movement, but that the longer there is no peace around Israel the more fundamentalist it is likely to become. It's really helpful to call Palestinians jihadists, isn't it. Because they might as well be killed for a sheep as for a lamb.
5) Israel is the only democracy in the Middle Wast.
And therefore ...?
6) Israel has the highest average livintg standard in the Middle East.
With the help of a hell of a lot of American dollars. Israel is essentially the 51st state.
7) Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation in the world per capita.
Any of those not Jewish?
8) Israel has really smart people, a lot of culture and science, a great rate of entrepreneurship, a lot of Nobel prizes ...
This is describing Jews. Israelis are some Jews. We are not talking country here. We are talking race.
9) Israel has sought with determination every avenue of peace and security.
Uh .... no.
Some of the signers of this ad may be very reasonable people. Maybe they're even on the left on social issues, or in American politics. As to Israel, however, they are on the hard right - the reasons being, as I have said before, that 1) although they have no intention of ever living in Israel, they want a place they can run to if necessary; and 2) the admission that Jews can be wrong leads inevitably to another Holocaust.
My sole point right now: if neither side shows tolerance for rational analysis, why should I support either one of them?
By the way, I believe this is a particularly American problem. I think Israelis are far more rational and pragmatic - leaving aside people like Netanyahu and the religious extremists who fuel so much of this shit.
1) Iran rants about eliminating Israel and moves toward nuclear capacity.
Iran isn't ranting. Ahmedinejad is. Then again, so are the signers of this ad. If we Jews are so smart, shouldn't we be effectively reaching out to Iranian moderates and trying in other ways to calm Iran down, rather than reflexively berating and threatening them?
2) Hizbolla is determined to destroy Israel and take control of Lebanon.
Those are two different things. Sure, they want to control Lebanon. And for so long as there is no Palestinian settlement, they will continue to threaten Israel. Arab rhetoric is inflammatory by nature. Is it wise to match them hyperbole for hyperbole?
3) Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Israel refuses to recognize Hamas' right to exist. Both exist, nevertheless, and will continue to.
4) Islamic Jihad is recruiting hundreds of suicide-murders to kill Israelis.
How many Islamic Jihad bombers have struck in Israel? I pointed out a long time ago that the Intifada is a political and economic movement, but that the longer there is no peace around Israel the more fundamentalist it is likely to become. It's really helpful to call Palestinians jihadists, isn't it. Because they might as well be killed for a sheep as for a lamb.
5) Israel is the only democracy in the Middle Wast.
And therefore ...?
6) Israel has the highest average livintg standard in the Middle East.
With the help of a hell of a lot of American dollars. Israel is essentially the 51st state.
7) Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation in the world per capita.
Any of those not Jewish?
8) Israel has really smart people, a lot of culture and science, a great rate of entrepreneurship, a lot of Nobel prizes ...
This is describing Jews. Israelis are some Jews. We are not talking country here. We are talking race.
9) Israel has sought with determination every avenue of peace and security.
Uh .... no.
Some of the signers of this ad may be very reasonable people. Maybe they're even on the left on social issues, or in American politics. As to Israel, however, they are on the hard right - the reasons being, as I have said before, that 1) although they have no intention of ever living in Israel, they want a place they can run to if necessary; and 2) the admission that Jews can be wrong leads inevitably to another Holocaust.
My sole point right now: if neither side shows tolerance for rational analysis, why should I support either one of them?
By the way, I believe this is a particularly American problem. I think Israelis are far more rational and pragmatic - leaving aside people like Netanyahu and the religious extremists who fuel so much of this shit.
Friday, September 07, 2007
iPOD?
As an iPod maniac, I got as excited when Jobs announced a new iPod as I used to when a new Beatles album was coming out.
But not excited now.
Sure I would like 160 gigs of storage - I put a lot of movies on the iPod for traveling. Sure I would like a touch screen that functions like the iPhone. But I want them in one unit, not two. What Apple did was incremental, not revolutionary. So I'll have to wait for what I want - which is:
160 gigs. Bluetooth. Wifi. GPS with built-in receiver. Phone. New touchscreen technology. Ability to run other programs like ebooks, newsgator, etc. - things I now have on my Blackberry and MDA.
Put it all together and I'll buy.
But not excited now.
Sure I would like 160 gigs of storage - I put a lot of movies on the iPod for traveling. Sure I would like a touch screen that functions like the iPhone. But I want them in one unit, not two. What Apple did was incremental, not revolutionary. So I'll have to wait for what I want - which is:
160 gigs. Bluetooth. Wifi. GPS with built-in receiver. Phone. New touchscreen technology. Ability to run other programs like ebooks, newsgator, etc. - things I now have on my Blackberry and MDA.
Put it all together and I'll buy.
NO EXCUSE
Here's what's bothering me about Hillary - well, one of the things.
She claims that the reason she voted for the Iraq War was that she was misled - that she didn't know that Iraq had no WMD and that there was no al-Qaeda/Saddam connection. She says if she knew then what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted for the war. She says she trusted Bush to tell the truth on as important as matter as this.
Well -
In 2003 everyone kept saying Iraq had chemical weapons which were WMD, and the proof was that they had used them against their own countrymen. What Saddam used against Kurds etc. were tactical chemical weapons, which by no definition could be considered WMD and which they had no capacity to deliver against the US. (Israel, yes, but that's a whole nother story.)
Bush and the press were saying Saddam either had nukes or was about to get them. McClatchy was reporting serious doubts about this, and so did Hans Blix and so did the NIE (which Hillary says she didn't bother to read.)
Further, if Saddam had had nukes, what proof was there that his possession of them posed any greater danger to us than Pakistan's, or India's, or Israel's? That was a huge canard.
Serious investigation of the Bush claims was in order. Hillary did nothing. Either she was negligent or she was thinking only of her own political survival. Or she was scared to death, like most of America. None of these qualifies her for the presidency.
On the other big justification for war - Saddam's links to al Qaeda: this proposition was by definition impossible. Anyone who knew anything had to know that secular Saddam and fundamentalist al Qaeda were bitter enemies, and that al Qaeda's primary target was what they considered apostate regimes in Muslim countries - most particularly including Saddam. If there had ever been any cooperation between al Qaeda types and Saddam it would have been in the context of the Iran-Iraq (read Shi'a-Sunni) war, and would have evaporated as soon as that war was over, just as US-al Qaeda cooperation (Stinger missiles, etc.) evaporated after the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan.
If Hillary did not know this, shame on her. If she did, double shame. If she actually trusted Bush/Cheney, triple shame.
There is just no excuse.
She claims that the reason she voted for the Iraq War was that she was misled - that she didn't know that Iraq had no WMD and that there was no al-Qaeda/Saddam connection. She says if she knew then what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted for the war. She says she trusted Bush to tell the truth on as important as matter as this.
Well -
In 2003 everyone kept saying Iraq had chemical weapons which were WMD, and the proof was that they had used them against their own countrymen. What Saddam used against Kurds etc. were tactical chemical weapons, which by no definition could be considered WMD and which they had no capacity to deliver against the US. (Israel, yes, but that's a whole nother story.)
Bush and the press were saying Saddam either had nukes or was about to get them. McClatchy was reporting serious doubts about this, and so did Hans Blix and so did the NIE (which Hillary says she didn't bother to read.)
Further, if Saddam had had nukes, what proof was there that his possession of them posed any greater danger to us than Pakistan's, or India's, or Israel's? That was a huge canard.
Serious investigation of the Bush claims was in order. Hillary did nothing. Either she was negligent or she was thinking only of her own political survival. Or she was scared to death, like most of America. None of these qualifies her for the presidency.
On the other big justification for war - Saddam's links to al Qaeda: this proposition was by definition impossible. Anyone who knew anything had to know that secular Saddam and fundamentalist al Qaeda were bitter enemies, and that al Qaeda's primary target was what they considered apostate regimes in Muslim countries - most particularly including Saddam. If there had ever been any cooperation between al Qaeda types and Saddam it would have been in the context of the Iran-Iraq (read Shi'a-Sunni) war, and would have evaporated as soon as that war was over, just as US-al Qaeda cooperation (Stinger missiles, etc.) evaporated after the Soviets were driven out of Afghanistan.
If Hillary did not know this, shame on her. If she did, double shame. If she actually trusted Bush/Cheney, triple shame.
There is just no excuse.
ADDENDUM TO SLOW IT DOWN
The point of the primary process as it has been before this year was to allow a consensus to develop over time as to which candidate the public wanted - and hopefully as to which candidate could win. (That, of course, did not always work.) Watching a candidate perform in one primary after another, stretched out over five or six months, gave one a chance to get a look at them in the electoral (as opposed to PR or marketing) context, see how they did, and get a sense of what the public was really thinking. It was, theoretically, a self-correcting process. A candidate who initially stormed the gates and then proved weak, for one reason or other, could ultimately be supplanted by someone better by the time the process came to its end. Also, if over time the important issues shifted, or events occurred which called for a different conclusion than the initial one, a candidate might look better or worse and could be replaced before it was too late.
With the primaries bunched into a one or two month period, what you get is a snap shot of a particular moment in time, and a candidate selected to fit that picture. If the picture changes between the primaries and the election, there's nothing that can be done about it. This tends to benefit Republicans over Democrats - because Republican perceptions and ideas are frozen in ideology and do not change (except tactically, specifically to win an election) while Democratic positions (and voters) tend to be more pragmatic and reality-oriented. If reality changes, Democratic votes will change. Not Republican.
That's why, in my more cynical momemnts, I believe the Republicans railroaded the Democrats into moving the primaries up. (That certainly happened in Florida, where all the impetus to move up the primaries came from the state Republican party.) Republicans, being masters of the politics of destruction, know that given time they can discredit anyone put up against them. By moving up the primaries, Democrats have just given them that time.
With the primaries bunched into a one or two month period, what you get is a snap shot of a particular moment in time, and a candidate selected to fit that picture. If the picture changes between the primaries and the election, there's nothing that can be done about it. This tends to benefit Republicans over Democrats - because Republican perceptions and ideas are frozen in ideology and do not change (except tactically, specifically to win an election) while Democratic positions (and voters) tend to be more pragmatic and reality-oriented. If reality changes, Democratic votes will change. Not Republican.
That's why, in my more cynical momemnts, I believe the Republicans railroaded the Democrats into moving the primaries up. (That certainly happened in Florida, where all the impetus to move up the primaries came from the state Republican party.) Republicans, being masters of the politics of destruction, know that given time they can discredit anyone put up against them. By moving up the primaries, Democrats have just given them that time.
SLOW IT DOWN
In 2000 and 2004, Democrats nominated two good men who were notoriously bad campaigners. Bush didn't win these elections; the Democrats lost them. It was Eisenhower vs. Stevenson all over again, and even back then (though I wasn't smart enough to realize it) the results were inevitable. Democrats are good-hearted, but I really don't believe they understand elections very well.
Now I'm afraid the Dems are going to do it again.
It is delusional to believe that prejudices against blacks and women no longer exist. The 2006 election proved only that the public hated the Iraq war and Republican corruption. It said nothing about the basic long-term disputes between the parties. Polling which might suggest that a black or a woman is electable is suspect, because people are notoriously unwilling to admit to pollsters that they wouldn't, on principle, vote for either.
So to nominate Clinton or Obama is to hobble the party from the git-go. We need to remember (as their supporters don't, apparently) that the important thing is not to put one of these people in office but to make certain we don't get four or eight more years of Republican rule, particularly under any of the jerks running for the Republican nomination. Obama or Clinton might do it, but they start off with two strikes against them (Obama - black and inexperienced; Clinton - a woman and ... Bill Clinton's wife.)
Unfortunately, I do not see any Democrat who has a better chance. Edwards is just too ... nice; Biden is just too ... weird; Gravel and Kucinich may be speaking the truth, but truth alone doesn't win elections. Other than Edwards, they are not likeable. Including Edwards, they do not inspire respect.
So, my suggestion: don't speed up the primary process, slow it down. An early nomination is a bad idea anyway; give any candidate nine or ten months to put his or her case and the odds are good he or she will do something stupid, fall victim to attack politics or simply bore the public to death.
Why not give us a chance to find someone who can win?
Now I'm afraid the Dems are going to do it again.
It is delusional to believe that prejudices against blacks and women no longer exist. The 2006 election proved only that the public hated the Iraq war and Republican corruption. It said nothing about the basic long-term disputes between the parties. Polling which might suggest that a black or a woman is electable is suspect, because people are notoriously unwilling to admit to pollsters that they wouldn't, on principle, vote for either.
So to nominate Clinton or Obama is to hobble the party from the git-go. We need to remember (as their supporters don't, apparently) that the important thing is not to put one of these people in office but to make certain we don't get four or eight more years of Republican rule, particularly under any of the jerks running for the Republican nomination. Obama or Clinton might do it, but they start off with two strikes against them (Obama - black and inexperienced; Clinton - a woman and ... Bill Clinton's wife.)
Unfortunately, I do not see any Democrat who has a better chance. Edwards is just too ... nice; Biden is just too ... weird; Gravel and Kucinich may be speaking the truth, but truth alone doesn't win elections. Other than Edwards, they are not likeable. Including Edwards, they do not inspire respect.
So, my suggestion: don't speed up the primary process, slow it down. An early nomination is a bad idea anyway; give any candidate nine or ten months to put his or her case and the odds are good he or she will do something stupid, fall victim to attack politics or simply bore the public to death.
Why not give us a chance to find someone who can win?
Thursday, September 06, 2007
THEIR OWN FAULT
Manufacturers of so-called "luxury goods" should not be heard to complain about counterfeiting, since they themselves have made counterfeiting successful. Here's why:
When luxury goods were defined by great design, magnificent materials and exquisite workmanship, they could not be easily counterfeited, since to produce the counterfeit product required the same expertise as producing the original. It was just too expensive to counterfeit.
When luxury manufacturers, "democratizing" luxury, redefined these goods as symbols rather than products with their own intrinsic worth, counterfeiting became simple. If a vinyl handbag is a luxury product simply because it is stamped with, or otherwise displays, the logo of a so-called luxury manufacturer, not only is it easy to counterfeit but the counterfeit product has the same intrinsic value as the original. Only by stigmatizing the counterfeit as not having the same value as the real thing does the luxury manufacturer have the leeway to continue to charge far more for it than the counterfeit. One who buys a general market Louis Vuitton bag is buying nothing but image plus guilt and shame avoidance. The Chinese produce, for example, Breitling watch copies which look and function exactly like the original at one tenth the price. One has to thank Breitling for marketing luxury watches, and then thank the Chinese for making cheap ones that, if you lie a little, make you look just as good.
What used to be valuable in itself is now valuable only because of status-symbol marketing. So - the less-than-rich who buy this sort of "status" product gets nothing but self-validation. I suppose that's worth the price, if you're the kind of person who needs to self-validate by acquisition. But when people who can afford real quality get suckered into buying this stuff, one has to wonder about their self-esteem.
When luxury goods were defined by great design, magnificent materials and exquisite workmanship, they could not be easily counterfeited, since to produce the counterfeit product required the same expertise as producing the original. It was just too expensive to counterfeit.
When luxury manufacturers, "democratizing" luxury, redefined these goods as symbols rather than products with their own intrinsic worth, counterfeiting became simple. If a vinyl handbag is a luxury product simply because it is stamped with, or otherwise displays, the logo of a so-called luxury manufacturer, not only is it easy to counterfeit but the counterfeit product has the same intrinsic value as the original. Only by stigmatizing the counterfeit as not having the same value as the real thing does the luxury manufacturer have the leeway to continue to charge far more for it than the counterfeit. One who buys a general market Louis Vuitton bag is buying nothing but image plus guilt and shame avoidance. The Chinese produce, for example, Breitling watch copies which look and function exactly like the original at one tenth the price. One has to thank Breitling for marketing luxury watches, and then thank the Chinese for making cheap ones that, if you lie a little, make you look just as good.
What used to be valuable in itself is now valuable only because of status-symbol marketing. So - the less-than-rich who buy this sort of "status" product gets nothing but self-validation. I suppose that's worth the price, if you're the kind of person who needs to self-validate by acquisition. But when people who can afford real quality get suckered into buying this stuff, one has to wonder about their self-esteem.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
CRAZY KIDS?
A new study reported in Archives of General Psychiatry reveals that the diagnosis of bipolar disorder in kids has increased 40 times since 1994. I can think of three reasons for this:
1) Shrinks who are not gifted with insight (and I see no reason to assume the ratio of insightful people to dullards is higher in psychiatrists than in any other occupation) have come to rely on the DSM, a silly-ass, formulaic list which provides specific definitions of "mental illnesses." The DSM's primary reason for being is to provide shrinks with a method by which they can justify to insurance companies treatment they are giving to their patients. You just count up the symptoms, plug them into the list, and you get a diagnosis. In 1998 a book called The Bipolar Child made the argument that 1/3 to 1/2 of children with depression were bipolar. Less than competent shrinks just used it as an easy diagnostic tool, rather than putting in the effort of figuring their patients out. So bipolar disorder became the diagnosis applied to kids who once would have been called depressed, overactive or - God forbid - normal.
2) That book sent a message to shrinks: Aha! Something else we can charge for, something else we can use to add to our clientele. I.e., it's the money, stupid.
3) Mothers who run their kids from soccer to ballet to karate, and who plan their kids' college and career from the moment they pop out of the womb are making their kids crazy.
I think it's all three.
1) Shrinks who are not gifted with insight (and I see no reason to assume the ratio of insightful people to dullards is higher in psychiatrists than in any other occupation) have come to rely on the DSM, a silly-ass, formulaic list which provides specific definitions of "mental illnesses." The DSM's primary reason for being is to provide shrinks with a method by which they can justify to insurance companies treatment they are giving to their patients. You just count up the symptoms, plug them into the list, and you get a diagnosis. In 1998 a book called The Bipolar Child made the argument that 1/3 to 1/2 of children with depression were bipolar. Less than competent shrinks just used it as an easy diagnostic tool, rather than putting in the effort of figuring their patients out. So bipolar disorder became the diagnosis applied to kids who once would have been called depressed, overactive or - God forbid - normal.
2) That book sent a message to shrinks: Aha! Something else we can charge for, something else we can use to add to our clientele. I.e., it's the money, stupid.
3) Mothers who run their kids from soccer to ballet to karate, and who plan their kids' college and career from the moment they pop out of the womb are making their kids crazy.
I think it's all three.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
