WHERE WE'RE HEADED

MIRAGE

I am wondering whether ever in our history we have had a collection of candidates like the Republicans campaigning on nothing but bullshit. It's remarkable.

One guy believes the Bible is the literal word of God. One guy thinks we need to hate everyone who isn't us - and a lot of people who are us. One guy has switched every position he ever took, and actually thinks nobody cares about the fact that he was either lying then or lying now. One guy is a proto-fascist. One guy not only opposes the Iraq war but also just about everything government does. One guy can't think of a reason why he's even up on the platform. Their entire campaigns are based on fear: fear of terrorism, fear of homosexuals, fear of immigrant Mexicans, fear of sin ... They are so beyond ludicrous that it's ludicrous.

You look at this fantasy parade and you wonder if there is anyone out there with half a brain who is giving serious consideration to any of them. And then you look at the money they're pulling in and you realize the unfortunate answer is: yes.

America the Themepark. A mirage of democracy.

NO RESPECT

Ehud Olmert has told an interviewer that the state of Israel is finished if an independent Palestinian state is not created, leaving the alternative of a South African-style apartheid struggle.

This after American Jews have pilloried Jimmy Carter for saying the same thing.

You show me any American Jew who does not respect Carter's efforts for peace in the Middle East and I'll be looking at someone who deserves no respect from anyone.

A DEBATE FOR GROWN-UPS

Can we please have a presidential debate for grown-ups?

That would be a debate in which we don't ask questions about Jesus, Darwin, UFO's or Mexicans, and the phrase "9/11" is explicitly banned. The moderator would be someone who doesn't care about ratings or about how smart we all think he or she is. It would be nice if the moderator had enough knowledge on the discussed topics to ask the obvious follow-up questions - but in the absence of that, it would suffice if the candidates were given time to ask questions of other candidates. Only matters within the scope of the president's duties would be discussed. Any platitudes, suck-ups or pandering would be cut off at the knees. Ducked questions would be immediately re-asked. Viewers would not be left with the feeling that absolutely nothing had been clarified, or that they had just watched an hour of really bad music videos.

Who we could find to televise such a debate, I have no idea. Maybe the History Channel, since this kind of debate is just history now.

ANSWERING MY OWN QUESTION

I'm going to answer my own question about immigration.

The American South - and to a large extent the American West, which was heavily settled by Southernors looking for a future after the Civil War - has always been know-nothing, racist and both fearful and contemptuous of "the other." (Sort of the kind of thinking the Nazi mindset led to.) The South and West now are obviously less homogeneous. But evangelism in America is a product of Southern thinking, whether it's practiced by Southernors or not.

I still think we ought to have let them secede. On the other hand, we do need their willingness to volunteer for the army. And I don't know if I'd like living in the CSA, but my only other choice is the south of France. And who can afford that with the dollar where it is?

WHY ARE WE READING IT?

Two fundamental truths:

The fuss about immigration is not a security issue for anyone with the ability to think. Jihadists - so far, anyway - have not been sneaking across the Mexican border. Although they like deserts, don't they - so they certainly ought to be. Immigration, if it is related to anything real, is an economic issue. But that's phony, too. Mexicans are not taking jobs Americans want. Immigration is a fear issue, a know-nothing issue - and somehow a religious issue, since so much of the opposition is coming from evangelicals. That's the part I don't get. Can anyone explain why God would be telling us to keep the Mexicans out?

And -

A three hundred point drop on Wall Street is meaningless with the market above 12,000. It doesn't have anything to do with the macrosociological reasons the pundits give. It has to do with maneuvering and profit-taking. If you respond to the market because "housing looks bad," you're not very smart. If you respond to the market because people who aren't so smart are responding because "housing looks bad," you're a lot smarter.

Today the AP says the market jumped because "investors' renewed hope for a rate cut added to their relief that companies that made losing bets on subprime mortgages are coming up with ways to raise cash."

Really? They didn't ask me. Did they ask you?

Where do they get this crap from? And why are we reading it?

NO BOTTOM

Richard Roberts, son of Oral Roberts and president of Oral Roberts University, who has been accused of diverting university funds for his personal use while the school ran into debt, has told the school's students that God told him on Thanksgiving Day that he should resign his position. God had previously told him not to resign, saying: "We live in a litigious society. This lawsuit is about intimidation, blackmail and distortion." Apparently God has changed His mind. When Roberts told Him he wanted to strike out against the people who were persecuting him, God said: "Don't do that." God also promised he would do something supernatural for the school if Roberts stepped down.

I used to think there was a lower limit to human stupidity.

On top of the above, a Christian businessman has pledged $70 million to bail the university out. Now, if he's got $70 million, he must be pretty smart. So exactly where in his brain does the moronism live? Or is this just a cynical tax deduction?

Here's the more significant thing: Apparently at one point God was telling Roberts it was okay to steal from the university for his own lavish lifestyle. This is apparently the same advice God had been giving a lot of CEO's. If God has changed his mind on Roberts, could He have changed his mind on Wall Street? Are we going to see a rash of corporate resignations?

One more thing - it's amazing how many words Tom Friedman can use to say absolutely nothing.

REPLIGO

A tech solution -

If you have a Windows Mobile phone - which you should - download a program called Repligo (you can get it from Handango.com). Then, when you find an article on your laptop that you want to read, you print it to Repligo which deposits it on your phone. Then you don't have to sit in front of the laptop. Next time you're at the dentist, you can read the article.

This program greatly expands the functionality of Windows-based phones.

So there.

SHOWBIZ

Bush is kvelling. Israelis and Palestinians have agreed to follow "a road map to a permanent two state solution." Wow. That gets us right back to where we were when Bush took office. Amazing how much he's accomplished in seven years.

Two problems, though. 1) There was not even discussion at the Annapolis conference of any one of the issues which have been preventing peace; and 2) um .. can anything be done without Hamas?

Well, yeah! Abbas and Olmert make a treaty and when Hamas makes a fuss the two of them go after Hamas. This is absolutely guaranteed to bring peace to the region.

There's no business like show business.

LANGUAGE

Consider the following language:

"Have we reached or are we reaching the point where conscientious citizens can no longer give moral ascent to the existing regime? By the word "regime," we mean the actual existing system of government. The government of the United States of America no longer governs by the consent of the governed. What is happening now is the displacement of a Constitutional order by a regime which does not have, will not obtain, and cannot command the consent of the people. Events in America may have reached the point where the only political action we can take is some kind of direct, extra-political confrontation of the judicially-controlled regime. We need to prepare for a showdown. A social contract was the basis of the founding of the United States. If the terms of our contract have in fact been broken, citizens may be compelled to force the government to return to its original understanding. The writings of Thomas Jefferson, who spoke openly of the necessity of revolution, could also be called upon for support."

A lot of Americans are coming to these conclusions these days, and saying so - or very nearly saying so. Which is why I am so concerned about the Harmon bill I brought up in my last post. Does this language violate that bill? Remember this definition:

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

Does the bill subject the writer of the above language to criminal penalties? Or worse?

By the way -

That language, according to Jeremy Scahill, author of "Blackwater", comes not from someone on the left, but from a symposium published by First Things, the theocon journal, in November, 1996, called "The End of Democracy?" The articles explored the possibility of a Christian insurrection against the Clinton secular government, or perhaps a civil war. It discussed a range of possible actions including "morally justified revolution." The language was written by Chuck Colson.

Hey, if they can say it, why can't anyone else?

CHANGE EVERYTHING

Could y'all please stop saying "9/11 changed everything"? 9/11 didn't "change everything," except for the people in the three buildings which were attacked, and the people whose lives depended on them.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki - arguably, somewhat more significant destruction than 9/11 - didn't "change everything" (except to the extent they can be credited for ending the war.) The development of the weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki "changed everything."

Similarly, 9/11 changed nothing. It was the overreaction to 9/11 which changed everything. And it was the excuse that overreaction provided to everyone to do anything if they could claim it was directed against terrorists that changed everything.

Bin Laden didn't "change everything." We did.

PLEASE!

Tell me this incredibly horrible bill is a really late April Fool's joke - please!

Isn't there anyone left who isn't willing to throw out the Bill of Rights because of a possible threat to some Americans?

This is the most outrageous bill I have ever heard about. AND IT'S FROM THE DEMOCRATS!

The article says Harman was motivated to push this bill because of a threat to attack L.A. synagogues. For God's sake, I'm a proud Jew but will somebody please tell me why there is so often a Jewish angle to these attacks on democracy?

This bill is being cast as a challenge to homegrown jihadis. Okay - how many homegrown plots have actually been revealed? How many of those posed a real threat to America? How many of them posed a real threat to anyone?

This bill is not limited to Muslims. Here are some definitions from the bill:

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

Who defines "extremist?" Who defines "facilitating?" Or "political, religious or social change?"

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

What's defined here as "terrorism" used to be called "revolution." I thought terrorism necessarily involved attacks on civilians. Not here, though. The word "terrorism" now means "violent opposition." Where does language go from there?

Read the rest of the bill yourself. It makes me sick.

CALMING REVOLUTIONARIES

It's often noted that many Islamic fundamentalist leaders come from the technocracy, "the middle class", and are highly educated for the modern world. I haven't seen much comment on why that is. So here are my thoughts:

1) They do not come from "the middle class." They would be "middle class" in the US, but their countries, for the most part, have no middle class. "The middle class" is not a tradition in most of their countries, and to the extent it exists, it has little political clout.

2) They have few opportunities to use their education in their own countries, whose economies are not sufficiently advanced to absorb a lot of computer techs, etc. They see what people who do their work get paid in the US and Europe. Their pay is far less, if they have a job at all.

The Western view is that, with their educations, they should be attuned to and looking to be a part of the modern world, rather than retreat into ancient religious beliefs. I believe many of them would be looking for that. In Europe, particularly, I think many of them have been looking for that. But they haven't been finding it.

It is an axiom that people become revolutionaries when they have some hope, and are passive when they have none. These people's educations have given them hope, and they have been thwarted. (I think in part it may be a failing of their cultures - because Pakistanis and Indians have moved into the West and done phenomenally well with their educations. Maybe it's because these people have seen so much negativity that they approach the world with an anticipation of failure.)

3) They, more than others, have the time and the exposures to discuss radical issues, to read, to form radical opinions (rather than having them taught to them.)

4) They are precisely the type which has catalyzed every political revolution, and generally for the reasons I have outlined above. But add to that their longing for community. If rejected by the technocratic community, they will either form their own or join one which would love to have them - in this case, jihadism. I believe most of them join the jihad for the brotherhood, not because they have strong religious beliefs.

If we learned to deal with them as political revolutionaries, perhaps we might have a better chance of calming them down. After all, they wouldn't have gotten those educations if they didn't want to be part of the world. If they could use their energy and their training positively, I think they would join the rest of the world. (I think, in fact, that this is what is happening in Iran - and we are making a huge mistake by opposing it.) And if they become able, using their training positively, to reconcile it with antediluvian religious beliefs, so they can play a non-violent role in the rest of the world, why should those beliefs bother us?

NEGOTIATE

Bush says he personally will not attempt to negotiate peace at the current Annapolis conference.

Thank God. Since he doesn't know what the word "negotiate" means. Or that other necessary word - "compromise."

I hope he tells the ice-skating idiot to stay out of it, too.

RAISON D'ETRE

In a long and technical article at Huffington Post, Michael Vlahos discusses why the West is going to lose the war against non-state Islamism. Here are just a few of his points:

Islamists are fighting what he calls "a war of identity" - that is, a self-defining (and creating) war. We play into that mindset as evil and inhuman, giving them heroic status. We enable them. At the same time, Vlahos says, they are challenging our identity as world conquerors - i.e., as men. So we respond with more of the same, playing their game over and over.

Vlahos says we could change that by deconstructing our role in their story - that is, by counteracting our image as evil and inhumane in ways that the Islamists cannot deny or devalue. But we aren't doing that because our military is culturally ignorant and because it does not enter into the life of the region, but hides in its own cultural Green Zone. I might add that our civilian government is just the same.

But here's the really interesting part:

The others see globalization as stripping their lives of meaning, putting them on a course for finding new (or old) meaning, which includes seeing us as the evil-other, even as our commitment to globalization makes us see them in that way. And it is also weakening us from within. He points out that the use of volunteer armies detaches us from our collective civic commitment and "the ratifying expression of collective identity." I.e., their civic sense of self is strengthening, while ours is becoming debilitated.

So, while we feel superior to them, we are also afraid of them - and increasingly dependent on the volunteer military for our protection. So we urgently want that army to win the war to validate our self-concept (which is deconstructing anyway - there is increasingly less and less to validate.) What's left of that self-concept Vlahos describes as religious nationalism, which makes us operate precisely as we should not. Our civic self-concept is based on an illusion. If somehow our little army is lost, we have nothing left.

Unfortunately, Vlahos offers no info on how to change all this. Here are my thoughts:

America needs to be re-educated to its raison d'etre - which I see as the collective, socially responsible practice of democracy. That requires at least one charismatic leader who is primarily dedicated to that goal, as opposed to his or her own success and/or the success of those whom debts are owed to.

Then America needs a reason to return to that raison d'etre. Unfortunately, I think that reason can only be provided by bad experiences and bad times. Not the kind of bad experience that kills 3,000 New Yorkers, or the kind that kills 4,000 volunteer soldiers. The kind that threatens to make a wreck of every American's life.

I suspect the reason the current struggle has not generated a return to the raison d'etre is that Americans - despite what they say - do not really feel threatened by Islamic fundamentalism. They like saying they are threatened by it - because it gives them an easily comprehensible explanation for the malaise they feel over the loss of their raison d'etre, and because it allows them to feel engaged in defense of that lost raison d'etre - i.e., to delude themselves into thinking it isn't being lost. If the neocons who proclaim the threat don't believe in the threat themselves, what they are doing is incredibly cynical. But that would come as no surprise to me.

CONTEMPT

Every once in a while you run into a posting that says it all. Here's today's.

Politics is vicious. But here's the sad part. The put-upon, robbed and screwed should be the ones who are vicious. But instead it's the ones doing the screwing. Viciousness from them is an expression of contempt. Have we decided it's okay for them to hold us in contempt? If not, why aren't we doing something about it?

THE REAL OPRAH

Oprah is going to stump for Obama. Well.

I'm mildly curious why she chose to stump for him. I guess she'll explain that to us all. But I'm very curious as to why she has decided to stump for anyone.

Conventional wisdom has it that one in her position does not take a visible political stance for fear of alienating some of her audience. Why isn't Oprah afraId?

Is her audience mostly center and left? I doubt that. Is her audience apolitical, and simply willing to follow her wherever she leads? Some of them, certainly. But not all.

Here's the real explanation, I think. Oprah is convinced that she cannot lose her audience. She is beyond losing any part of it. And let's take it one step further. If either Hillary or Obama wins the nomination - and maybe even if they don't - in 4 to 8 years we will see Oprah (whose ambition knows no limits) run for president.

And then things will really get interesting. The goal of her opponents will be to reveal the real Oprah - and I'd just love to know who that is.

COULTER MONITOR

Ann Coulter has had her Palm Beach address removed from public records, a privilege afforded victims of stalkers or harassment.

So who stalked the queen of media stalkers? Well, nobody. Somebody left a card at her house which read, in part: "You self-aggrandizing ... sociopath! The only thing left after a nuclear war are you and cockroaches." That was enough, apparently - even though it's all true, and a lot less threatening tham half the things Coulter says on TV.

Here's the point: this guy apparently had no other way to let Coulter know what he thinks of her, contrasted to Coulter who has every way to let everyone know what she thinks of them.

Why protect her? Let's protect the guy who sent the card. Better yet, let's give him a talk show. Let's call it "Coulter Monitor." (Get it? Probably not unless you're a doc, a nurse or very sick.) Let's go after every single word she says.

I'm serious about this.

TOUGH?

There is only one reason why we need a "tough" Democrstic president in 2008 - and that is to beat back the Republicans, the Christian right and the corporatists. On that score, here's the score as I see it:

Hillary may not be so tough on the corporatists. And once the attacks on her begin in earnest, I think we may see more vindictiveness than toughness out of her.

I don't know if Obama is tough in this context, but that's a problem in itself - he's shown precious little of it in any context.

Edwards seems like the guy here. His language has been unsparing, he has not backed down an inch and I think he is genuinely interested in combating the Unholy Trio.

I'll add Biden, just because I like him. I suspect he can be quite tough, but a long Senate career, in normal times, tends to soften toughness and turn it to compromise. On the other hand, since 1994, Biden has had no one to compromise with - so maybe that early training is by the boards.

EXPLAIN

I do not understand why the media - including network evening news - is spending so much time covering how much Americans are going to spend this Christmas season.

I understand that, for a country whose economy principally consists of people selling things they didn't make, it is critically important to run people into debt to buy a bunch of transitory junk. So these figures are very important to retailers. But why do they want the consumer to know those figures? Is there some thought that consumers will recognize their duty to buy crap if they're told that America is in trouble?

And why do consumers want to know these figures? Is it to help America, or keep up with the Joneses, or what? And why do they want to know how much a movie brought in this week? What possible relevance does this have to their lives?

I'd be grateful if somebody would explain.

VERBOSE

Our local rag is running a front page series on the presidential candidates. Today it's Joe Biden, and here's the headline: "Verbosity is major flaw, critics say."

So an article which is supposed to be about Biden's experience and policy positions is headlined by a comment on his effectiveness as a candidate.

Or are they saying we can't afford a verbose president?

Well, it would be nice to have one who could put a sentence together.

If the press could distinguish between X the candidate and X the potential president, maybe we could cast an intelligent vote.

And this one was purely gratuitous. Calling Biden verbose does not sell papers.

UPDATE: they're beginning to get it.

MINI-BUSH

John Howard, Australia's mini-Bush Prime Minister, has been so soundly defeated he probably won't even keep his seat in parliament, which has happened only once before in 106 years.

Mini-America comes to its senses. Can we be far behind?

Yep.

Meanwhile, France is going the other way. But that's France.

DONALD DUCK

Why did Bush appoint Michael Brown to be head of FEMA, even though he was obviously unqualified? Because he was a crony? Yes, but no.

Bush appointed Brown because FEMA did not need a person in charge who knew emergency response. The only qualification for the head of the agency was that he be willing to push Bush's agenda of privatizing disaster response. Brown must have given Bush personal assurances on that score. If FEMA is not going to do any actual response work, but is going to contract out the work to private companies, and is not going to exercise any oversight, Bush could have appointed Donald Duck.

On second thought, he did that. Chertoff is Donald Duck. Meaning, he fails in the one task Bush has given him - to present a trustworthy public face behind which to work the dismemberment.

The other type of agency head Bush has appointed is a person who is ruthless on accomplishing the agenda. E.g., the head of the FCC - who does not care what anyone says, he is going to turn the media over to five or six corporations. And then what's left of democracy?

A friend of a friend says this is paranoid. Friend of a friend has his head up somewhere it shouldn't be.

This is predatory capitalism far worse than the robber barons. The barons at least built things of use to Americans. Current raptors build nothing - they just suck the money out.

ANY GUESSES?

Does it make any sense that globalizing and privatizing capital interests - people with big plans and heavy contacts - would not have a candidate in the Democratic primary race?

Any guesses as to who that might be?

NEVER

Listened to Bill Moyer's discussion about Blackwater with Jeremy Scahill. Scahill makes it clear that he is afraid for democracy.

I see disturbing possible parallels between Blackwater and its financiers and the Brownshirts in Germany during Weimar.

Scahill describes Eric Prince as a Christian supremacist, and who knows what he's likely to do with this private army of his? He sent Blackwater mercenaries into New Orleans on his own hook. On top of that, there were Israeli mercenaries working in New Orleans, hired by private corporate interests! These people were not just standing in front of buildings protecting them. They were out in the streets, looking for fights. Oh, Israel, look what has become of you!

I have pointed out on this post before that a disconnect is developing between big money and America as a nation. The really big money has the option - and is taking it - of divorcing itself from the fate of their home country and allying with globalized big bucks. America then becomes worth attention only if it is useful to accomplish big bucks goals - which, under Bush, it certainly has been.

One wonders what will happen if a Democrat is elected who does not want to serve the interests of big bucks. What will they do with their private armies then? What will they do with the massive control of the media Bush has given them? What will be left of us by November, 2008?

And will the destruction of our democracy continue after that? Perhaps the most important thing Scahill pointed out was that the privatization of the American government got big boosts from Bill Clinton. That's why I don't trust Hillary - I have the clear sense that she's all about money, and for that reason alone I could not vote for her. John Edwards has been pointing this out - mostly to ridicule. He says she's corrupt, and I think she is.

And I am never wrong.

HILLARY CAN BE STOPPED

Here's what the Anti-Hillary needs to do:

John Edwards has been the most important truth-teller in this campaign - including with regard to Hillary. He has been her most aggressive critic. It's also clear that Edwards does not have much of a chance of being nominated - I don't know why, since he looks good to me and his campaign has been spot-on, but it's so.

So - he and Obama should make a deal. They operate like Bush-Cheney. Obama makes the RFK pitches, and Edwards does the dirty work. Edwards gets the vice presidency. A good thing.

All this is dependent on Obama being able to stay aggressive himself in exactly the way he has been in the last few days. Maybe he can do it, maybe he can't. If not, all bets are off. But if he does, and he builds momentum, Hillary can be stopped.

REICHSTAG FIRE APPROACH

New York Times Backstory says that Musharraf claims he eliminated Pakistani democracy because an increase in suicide bombings required that he increase his power to deal with terrorism.

So do you think the Bush Administration is really calling him out on this Reichstag fire approach to the destruction of democracy? When Musharraf can respond: hey, I'm just following your example?

Sometimes reducing things to their simplest helps you to understand them.

1968

Listened (on the podcast of Chris Matthews' show) to a speech by Obama in Iowa in which he very effectively invoked JFK, RFK and MLK - not using their names but their themes and their rhetoric. And I think, if he can keep up the level of intensity, that we may be seeing a replay of 1968, where Hillary is Humphrey and Obama is RFK.

Obama's numbers are rising in Iowa, where people are seeing a lot of him. I know he's way below Hillary everywhere else, but I think that's because people in later states are not as focused as people are in Iowa. She's ahead on name recognition, women's support and the press' anointment as the front runner. But that doesn't need to stick.

If people are beginning to realize that America is in no less - perhaps more - of a crisis now than in '68, and for many of the same reasons - and if the '68 spirit begins to rise, Obama has a chance. Maybe it's a damn shame he didn't start doing this earlier, but maybe not - maybe he would have peaked too soon, as I believe Hillary has.

I'm still not convinced that Obama would make a good president. But if he keeps up his current appeal to what many Democrats are hungry for, I'll support him - if they don't shoot him first. I can't forget that Nixon won in '68, but I've always wondered what would have happened if Bobby had lived to be nominated.

At a minimum, if he becomes a clarion, we may begin to see the regrowth of the spirit which as, the Eagles put it, we haven't had since 1969.

MDA

I am unable to understand the expressed joy over new cell phones available in America.

These phones can use Bluetooth - whoop-ti-do - as if Bluetooth was a direct connection to God instead of a way, primarily, to use a wireless headset. They can play music. They can get emails. You can text on them. So what?

For years I have been using Windows-based PC phones - right now it's the T-Mobile MDA. It has a touch screen like the iPhone. It can go sideways or up-and-down - like the iPhone, except it doesn't happen by tilting it. With the addition of simple software I can scroll through screens exactly as the iPhone does. It has Bluetooth. It has wifi. It has a camera. The dial pad is on the screen, so you don't have the problems you have with the Blackberry keypad. It also has a complete keyboard which is very easy to use.

But here's the thing. You can download just about anything onto it. With Repligo I can save articles for later reading. I can download ebooks, music and photos. I have push email. I have language dictionaries. I can watch movies on it. With SD cards I can store films, videos, anything. I have word processing, Excel, Power Point. I have IM. I have RSS feeds from my favorite blogs on Newsgator Go. I have voice dialing. I have ringtones which announce the name of the person who is calling. I could put GPS on it - although the reason I have a Blackberry 8800 is that it has a GPS receiver built in, and so far you can't get that with a PC phone.

Other than that, this phone does far more than anything out there which isn't running on the same platform.

How come phone reviewers aren't talking about that?

THE GAP

I've had this song for twenty years, and just now realized that what it says is very meaningful to our current state. Plus, it's a great record.

The Gap - Thompson Twins

Wake up in a strange land
one of forty thieves.
And I see for the first time just what you believe.
I go down to the market where I can buy or sell
And I listen to the chanting and all the lies that wise ones tell.

They say: East is East - West is West
Two different colours on the map.
We say: Break the line
chew the fat
keep moving out into the gap.

Beggars in the backstreets
there for all the world to leave
It's you that's begging for attention
well
it's all the same to me.
And I won't ask permission not from teachers or from kings
'cos I can see for myself all the pain that you will bring.

They say: East is East - West is West
Two different rhythms on the map. . . .
We say: Break the line
chew the fat
keep moving out into the gap.

Can you smell the perfume of a hundred thousand years?
Dare you look into the eyes that hide a hundred million tears?
No need to be so frightened of all the figures in the night
'cos we share the same emotions and no-one's wrong and no-one's right.

They say: East is East - West is West
Two different colours on the map. . . .

LITTLE VALUE

A statistic I didn't know: 41% of Florida registered voters are Democrats, as opposed to 37% Republican. How does this mesh with the poll results I reported a few days ago?

It boggles the mind to believe that Democrats support anything Bush has a hand on. So I suspect the pollsters talked to plenty of people who are not registered to vote. Meaning the poll has little value in predicting election results.

THE SAME GAME

Ahmedinejad calls Iranians who oppose his nuclear policies traitors. Any American leaders you know using language like that?

The traitors are primarily moderates - but increasingly include high members of the Iranian clergy, who don't like seeing Iran's international image deconstitute. Hey, why don't we have any clergy like that?

One of these clergy called Ahmedinejad immature. That would be accurate, wouldn't it. The reason Bush doesn't like Ahmedetc. is that when he looks into Ahmedetc.'s eyes, he sees himself - only a considerably more sophisticated version.

People forget that Ahmedetc. does not hold supreme power in Iran. If enough clergy want to stop him, they will.

To give credit where credit may be due, what we may be beginning to see is the effect of the "nutty Nixon" approach. That's where Kissinger went to foreign leaders and said you don't want to challenge Nixon because he's crazy and he'll bomb the shit out of you. Maybe that's what the Bushies are doing now, and maybe it's working. The problem with that policy is if people think you're really nuts they may go after you rather than bowing down before you. Particularly when their leader is playing the same game with you.

CREDIBLE

It has been reliably reported that Republicans directed the captain of an oil tanker to hit the Bay Bridge in San Francisco harbor and spill 58,000 gallons of crude oil into the bay in order to punish Nancy Pelosi and deliver God's punishment on the fags.

Hey, we believed in WMD, didn't we? Is this any less credible?

GEORGIA

Today the governor of Georgia is going to stand on the steps of the state capitol and pray for rain.

The following day, he will pray for Ellen Degeneres' puppy.

THE DICTATOR

A new Florida poll shows some interesting results. Remember that Florida has been a Republican state.

Counting excellent, good and fair as "pro", the Florida electorate is pro-Bush by 53-45. But it rates Bush's handling of the war as poor by 50-47%. Unfortunately, neither these pollsters (nor any others) seem to be polling voters on questions like: how would you feel about having a fascist government?

58-38, Floridians want a quick withdrawal from Iraq. They oppose action against Iran 49-43%. So they're not very clearly against war, just the Iraq war.

They believe we are on the wrong track by 68-27%. But who the hell knows what they mean by that? Without a breakdown, that is a meaningless statistic.

By 26%, the war is their big issue, followed by immigration (14%) and a tie between protection from terrorism and increasing access to quality health care (12%) In other words, they think what the news tells them to think. Lowering energy prices and taxes are mentioned far more infrequently, and global warming even less than that.

So how does this translate into support for candidates? Giuliani leads all with 48%, followed at least 2 points behind by, in this order, Obama, McCain, Romney, Clinton and Edwards. What does this suggest? They want a new face. And it also suggests that they don't know who Giuliani is. Considering that 12% figure for terror protection (Giuliani's only issue), they certainly are not favoring him because of what he is saying. The question is: will they ever get to know him better? And I am betting not.

Calling him out as a proto-fascist will not stick. Neither will cross-dressing or trading in a wife like a car every couple of years. They like Rudy's personality, and the only way he is going to get dented is if he screws up royally. He might very well do that, if pushed hard enough that he gets angry, which is when he gets proto-fascist.

He beats Hillary by 4%, Obama by 7%, Edwards by 9%. All Democrats beat Romney and Thompson. McCain beats all Democrats.

So - Republicans will be fools not to nominate Giuliani. Unless, as I said, he self-destructs. And if I were the Democrats I would not be complacent, because Giuliani can win this thing and the odds on bet is he will be even more of a dictator than George W. Bush.

OLD GUYS

I had to buy the Eagles' new album (available only at Walmart, but you can download it and get it into iTunes) because they have always made great pop music, and because they (and particularly Don Henley) have, through the years, magnificently captured the slow American slide into soullessness. The line from "Hotel California" - "We haven't had that spirit here since 1969" - was the saddest thing, and the truest, I have ever heard. As a musician active back then, I knew exactly what he was talking about. The Eagles have said this would be their last release, and I was hoping it would be a triumph. It isn't.

Musically, it moves them back to their first album - but the great songwriting is missing here, both musically and lyrically. There is no strong melody, and no strong imagery. I think the problem is that they are so depressed by what their country has become that they can't be poetic about it. The lyrics are blunt and direct, like a bad op ed piece, and they don't say anything you haven't heard before, or say it in a way you haven't heard.

I understand it. I feel it, too.

I hope some kid out there delays his move into hedge funds long enough to become the new Dylan - because we sorely need one, and us old guys can't do it.

HIDEY HOLES

According to CNN, of the 100,000 items contained in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, the library staff can only find 20,000 of them.

At first, I thought this was hysterically funny. The Reagan Library has Alzheimer's disease! Or maybe those missing 80,000 documents never existed. Maybe it only looked like Reagan was doing something. Maybe those documents were only virtual props created to build the legend. Maybe Reagan was Animatronic.

But there's a serious side to this. The Clinton Library is hiding documents. Bush has hidden documents from his father's library, and you can bet what gets deposited in Crawford, Texas is going to be written in invisible ink.

So maybe those 80,000 documents used to be at the Reagan Library, and now they're not. He was a Republican, after all. He did have secrets. And these days Republicans don't want to reveal any of what they actually do. Maybe Bush hid those documents, too.

IN THE STREETS

I have no doubt that $100 oil is going to increase prices for consumer goods, as the cost of producing and transporting them will go up. But the symbolic problem it causes, for the media at least, is the cost of a gallon of gasoline

Now - let's say you're a commuting driver, and you fill up your 20-gallon tank twice a week. If gas goes up $1.00 a gallon, it costs you $40 more per week or about $2000 more a year. If that increase is really a problem for most Americans, what the figure shows is the miserable state of the average American's finances.

Now let's note another tidbit: Two years ago, Hugh grant bought a Warhol for two million pounds. He has just sold it for seventeen million pounds. That is an inflation rate of about 900% in two years. Obviously, the rich have it much worse than the rest of us.

What the figure really shows, though, is that there is far too much money at the top of the food chain. So much money that a two hundred million payout to an executive doesn't even raise eyebrows anymore.

They say the inflation rate for the rest of us is about 3% - but the truth is that, with so much money at the top, things you really want have to cost you more. It now costs $256 for a family of four to visit Disney World for one day! Not that the rich are going to Disney World - they're too busy taking world tours on private jets. But if they did go to Disney World, the cost to them would equal the cost of a candy bar for the rest of us. If the world gets used to three million dollar houses in a swamp development in Florida, prices are set to that standard, not to one which is realistic for the average family.

Is the Warhol worth 15 million pounds more than it was two years ago? (As far as I'm concerned, it isn't worth $17.95.) But people have the money to throw at things like that, with the expectation - considering how our economy works - that next years they'll be able to sell it for thirty-four million.

Why is nobody in the streets?

VANUATU

John Edwards' very eloquent support of the "common man" is being disparaged by Republicans (and some Democrats) as hypocritical because of his personal wealth.

Excuse me?

Franklin Roosevelt - who did more for the "common man" than any other president - was a member of the American aristocracy.

Of course, it's expecting too much to expect Americans to remember who he was.

The crux of this evil argument is that you can't care about the less-than-wealthy unless you're one of them. This is certainly the approach of the Bush administration and its corporatist supporters - but it is rarely stated as openly and clearly as it is in the attack on Edwards.

Yet no Democrats rise to Edwards' defense, or join in his eloquence. And Edwards himself has yet to make the point about Roosevelt.

The argument against Edwards comes down to a declaration of the abnegation of the American social contract. I can't think of an issue of more importance - because if you have no social contract, democracy - maybe even civilization - is impossible.

The obverse of the Republican argument is that the less-than-wealthy have no obligation to care about the rich. In other days this would have been significant, since there are so many more less-than-wealthy. We would have been talking class war. Yet, as I have said, there's no sign of it, and no understanding among the "common men" of what they have lost or how to use mass action to get it back.

So I think democracy in America has already lost the war. I am pleased for those who can climb into the ranks of the wealthy, because they are going to do just fine with the social contract among them. But I'm glad that I'm old enough that I probably won't see the end result of this process - and if I do live that long, I intend to cut my life short when I've seen enough of it. I have survived Nixon, Reagan, Bush - but enough is enough. Three years of Jack Kennedy is not enough to sustain me.

Or I could move to Vanuatu. But that's probably not great either.

HOWARD DEAN'S SCREAM

After the Drexel debate when the other Democratic candidates finally called Hillary Clinton what she is - a calculator with no firm principles (that may be something of an overstatement; I'm sure there are things she believes in, but I'm not sure she won't sell those things for a big enough donation)- Hillary played the "Poor me, they're piling on the woman" card.

This is a tipping point. She has made a big mistake. This could easily cost her the election (and maybe the nomination - although 60% of Democratic voters are women, not all of them like to whine about what men do to them) and I think there is a risk she will ignite a gender war which will spill over into much more than politics. If she drives male voters to Rudy Giuliani, that will prove that men are, in fact, dumber than women - but it will also prove that some women are dumber than men, because this is a damn fool way to play politics.

Speaking of playing politics - Obama has introduced a resolution in Congress making the statement that Bush does not have the consent of Congress to attack Iran. He's more than a little late in doing that - not just on this issue, but in general, he has not been paying enough attention to what is going on in Congress, and in failing there, he is failing as a candidate, because he looks like he's all talk and no action. But at least he did it now, to correct the Leiberman-Kyl vote. He didn't do that solely because Hillary voted for Leiberman-Kyl - at least, I hope he did it because he is genuinely concerned about all the recent war talk.

And what does Hillary do? She accuses him of "playing politics"! Good God.

There is finally a chance to get her out of there. I hope the others keep it up. Believe me, it is not going to hurt her if she is the nominee, because if you think the Republicans aren't going to do exactly this to her, you're nuts. And watching her react to the pressure from Obama, Edwards, et al, you get the feeling she could easily blow it against Giuliani in the year before the election actually takes place. Better she blows it now, folks. We want someone who isn't going to lose to Rudy. I don't know who it is, but it smells like anyone other than Hillary. She's developed a good deal of arrogance (now that she's in the money) and that's going to look a lot worse than Howard Dean's scream.

Yes, Giuliani is even more arrogant. But the thing is, he doesn't look it. He doesn't look elitist. Here's a guy who's winning the Republican nomination despite the fact - and probably because he candidly admits - that he doesn't support the positions of the "values voters." In other words, he looks honest. And I guess he is. He is an autocrat, an intolerant, belligerant shit - and that's exactly what he's running as.

He beats Hillary - mark my word.

GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT

I'm not too sure I've got my timing right here, but let's try this on for size:

The baby boom generation were the strongest voices in decades for the concepts of personal freedom and community - as expressed in the concepts "Sex, drugs & rock'n'roll" and "Woodstock Nation." So how is it that, while personal freedom has greatly expanded, that generation has presided over the destruction of the American community? Whom did they define as "Woodstock Nation"? The community of hedge fund managers? The owners of houses on Martha's Vineyard? Who is it they cared about 40 years ago, and who is it they care about now?

They are they greatest disappointment of my life.

REALLY SAD

The auto unions just agreed to huge give backs in order to save their jobs. As soon as the Chrysler contract was signed, Chrysler cut 12,000 jobs. The CEO of Chrysler is Robert Nardelli who, when he was pushed out of Home Depot for causing them financial problems, got a $210 million gold parachute.

There has never been a time when theoretical conditions are more ripe for a workers revolution. There are no signs of one. Why is that? I can think of several reasons.

1) One thinks of revolution when one is aware that there have been revolutions in the past. Americans now have zero knowledge of workers struggles in the early part of the last century. They have a vague idea that there was an American revolution in 1776,but I doubt they have any idea what it was about. When you have no memory of a time when workers had some power, or had so little power that they decided to do something about it, you need to have someone educate you. Which brings me to my second point.

2) Propaganda has demonized "Communism" and "socialism," and Americans have accepted it. Republicans believe if they call universal health care "socialized medicine" they can stop it - and they may be right. With the additional demonization of liberalism, there is no acceptable concept of a society which strives as a group to improve the lives of the middle class or the even less fortunate. And no one has come up with a new concept, or a new way of putting the old concept, which doesn't run afoul of the contempt for socialism. John Edwards is coming close - at least he is raising the issue - which may explain why he is losing ground in the polls. A new economic idea which benefits most Americans will have to be developed in a university - and the universities these days are too dependent on donations from the wealthy and government contracts to take the risk of allowing any professor to do that.

3) Americans have accepted the idea that you have to fend for yourself, and that if you come up a loser, it's your fault. Americans see CEO salaries as money they themselves can make if they can work themselves up through a corporate structure, or invent something big, or have a hit record, or win the lottery. They identify with the CEOs and not with themselves. In other words, they have bought the propaganda of the wealthy. And there are just enough stories of upward mobility out there to reinforce that propaganda.

The time is coming soon when the average American is going to be buried under the economic crush. Americans don't remember a time when the man in the family earned more and had more purchasing power than two-earner families earn today. They are going to learn what it's like to have a third world economy, even as the best of third world is moving out of that economy. Will they pick up guns then, or hit the streets? I don't think so. But certainly they will not unless they are led to do so by charismatic men (or women). And charismatic men and women aren't interested, these days, in leading the underprivileged against the establishment. They want to be in the establishment.

It's really sad.

PRETEND

How do I know John Edwards is not going to be nominated?

Because he's telling the truth, and making sense, on very important issues. And that's not how you get elected in the USA.

We like liars, and we like issue-duckers, and we sure like to focus on things that don't mean a damn.

I wonder if those of us who don't feel that way could just elect a shadow government and pretend Washington doesn't exist?

NO TRUST

Senators Schumer and Feinstein voted with the Republicans to send the Mukasey nomination out of the Judiciary Committee and to the floor.

The reasons they gave were pathetic, if not specious. They said their overriding concern was restoring confidence in the Justice Department. One, I don't see how Mukasey is going to restore confidence. And two, there was no reason to appoint an attorney general. An acting attorney general would have been just fine for the remainder of Bush's presidency. In fact, that would have been preferable, to the extent that an acting AG might have been reluctant to pursue further nefarious goals, while Mukasey is nefarious by definition.

So who bought off the senators? Anybody know? Whoever it was, this is exactly why Democrats are not trusted.

JUST HAD TO PUT THIS UP

You're Cordially Invited to Attend
The Exclusive Sneak Preview of Chateau Poochie, The World's Most Luxurious Hotel for Dogs & Cats
Designed by Award-Winning 'Interiors by Steven G'.

'Diamond and Furs'
Wednesday, November 14th 2007
6:30-9:00pm

A Dazzling Doggie Soiree featuring Pet-A-Porter Fashions
Exquisite Gems from Rosenberg Diamonds & Co.
Culinary Delights a La Capital Grille

Your advance RSVP is required to attend this event! Please call 561-750-3500 or email msoudry@thegabgroup.com to confirm your RSVP.

This invitation is not transferable.

Damn! I can't make it, but I was going to give the invite to my neighbor, Marie Antoinette.

RECORDS

It's not that FDA hasn't inspected the products of 2/3s of the foreign companies shipping drugs into the US. It's that the FDA doesn't know whether it has inspected them or not.

Like the rest of this government, they don't seem to be keeping records - or they're deep-sixing them, if they ever had them.

The FDA will inspect 7% of foreign drug makers exporting to the US this year. 1.8% of Chinese firms.

We have a government that does nothing intentionally. Except make war and dilute civil rights. I'll bet they keep records of that.

THE DRAFT

Since State Department diplomats are not volunteering to serve in Iraq, State intends to draft them.

They're outraged. They're resisting. They're heading for Canada.

One foreign service official called this a "death sentence." So now we know what would happen if the US reinstituted the military draft.

Incidentally, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the House Armed Services Committee's top Republican, said he intends to suggest that diplomats who refuse to serve in Iraq be replaced by wounded veterans. "Let's replace these reluctant Nellies with America's finest citizens," he said in a statement. "Our wounded warriors will serve our country efficiently, effectively and with undying patriotism."

Since they're not dead yet, they've got more to give us.

Boy, I bet those wounded vets are just thrilled. Fool me once ...

One thing, though - they're not likely, with zero experience, to be less effective diplomats than Condi Rice.

NEWS?

The largest Israeli cable company has taken CNN off the air and replaced it with Fox News.

What does this tell us about the coming war with Iran?