Watching American Idol tonight, I kept thinking of the early Cyndi Lauper. Her song selection was perfect, but she could sing anything and put it across and you had no doubt who you were listening to. American Idol does not seem to attract such talents.
There are only so many good songs out there - fewer and fewer each year (except in Nashville, and Nashville is limited by its need to stay with repetitive melodies and very simple chord structures.) How many interchangeable voices do we need to sing them? I've never liked Rod Stewart - but I know him when I hear him. I wouldn't know the Idols by ear from a thousand other singers.
The closest thing to Lauper these days is Gwen Stefani - but the truth is the similarity is not in the voice but in the song selection and production sense and attitude. If Stefani sang at a piano alone, who the hell would care?
I knew Chuck Berry when I heard him. Where are the geniuses?
Oh, I know ... they're in Europe, where all Americans go (vale Robert Wilson) when America is too homogenized to handle something new.
BLOG POSTS
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
THE SAD TRUTH
And here's the sad truth about Obama: his religion has destroyed him. If he had not accepted Christ, he'd have the nomination right now.
Of course, it's more complex than that. Bush and Leiberman and McCain have been associated with religious figures far more nuts than Jeremiah Wright. Yet they have not been destroyed by that - far from it. Obama's destruction is a result of this: Wright's religion is progressive (read anti-American) and black (read unacceptable). The attack on Obama is motivated by right wing "patriotism" (including pro-Israeli patriotism) and racism - and by people who, while being guilty of neither, have used both to beat Obama down.
But still, it's ironic. It seems there is nothing religion touches that does not rot or turn to evil. Obama didn't know that. Now he does. And, to be honest, when I heard he was born-again, I knew there would be a problem. I just didn't expect it would be this.
Of course, it's more complex than that. Bush and Leiberman and McCain have been associated with religious figures far more nuts than Jeremiah Wright. Yet they have not been destroyed by that - far from it. Obama's destruction is a result of this: Wright's religion is progressive (read anti-American) and black (read unacceptable). The attack on Obama is motivated by right wing "patriotism" (including pro-Israeli patriotism) and racism - and by people who, while being guilty of neither, have used both to beat Obama down.
But still, it's ironic. It seems there is nothing religion touches that does not rot or turn to evil. Obama didn't know that. Now he does. And, to be honest, when I heard he was born-again, I knew there would be a problem. I just didn't expect it would be this.
Monday, April 28, 2008
TRAVEL BROADENS ONE - IF YOU'VE GOT THE BRAINS TO BROADEN
Why do I get so pissed when people talk about the American dream?
Because I don't think this dream is particularly American. There are many people across the world who want the same things we do. I think it's arrogant to presume that these desires are peculiarly American. I think we're going to find that out soon, in a big way.
And I don't think the American dream is buying your own home. I think the dream (notice I don't say American) is living in freedom with at least respect for your neighbor and a sense of society moving toward a common goal. If you keep calling it the American dream, the commonality of the goal stops at our borders.
I like to think of myself as a citizen of the world. And I suspect the real political divide these days - leaving aside ideologues who experience everything but react to pre-fixed beliefs - is between those who have experienced the rest of the world (particularly those who work in it) and those whose experience is limited to their own street, or their own town or county or state, or even all of America.
Obviously, since money is the root of all politics, people who have seen the world can differ on policies, or willingness to think of others besides themselves. But they at least share the chance of being aware that there are good things outside America (and, in some cases, better things.)
Because I don't think this dream is particularly American. There are many people across the world who want the same things we do. I think it's arrogant to presume that these desires are peculiarly American. I think we're going to find that out soon, in a big way.
And I don't think the American dream is buying your own home. I think the dream (notice I don't say American) is living in freedom with at least respect for your neighbor and a sense of society moving toward a common goal. If you keep calling it the American dream, the commonality of the goal stops at our borders.
I like to think of myself as a citizen of the world. And I suspect the real political divide these days - leaving aside ideologues who experience everything but react to pre-fixed beliefs - is between those who have experienced the rest of the world (particularly those who work in it) and those whose experience is limited to their own street, or their own town or county or state, or even all of America.
Obviously, since money is the root of all politics, people who have seen the world can differ on policies, or willingness to think of others besides themselves. But they at least share the chance of being aware that there are good things outside America (and, in some cases, better things.)
RULE OF THUMB
The Bush administration has asked all recreational boaters to (quoting the AP, I think) "help reduce the chances that a small boat could deliver a nuclear or radiological bomb somewhere along the country's 95,000 miles of coastline or inland waterways."
By doing what? Boarding suspicious Bertrams?
Okay, here's a useful rule of thumb: if you see a boat which does not have a babe in a bikini splayed out on the foredeck, unit to the wind, pull up alongside and offer the crew a beer. If they don't take it ... run like hell.
By doing what? Boarding suspicious Bertrams?
Okay, here's a useful rule of thumb: if you see a boat which does not have a babe in a bikini splayed out on the foredeck, unit to the wind, pull up alongside and offer the crew a beer. If they don't take it ... run like hell.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
MISSED A TRICK
A government report says Wisconsin, North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota had the worst drunken driving rates in the US. Over 25% of Wisconsin's drivers reported DUI.
Aside from the obvious - I mean, look where we're talking about - it appears to me the pollsters have missed a trick. Obama is winning the drunk vote (he won all those states except SD, which hasn't voted yet.)
This bodes well for Indiana, but not for North Carolina where drunk driving is on the low end of the national scale.
Aside from the obvious - I mean, look where we're talking about - it appears to me the pollsters have missed a trick. Obama is winning the drunk vote (he won all those states except SD, which hasn't voted yet.)
This bodes well for Indiana, but not for North Carolina where drunk driving is on the low end of the national scale.
TRY IT AGAIN
Okay, now here is a truly transcendent and wonderful life moment:
Tom Friedman got hit with a pie in the face while making a speech at Brown. The throwers didn't stick around, but they left a flyer behind which said, in part:
"Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face...,because of his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism's conquest of the planet, for telling the world that the free market and techno fixes can save us from climate change. From carbon trading to biofuels, these distractions are dangerous in and of themselves, while encouraging inaction with respect to the true problems at hand..."
The protesters' emphasis was environmental. I would have thrown the pie because, as they said, of his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism's conquest of the planet (not the environment, the humanity) ... oh, yeah, and his support for the Iraq war, etc.
Apparently he ducked and didn't catch much of it. Hope someone will try it again.
Tom Friedman got hit with a pie in the face while making a speech at Brown. The throwers didn't stick around, but they left a flyer behind which said, in part:
"Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face...,because of his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism's conquest of the planet, for telling the world that the free market and techno fixes can save us from climate change. From carbon trading to biofuels, these distractions are dangerous in and of themselves, while encouraging inaction with respect to the true problems at hand..."
The protesters' emphasis was environmental. I would have thrown the pie because, as they said, of his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism's conquest of the planet (not the environment, the humanity) ... oh, yeah, and his support for the Iraq war, etc.
Apparently he ducked and didn't catch much of it. Hope someone will try it again.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
HONORABLE SPIRIT
I'm sitting here tonight, after hearing the results from Pennsylvania, and I'm wondering, after I've reviewed my life, why I'm disappointed that Clinton won. This is what my political life has been like since the day I became aware that politics existed:
I supported Adlai Stevenson twice. He was a great intellect, and a reasonable man. He had no chance against Dwight Eisenhower, who was elected because he was a military man. I saw Jack Kennedy barely squeak by a horrendous human like Nixon, and then get shot down when he started looking too liberal. I saw Lyndon Johnson squander a great presidency in Vietnam, and Nixon defeat Humphrey, another decent and bright man.
I saw Nixon destroy McGovern, another Stevenson. I saw Jimmy Carter - the most honorable man elected to the presidency in my lifetime - win only because of the magnitude of Nixon's crimes, and then lose because of a rabbit attack and an Iranian revolution, the blame for which was most in the hands of his Republican precedessors who set up the Shah as dictator. And still see Carter condemned for doing what I believe is the smart and right thing.
I saw Reagan begin the upward redistribution of income through supply side economics and the trickle down theory. I saw Bush, a very genteel crook, follow in his footsteps.
I had been so politically downtrodden all those years that I reveled in Clinton's victory and his staying power, not thinking of or aware of the ways in which he was continuing Reagan's legacy. I saw Al Gore destroyed, in part by himself and in part by a contemptible candidate. And Kerry the same.
So why am I surprised that Clinton is still in it?
This country does not want a decent, inspiring president. It shoots them - or ridicules them - if they manage to get elected. Positive change does not, in America, as Obama said, come from the bottom. It doesn't come. It hasn't since 1789.
Only Roosevelt changed America - and only because things were so awful that there was no choice. That change did not come from the bottom. It came from the top. If Roosevelt hadn't been Roosevelt, God knows where we'd be now.
Obama mentioned Roosevelt in his speech tonight. It has been a long time since a candidate mentioned Roosevelt, because we have strayed so far from what Roosevelt meant and believed.
So while I don't think it's over for Obama, I do think that America is not the country to elect a man like him. And God help him if we do.
And one of these times, maybe just one more of these losses, is going to break what's left of the honorable spirit in America, and leave us a country that loves its liars and oligarchs.
It's the people's fault. No one else's. And so it will go on. And I'm very tired of waiting for America to be what America keeps on saying it is.
I supported Adlai Stevenson twice. He was a great intellect, and a reasonable man. He had no chance against Dwight Eisenhower, who was elected because he was a military man. I saw Jack Kennedy barely squeak by a horrendous human like Nixon, and then get shot down when he started looking too liberal. I saw Lyndon Johnson squander a great presidency in Vietnam, and Nixon defeat Humphrey, another decent and bright man.
I saw Nixon destroy McGovern, another Stevenson. I saw Jimmy Carter - the most honorable man elected to the presidency in my lifetime - win only because of the magnitude of Nixon's crimes, and then lose because of a rabbit attack and an Iranian revolution, the blame for which was most in the hands of his Republican precedessors who set up the Shah as dictator. And still see Carter condemned for doing what I believe is the smart and right thing.
I saw Reagan begin the upward redistribution of income through supply side economics and the trickle down theory. I saw Bush, a very genteel crook, follow in his footsteps.
I had been so politically downtrodden all those years that I reveled in Clinton's victory and his staying power, not thinking of or aware of the ways in which he was continuing Reagan's legacy. I saw Al Gore destroyed, in part by himself and in part by a contemptible candidate. And Kerry the same.
So why am I surprised that Clinton is still in it?
This country does not want a decent, inspiring president. It shoots them - or ridicules them - if they manage to get elected. Positive change does not, in America, as Obama said, come from the bottom. It doesn't come. It hasn't since 1789.
Only Roosevelt changed America - and only because things were so awful that there was no choice. That change did not come from the bottom. It came from the top. If Roosevelt hadn't been Roosevelt, God knows where we'd be now.
Obama mentioned Roosevelt in his speech tonight. It has been a long time since a candidate mentioned Roosevelt, because we have strayed so far from what Roosevelt meant and believed.
So while I don't think it's over for Obama, I do think that America is not the country to elect a man like him. And God help him if we do.
And one of these times, maybe just one more of these losses, is going to break what's left of the honorable spirit in America, and leave us a country that loves its liars and oligarchs.
It's the people's fault. No one else's. And so it will go on. And I'm very tired of waiting for America to be what America keeps on saying it is.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
WALLS
The American military is constructing a wall to divide Sadr City. Many other walls have also gone up in Baghdad.
There, and on the US southern border, the US seems to be following Israeli policy - as it has in so many other ways. The belief seems to be that the walls will 1) protect the "good" people and 2) keep the "bad" people in their own neighborhoods. Israel has done the same on the West Bank and in Gaza.
To some extent, the tactic seems to work. I can't help remembering, however, that the Nazis did a lot of this sort of thing. I wonder why nobody is noticing the comparison.
I also wonder why, since the US seems to believe that Iraqis need to be divided from each other by sect, nobody credits Biden's proposal to split Iraq along those lines. But then it occurs to me that if we wall everyone in, we get free access to the oil. If we divide Iraq, we have to deal with all of them.
There, and on the US southern border, the US seems to be following Israeli policy - as it has in so many other ways. The belief seems to be that the walls will 1) protect the "good" people and 2) keep the "bad" people in their own neighborhoods. Israel has done the same on the West Bank and in Gaza.
To some extent, the tactic seems to work. I can't help remembering, however, that the Nazis did a lot of this sort of thing. I wonder why nobody is noticing the comparison.
I also wonder why, since the US seems to believe that Iraqis need to be divided from each other by sect, nobody credits Biden's proposal to split Iraq along those lines. But then it occurs to me that if we wall everyone in, we get free access to the oil. If we divide Iraq, we have to deal with all of them.
NO GOVERNMENT
It does no good to rage against Bush when you realize - as I just did - that for the last seven plus years the U.S. has had no government. What we've had is a stage set, all false fronts - Bush, Rice, none of them actually govern and none of them have the talent to do so if they had to.
The U.S. is run by a corporatist-Christian cabal which is not in government. It not only sets policy but it effectuates it. That's what privatization is all about.
Dick Cheney is the only highly visible person in the government actually participating in running things. He's the conduit for policy made by the cabal. The rest of the cabal's agents in the government are positioned well out of sight.
I know this sounds like conspiracy theory, but hey - I still don't believe Oswald shot JFK.
What's important is that the cabal be identified and named. I don't know how many Americans will understand the concept, but it always helps to point out the truth.
The U.S. is run by a corporatist-Christian cabal which is not in government. It not only sets policy but it effectuates it. That's what privatization is all about.
Dick Cheney is the only highly visible person in the government actually participating in running things. He's the conduit for policy made by the cabal. The rest of the cabal's agents in the government are positioned well out of sight.
I know this sounds like conspiracy theory, but hey - I still don't believe Oswald shot JFK.
What's important is that the cabal be identified and named. I don't know how many Americans will understand the concept, but it always helps to point out the truth.
A DIGRESSION
Sorry. Couldn't resist this.
By distancing herself from Moveon.org and the progressive activists of her party, Hillary Clinton declares herself the candidate of big Democratic money - which, after all, is not so different from big Republican money other than on social issues. Candidates like that are likely to decry activists as "effete," if not "elite" - but it is the money people who are the elite, and that's who Hillary's with. In essence, she has declared herself a top-down candidate - policy is to be made by and for the people at the top of the party, and (if we're lucky) some of the benefits will trickle down to the rest of us. She's halfway to Leiberman. She's a Depublican.
This should be no surprise. There's a fight between Dean and Schumer for the soul of the party, and Hillary has always been in the Schumer camp. It's just that she's finally said so.
Obama can make much of this. It's not acceptable.
Now ... back to what I said I was going to write about - two things: the fadeout riff on the Jackson 5's "Lovely One" ... the lineup of planes on the approach pattern to PBI at night ...
By distancing herself from Moveon.org and the progressive activists of her party, Hillary Clinton declares herself the candidate of big Democratic money - which, after all, is not so different from big Republican money other than on social issues. Candidates like that are likely to decry activists as "effete," if not "elite" - but it is the money people who are the elite, and that's who Hillary's with. In essence, she has declared herself a top-down candidate - policy is to be made by and for the people at the top of the party, and (if we're lucky) some of the benefits will trickle down to the rest of us. She's halfway to Leiberman. She's a Depublican.
This should be no surprise. There's a fight between Dean and Schumer for the soul of the party, and Hillary has always been in the Schumer camp. It's just that she's finally said so.
Obama can make much of this. It's not acceptable.
Now ... back to what I said I was going to write about - two things: the fadeout riff on the Jackson 5's "Lovely One" ... the lineup of planes on the approach pattern to PBI at night ...
Friday, April 18, 2008
NO MORE
That last debate did it. Oh, yeah, and Hillary with guns. It's taken me 66 years, but I have finally reached the point where I look at the world and where it's going and can't find a single thing that - in the macro scheme of things - makes living meaningful. I can't stand politics, economics, Jewishness, music, theater as they are practiced nowadays. I can't stand the people who talk about all of them (including me.) I find no integrity, honesty, respect for the truth anywhere - well, there are a few people, like Jimmy Carter, but he isn't living in my neighborhood. A few more months of this and I'll either go catatonic or slit my wrists. Everything is slimed. I need a break.
So I'm shutting off all media, except for that which entertains me (which means I'll keep listening to Maher and Olbermann.) George Stephanopoulos can rot in hell. I'm going to sit around my pool and listen to what's been on my iPod for years.
I've also decided that the only things I will post to this blog from now on are the exact opposite of what I have been posting - that is, I will post anything I find which enhances life - not just mine, but that of the human race. I'm looking for enlightenment. I'll let you know if I find it. And I'm looking for relationships that do the same. Just don't ask me about what I think right now.
So I'm shutting off all media, except for that which entertains me (which means I'll keep listening to Maher and Olbermann.) George Stephanopoulos can rot in hell. I'm going to sit around my pool and listen to what's been on my iPod for years.
I've also decided that the only things I will post to this blog from now on are the exact opposite of what I have been posting - that is, I will post anything I find which enhances life - not just mine, but that of the human race. I'm looking for enlightenment. I'll let you know if I find it. And I'm looking for relationships that do the same. Just don't ask me about what I think right now.
RUSS WELLEN
This, by Russ Wellen, is brilliant.
Political Masochism: Punishing Ourselves With Republicans
Posted April 18, 2008 | 08:56 AM (EST)
Low-information voter indeed.
In the previous two presidential election campaigns, Al Gore and John Kerry, starched at the collar to begin with, ran campaigns prudent to the point of pussyfooting. Both Democrats attempted to court the corporate interests that helped bring Bill Clinton success. Meanwhile, those who had sought to take it away, the religious right, were given a wide berth.
By way of post mortems, alternative media and progressives have spent the years since heaping abuse and scorn on the Democrats for the timid campaigns they ran. Give the public some credit, went the refrain. Hew to the Democrat ideals which saw this country through a Depression and a world war. If you truly respect the Republicans, instead of appeasing them, emulate their rock-ribbed conviction.
We haven't heard much talk like this lately, have we?
The current presidential campaign cycle kicked off with the likes of Dennis Kucinich, an unreconstructed leftist, and John Edwards, an advocate of the working-class. Neither of the two survivors, owing various degrees of fealty to corporate donors, is a progressive's dream. But they're genuine liberals on domestic issues, Hillary Clinton more traditionally.
Also, both favor withdrawal from Iraq, with Obama favoring abstinence over penetration in the first place. He even said, "I don't want to just end the war. . . I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."
In other words, both of their campaigns have quieted cries that Democrats aren't doing justice to their base. This time, aside from Clinton's attacks softening up Obama for the kill by McCain, we're confronted with a challenge at least as daunting.
It's true that Democratic participation in caucuses and primaries has surpassed all expectations. But the party's leadership, long charged with lagging behind the electorate, may now find itself in the unaccustomed position of being out front of the public.
Hold on -- don't Americans seek economic reform and an end to our occupation of Iraq? At the risk of contradicting the polls, we're not so sure.
When John Edwards was running, he planted a series of truths and proposals about the economy squarely in front of Americans. Many of us turned a deaf ear. Sure, we're hurting. But don't talk to us like we're one step from welfare.
A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that, "four in ten Americans with incomes below $20,000 say they are middle class." Many of us would sooner lose our homes before we'd refer to ourselves as -- never mind lower-income -- but "working-class."
Heretofore, home ownership was a badge of the middle-class. Even without one, whether a renter or defaulter, we still have our high-definition TVs and satellite dishes. Unable to swallow our pride, we gag on it.
It's not just that we gild our own economic lily, many of us barely acknowledge the state of the economy at large. While that may be a psychological survival mechanism, you can't help but wonder if we're waiting for the soaring price of gas to "correct" itself like the market and drop back down.
Worse, even though the Republicans deserve much of the blame for the economic fix we're in, whenever they utter the words "tax cuts" many of us still go all Pavlov. In fact, we may even be poised to revert to the Republican position on everyone's sore spot, health care. For example, Clinton's program provides refundable tax credits for low-income workers and government insurance similar to Medicare. But, to evenly distribute the stresses the ill put on the system, it's also compulsory.
That's the last thing we want to hear. (Tone-deaf on the subject, Clinton actually boasts about it.) It's like begging the Republicans to pump up the volume on their charges that national health care is socialism.
Still, there's no disputing that the public wants us to leave Iraq. Umm -- remember the old Chinese food game? You know, after you crack open a fortune cookie, you append "in bed" to the end of your fortune.
Polls, especially on this question, work the same way: Our responses should come with the disclaimer "Now that you mention it" tacked on to the end. Since it's seldom covered on TV news, about the only time Iraq crosses our minds is when we're asked about it.
Besides, darned if we're not tougher than we thought. We've learned that we can handle six or seven soldiers dying a week. Heck, in a recent week 18 were killed and we didn't skip a beat. There's something about the name Petraeus, despite the general's lackluster star turn before the Senate, that has the power to cloud men's minds.
We're also nonplussed by the continuing carnage -- 40 Iraqis still die at a time in a car bombing. It may have been for the wrong reasons, we think, but at least we gave them their freedom. What they do with it is their choice.
What then are those of us oblivious to the economy or the war voting on? Those old standbys, gay marriage or abortion? Lapel pins?
Chances are that many of us may once again vote only to our comfort level, as we did with George Bush. The media assumes we're disgusted with him. But what if it's just him we're sick of, not someone like him? In other words, maybe it isn't the model that we're rejecting with 28 percent approval ratings, just the particular unit.
Speaking of the likeability quotient, John McCain's has long been inflationary. Ever see him on the Daily Show? Until John Stewart began challenging him, he was relaxed and funny.
In fact, this election threatens to replicate the previous two in yet another way. Beer-buddy McCain (Bush) will face off against either Hillary the policy wonk (Al Gore) or Obama, lately portrayed as an effete intellectual (John Kerry).
But what about the X factor that's helping propel Obama -- his charisma?
As with John F. Kennedy, also a conductor of the electrifying, charisma calls for a response beyond just enthrallment. Kennedy, of course, challenged us to do more than ask our country what it's done for us lately. Obama, too, attempts to inspire us to rebuild our country.
Americans are notorious for their aversion to public service. But even more daunting to many of us than actually acting is what charisma evokes -- the belief that our future can be brighter and that happiness can be ours.
Lloyd deMause, a leading light of the school of psychohistory, reminds us of this in his controversial, but groundbreaking book, "The Emotional Life of Nations." "That personal achievement and prosperity often makes individuals feel sinful and unworthy of their success is a commonplace observation of psychotherapy ever since Freud's first case studies of people 'ruined by success.'"
He elaborates. "Yet no one seems to have noticed that feelings of sinfulness are usually prominent in the shared emotional life of nations after long periods of peace, prosperity and social progress, particularly if they are accompanied by more personal and sexual freedom." According to his groundbreaking research, major wars usually don't follow depressions, but periods of "sustained economic upswing."
In other words, said "peace, prosperity and social progress. . . . produced by a minority who have had better childrearing [threaten] the majority whose childrearing is so traumatic that too much growth and independence produces. . . panic."
It's bad enough that many of us fail to acknowledge our feelings of unworthiness, guilt, or fear when it comes to economic prosperity. But neither may our war cycle, intended to purge those feelings, have run its course yet.
What if Obama, whose ability to inspire "adds value" to his status as a traditional Democrat, is nominated and loses the general election? Especially if his loss is precipitated by a Swift-boat attack, exactly what else could the Democrats have done?
Old adages like "You can lead a horse to water" and "pearls before swine" will provide scant solace. There's only so much you can do when a large segment of the electorate, lacking in self-respect, is once again hell-bent on sabotaging itself.
Political Masochism: Punishing Ourselves With Republicans
Posted April 18, 2008 | 08:56 AM (EST)
Low-information voter indeed.
In the previous two presidential election campaigns, Al Gore and John Kerry, starched at the collar to begin with, ran campaigns prudent to the point of pussyfooting. Both Democrats attempted to court the corporate interests that helped bring Bill Clinton success. Meanwhile, those who had sought to take it away, the religious right, were given a wide berth.
By way of post mortems, alternative media and progressives have spent the years since heaping abuse and scorn on the Democrats for the timid campaigns they ran. Give the public some credit, went the refrain. Hew to the Democrat ideals which saw this country through a Depression and a world war. If you truly respect the Republicans, instead of appeasing them, emulate their rock-ribbed conviction.
We haven't heard much talk like this lately, have we?
The current presidential campaign cycle kicked off with the likes of Dennis Kucinich, an unreconstructed leftist, and John Edwards, an advocate of the working-class. Neither of the two survivors, owing various degrees of fealty to corporate donors, is a progressive's dream. But they're genuine liberals on domestic issues, Hillary Clinton more traditionally.
Also, both favor withdrawal from Iraq, with Obama favoring abstinence over penetration in the first place. He even said, "I don't want to just end the war. . . I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."
In other words, both of their campaigns have quieted cries that Democrats aren't doing justice to their base. This time, aside from Clinton's attacks softening up Obama for the kill by McCain, we're confronted with a challenge at least as daunting.
It's true that Democratic participation in caucuses and primaries has surpassed all expectations. But the party's leadership, long charged with lagging behind the electorate, may now find itself in the unaccustomed position of being out front of the public.
Hold on -- don't Americans seek economic reform and an end to our occupation of Iraq? At the risk of contradicting the polls, we're not so sure.
When John Edwards was running, he planted a series of truths and proposals about the economy squarely in front of Americans. Many of us turned a deaf ear. Sure, we're hurting. But don't talk to us like we're one step from welfare.
A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that, "four in ten Americans with incomes below $20,000 say they are middle class." Many of us would sooner lose our homes before we'd refer to ourselves as -- never mind lower-income -- but "working-class."
Heretofore, home ownership was a badge of the middle-class. Even without one, whether a renter or defaulter, we still have our high-definition TVs and satellite dishes. Unable to swallow our pride, we gag on it.
It's not just that we gild our own economic lily, many of us barely acknowledge the state of the economy at large. While that may be a psychological survival mechanism, you can't help but wonder if we're waiting for the soaring price of gas to "correct" itself like the market and drop back down.
Worse, even though the Republicans deserve much of the blame for the economic fix we're in, whenever they utter the words "tax cuts" many of us still go all Pavlov. In fact, we may even be poised to revert to the Republican position on everyone's sore spot, health care. For example, Clinton's program provides refundable tax credits for low-income workers and government insurance similar to Medicare. But, to evenly distribute the stresses the ill put on the system, it's also compulsory.
That's the last thing we want to hear. (Tone-deaf on the subject, Clinton actually boasts about it.) It's like begging the Republicans to pump up the volume on their charges that national health care is socialism.
Still, there's no disputing that the public wants us to leave Iraq. Umm -- remember the old Chinese food game? You know, after you crack open a fortune cookie, you append "in bed" to the end of your fortune.
Polls, especially on this question, work the same way: Our responses should come with the disclaimer "Now that you mention it" tacked on to the end. Since it's seldom covered on TV news, about the only time Iraq crosses our minds is when we're asked about it.
Besides, darned if we're not tougher than we thought. We've learned that we can handle six or seven soldiers dying a week. Heck, in a recent week 18 were killed and we didn't skip a beat. There's something about the name Petraeus, despite the general's lackluster star turn before the Senate, that has the power to cloud men's minds.
We're also nonplussed by the continuing carnage -- 40 Iraqis still die at a time in a car bombing. It may have been for the wrong reasons, we think, but at least we gave them their freedom. What they do with it is their choice.
What then are those of us oblivious to the economy or the war voting on? Those old standbys, gay marriage or abortion? Lapel pins?
Chances are that many of us may once again vote only to our comfort level, as we did with George Bush. The media assumes we're disgusted with him. But what if it's just him we're sick of, not someone like him? In other words, maybe it isn't the model that we're rejecting with 28 percent approval ratings, just the particular unit.
Speaking of the likeability quotient, John McCain's has long been inflationary. Ever see him on the Daily Show? Until John Stewart began challenging him, he was relaxed and funny.
In fact, this election threatens to replicate the previous two in yet another way. Beer-buddy McCain (Bush) will face off against either Hillary the policy wonk (Al Gore) or Obama, lately portrayed as an effete intellectual (John Kerry).
But what about the X factor that's helping propel Obama -- his charisma?
As with John F. Kennedy, also a conductor of the electrifying, charisma calls for a response beyond just enthrallment. Kennedy, of course, challenged us to do more than ask our country what it's done for us lately. Obama, too, attempts to inspire us to rebuild our country.
Americans are notorious for their aversion to public service. But even more daunting to many of us than actually acting is what charisma evokes -- the belief that our future can be brighter and that happiness can be ours.
Lloyd deMause, a leading light of the school of psychohistory, reminds us of this in his controversial, but groundbreaking book, "The Emotional Life of Nations." "That personal achievement and prosperity often makes individuals feel sinful and unworthy of their success is a commonplace observation of psychotherapy ever since Freud's first case studies of people 'ruined by success.'"
He elaborates. "Yet no one seems to have noticed that feelings of sinfulness are usually prominent in the shared emotional life of nations after long periods of peace, prosperity and social progress, particularly if they are accompanied by more personal and sexual freedom." According to his groundbreaking research, major wars usually don't follow depressions, but periods of "sustained economic upswing."
In other words, said "peace, prosperity and social progress. . . . produced by a minority who have had better childrearing [threaten] the majority whose childrearing is so traumatic that too much growth and independence produces. . . panic."
It's bad enough that many of us fail to acknowledge our feelings of unworthiness, guilt, or fear when it comes to economic prosperity. But neither may our war cycle, intended to purge those feelings, have run its course yet.
What if Obama, whose ability to inspire "adds value" to his status as a traditional Democrat, is nominated and loses the general election? Especially if his loss is precipitated by a Swift-boat attack, exactly what else could the Democrats have done?
Old adages like "You can lead a horse to water" and "pearls before swine" will provide scant solace. There's only so much you can do when a large segment of the electorate, lacking in self-respect, is once again hell-bent on sabotaging itself.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
NEVER BEFORE
Pretty amazing. We almost elected a neocon vice president in 2004.
Well, no, of course, we did elect a neocon vice president. The amazing thing is that we had no choice.
Joe Leiberman is a neocon - if one defines neocon as a person in favor of certain preemptive wars, specifically (up to now) against Iraq and Iran.
This neocon position is a Jewish preserve - Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Leiberman, Podhoretz et al. (Add Milton Friedman on the privatization front.) In fact, I have a problem calling Cheney a neocon simply because he isn't Jewish.
I have been calling Leiberman the senator from Israel. But I begin to think that isn't fair. Much sentiment in Israel is against these wars, and against the continued fight with the Palestinians and the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
I could call him the senator from Likud. Certainly he favored the war on Iraq and favors attacking Iran because he believes those wars did and will benefit Israel and incidentally the U.S. (or it is possible his priorities are vice versa.) But I am not convinced this is entirely a Likudnik position.
It seems, from what I have read, that Feith, Wolfowitz Perle are motivated by the Holocaust. They appear to genuinely believe that if Iraq were not, and Iran is not, attacked, there will be another Holocaust. So it would be more correct to call Leiberman the senator from Auschwitz.
Certainly the Iraq war, it turns out, did not prevent another Holocaust, because there was no Holocaust in the making there. I personally don't believe Iran is hatching one either, despite what Ahmedinijad has said. What seems to be driving American policy (still) is the personal fears of a small group of people who have managed to seize the levers of power. And I don't think that has ever happened before.
People like Abe Foxman would call what I've just said anti-Semitic. It isn't. It's anti-neocon, and it's pro calling spades spades. Speaking of which, how does one explain Condoleeza Rice?
Just joking, folks.
Well, no, of course, we did elect a neocon vice president. The amazing thing is that we had no choice.
Joe Leiberman is a neocon - if one defines neocon as a person in favor of certain preemptive wars, specifically (up to now) against Iraq and Iran.
This neocon position is a Jewish preserve - Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Leiberman, Podhoretz et al. (Add Milton Friedman on the privatization front.) In fact, I have a problem calling Cheney a neocon simply because he isn't Jewish.
I have been calling Leiberman the senator from Israel. But I begin to think that isn't fair. Much sentiment in Israel is against these wars, and against the continued fight with the Palestinians and the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.
I could call him the senator from Likud. Certainly he favored the war on Iraq and favors attacking Iran because he believes those wars did and will benefit Israel and incidentally the U.S. (or it is possible his priorities are vice versa.) But I am not convinced this is entirely a Likudnik position.
It seems, from what I have read, that Feith, Wolfowitz Perle are motivated by the Holocaust. They appear to genuinely believe that if Iraq were not, and Iran is not, attacked, there will be another Holocaust. So it would be more correct to call Leiberman the senator from Auschwitz.
Certainly the Iraq war, it turns out, did not prevent another Holocaust, because there was no Holocaust in the making there. I personally don't believe Iran is hatching one either, despite what Ahmedinijad has said. What seems to be driving American policy (still) is the personal fears of a small group of people who have managed to seize the levers of power. And I don't think that has ever happened before.
People like Abe Foxman would call what I've just said anti-Semitic. It isn't. It's anti-neocon, and it's pro calling spades spades. Speaking of which, how does one explain Condoleeza Rice?
Just joking, folks.
MATTHEW CONTINETTI
Matthew Continetti, who works for the Weekly Standard, said on MSNBC's Inside The War Room that he could see Obama appointing Colin Powell to a position in his administration.
After it was recently revealed that Powell sat in on White House meetings at which the use of torture was approved, why would Obama do that? Well - it's the schvartze factor. Very smart schvartzes like to stick together. Particularly very smart light-skinned schvartzes. On that theory, Condoleeza Rice will be Obama's Secretary of State.
Mr. Continetti, would you please tell me how I can get a job being a moron?
(NB: Continetti is a 2003 graduate of Columbia (that's the last buck you'll ever get from me, alma mater) who has already been published in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Doublethink and who, according to Newsday, is a worshipper of Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America (hey, alma mater, you've come a long way since 1968.) Which proves that the media is an easy lay for young conservatives and/or the Weekly Standard. What the hell, more seasoning wouldn't have helped this mind.)
After it was recently revealed that Powell sat in on White House meetings at which the use of torture was approved, why would Obama do that? Well - it's the schvartze factor. Very smart schvartzes like to stick together. Particularly very smart light-skinned schvartzes. On that theory, Condoleeza Rice will be Obama's Secretary of State.
Mr. Continetti, would you please tell me how I can get a job being a moron?
(NB: Continetti is a 2003 graduate of Columbia (that's the last buck you'll ever get from me, alma mater) who has already been published in The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Doublethink and who, according to Newsday, is a worshipper of Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America (hey, alma mater, you've come a long way since 1968.) Which proves that the media is an easy lay for young conservatives and/or the Weekly Standard. What the hell, more seasoning wouldn't have helped this mind.)
Monday, April 14, 2008
DEAL WITH THE DEVIL
Bush is pulling out all the stops for the Pope's upcoming visit. Very odd, since John Hagee and presumably other evangelicals essentially believe the Pope is the Devil.
Why is he doing this? It's for McCain, who sought and got Hagee's endorsement. Bush wants to make sure Catholics stick with the Republicans - and what's a little dealing with the Devil compared to four more years to wreck the American system and cement in an oligarchy?
Why is he doing this? It's for McCain, who sought and got Hagee's endorsement. Bush wants to make sure Catholics stick with the Republicans - and what's a little dealing with the Devil compared to four more years to wreck the American system and cement in an oligarchy?
SINCERE SMILE
Let's see. Colombia is killing off labor activists, and the Bush administration is negotiating a free trade agreement with the nation.
Once again, I am struck by the utterly blatancy of the right wing, their conviction that they need not be concerned about any point of view but their own, and their willingness to push ahead with their program as if opponents were gnats. Which, I guess, in the current political climate, is what they are.
The New York Times noted that with what is being spent on the Iraq War the country could easily afford a housing bailout and universal health care - and that in the face of recent reports that insurers are now expecting insureds to pay thousands of dollars for the expensive medicines they need when they're really sick, more in many cases than the insured's entire monthly income. And we're not talking about poor people here.
But McCain responds that the country should continue to fund the war above all else, and that the cost of the war and another corporate tax cut can be covered by cutting other programs. Anybody wondering what those programs might be?
The disturbing thing about this is that McCain is the Republican candidate because people believe that he is NOT captive to right wing doctrine. In that they are dead wrong, as McCain's history and his current comments show. We'll see whether people understand that by November, so that at least the election will represent a clear choice of ideology and not be the result of political delusion and based on McCain's sincere smile.
I honestly believe it is time for Democrats to say what they truly believe, not what they think will attract voters who would be repelled if they knew the truth. I know how awful it will be if they lose, but if they win on deception one has to wonder what they would do once they won. Obama keeps getting nailed for saying what he believes, but I think it's great, and if he loses, he loses. If you're so invested in being president that you can't be yourself, then it's your ego, not your beliefs, that are running you. I.e., if you need to be president, you probably shouldn't be. That definitely applies to McCain, and probably to Clinton. I don't think anyone knows what's driving Obama. Yet.
Once again, I am struck by the utterly blatancy of the right wing, their conviction that they need not be concerned about any point of view but their own, and their willingness to push ahead with their program as if opponents were gnats. Which, I guess, in the current political climate, is what they are.
The New York Times noted that with what is being spent on the Iraq War the country could easily afford a housing bailout and universal health care - and that in the face of recent reports that insurers are now expecting insureds to pay thousands of dollars for the expensive medicines they need when they're really sick, more in many cases than the insured's entire monthly income. And we're not talking about poor people here.
But McCain responds that the country should continue to fund the war above all else, and that the cost of the war and another corporate tax cut can be covered by cutting other programs. Anybody wondering what those programs might be?
The disturbing thing about this is that McCain is the Republican candidate because people believe that he is NOT captive to right wing doctrine. In that they are dead wrong, as McCain's history and his current comments show. We'll see whether people understand that by November, so that at least the election will represent a clear choice of ideology and not be the result of political delusion and based on McCain's sincere smile.
I honestly believe it is time for Democrats to say what they truly believe, not what they think will attract voters who would be repelled if they knew the truth. I know how awful it will be if they lose, but if they win on deception one has to wonder what they would do once they won. Obama keeps getting nailed for saying what he believes, but I think it's great, and if he loses, he loses. If you're so invested in being president that you can't be yourself, then it's your ego, not your beliefs, that are running you. I.e., if you need to be president, you probably shouldn't be. That definitely applies to McCain, and probably to Clinton. I don't think anyone knows what's driving Obama. Yet.
PAST IT
IRS audits of large corporations are down by half from their 1980's level - but audits of small corporations are way up. The IRS figures if they can audit a lot of small corporations makes their audit numbers look good. Unfortunately, they're mostly meaningless.
I would say "Geez, what a surprise!" - but I'm far past that kind of humor.
I would say "Geez, what a surprise!" - but I'm far past that kind of humor.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
LET'S FACE IT
I don't see any way that America is going to create jobs that a large swath of the population will be able to succeed at. Globalization is inevitable, and someone (for the foreseeable future) is always going to be willing to work cheaper than we are. Even assuming all those people who used to do manufacturing move into the information economy, how many people do we need in that economy? How many people can support themselves in it? How many people will be able to earn high in financial businesses? (Of course, since there's so much money to be made in finance, a law which spreads the profits around to include those who actually didn't make any profits would be nice, and the wealthy could certainly afford it - but then that's socialism, and we can't have that.) Is everyone in America going to work in health care? (And if so, how bad will health care get when it's manned by people who really don't have the smarts to man it?) I imagine everybody can't be a real estate agent any more, either. This situation will necessarily get much worse over time.
So what do we do with all these extra people to whom we don't want to give food stamps or free health insurance?
I think there are only two possibilities:
1) Send all the Mexicans home and have these more or less useless people do what the Mexicans do; or
2) Keep the Mexicans and send the more or less useless people to Mexico - or anywhere that will take them. Mexicans are better landscapers anyway. The country becomes populated exclusively with very rich people and Mexicans, and the useless people can use what talents they have in Mexico - in other words, in another, lesser economy, where they are not useless. In fact, because many of them have some work ethic, they might take over Mexico. What a perfect result of macro social planning!
(The only problem with this thesis is that the next time we want to make a war, the rich people will have to go. On the other hand, if the rich people want to keep some more or less useless people around for warfare and such, they ought to be willing to pay them enough so they can live - and I don't mean pay related to their work, I mean pay related to their availability to the rich for things the rich won't do. Leaving that aside ...)
The English did this with transportation to Australia. As a matter of fact, the American colonies were populated by essentially useless people - that is, useless in England, and later in Italy, Ireland, Poland, Russia - although not useless here.
This is an old practice. And I bet it would work. It makes sense that as Mexicans flock over the borders to take the landscaping jobs, our useless people should be flocking over the borders the other way to an economy that could give them a place. Or they could go to Africa. They could take every job on the continent.
One thing's for sure: they (make that we) don't belong in America any more.
We are seeing a massive transformational change in the nature of America. And not even Obama is going to be able to stop it. In fact, the reason Obama is the best candidate is that he is most in tune with the heirs of the rich who will be running this country soon. And Hillary is only disqualified because she's in tune, not with them, but with their parents, who are in the process of getting out of the way. On the other hand, polls seem to show she's in tune with the useless, too. I think she'd make a great president of Mexico.
I'm making jokes, but I'm also recognizing a fundamental truth: for the first time in the history of the world, people who have become useless where they are have nowhere to go - no undiscovered or unpopulated territory where they would either be welcome or have the clout to eliminate the even more useless native population. We have never had to face something like this before. We don't have the intellectual capacity or the integrity to face it now. And if you think it's tough figuring out a solution for global warming, try figuring out a future for millions of useless people.
Better yet, watch the Chinese. They're actually trying.
So what do we do with all these extra people to whom we don't want to give food stamps or free health insurance?
I think there are only two possibilities:
1) Send all the Mexicans home and have these more or less useless people do what the Mexicans do; or
2) Keep the Mexicans and send the more or less useless people to Mexico - or anywhere that will take them. Mexicans are better landscapers anyway. The country becomes populated exclusively with very rich people and Mexicans, and the useless people can use what talents they have in Mexico - in other words, in another, lesser economy, where they are not useless. In fact, because many of them have some work ethic, they might take over Mexico. What a perfect result of macro social planning!
(The only problem with this thesis is that the next time we want to make a war, the rich people will have to go. On the other hand, if the rich people want to keep some more or less useless people around for warfare and such, they ought to be willing to pay them enough so they can live - and I don't mean pay related to their work, I mean pay related to their availability to the rich for things the rich won't do. Leaving that aside ...)
The English did this with transportation to Australia. As a matter of fact, the American colonies were populated by essentially useless people - that is, useless in England, and later in Italy, Ireland, Poland, Russia - although not useless here.
This is an old practice. And I bet it would work. It makes sense that as Mexicans flock over the borders to take the landscaping jobs, our useless people should be flocking over the borders the other way to an economy that could give them a place. Or they could go to Africa. They could take every job on the continent.
One thing's for sure: they (make that we) don't belong in America any more.
We are seeing a massive transformational change in the nature of America. And not even Obama is going to be able to stop it. In fact, the reason Obama is the best candidate is that he is most in tune with the heirs of the rich who will be running this country soon. And Hillary is only disqualified because she's in tune, not with them, but with their parents, who are in the process of getting out of the way. On the other hand, polls seem to show she's in tune with the useless, too. I think she'd make a great president of Mexico.
I'm making jokes, but I'm also recognizing a fundamental truth: for the first time in the history of the world, people who have become useless where they are have nowhere to go - no undiscovered or unpopulated territory where they would either be welcome or have the clout to eliminate the even more useless native population. We have never had to face something like this before. We don't have the intellectual capacity or the integrity to face it now. And if you think it's tough figuring out a solution for global warming, try figuring out a future for millions of useless people.
Better yet, watch the Chinese. They're actually trying.
Friday, April 11, 2008
WATERSHED
Neuroscientists have discovered that the brain can be physically altered, and its function improved, through certain learning techniques and exercises. And they are working with the Dalai Lama and Buddhists monks because their meditation methods are very effective in actually physically changing the brain.
What they in collaboration are working on is enhancing the part of the brain that produces compassion and altruism.
Now there is a religion I can respect - and I think at this late date I had better learn more about it.
I was having a conversation with a Republican friend and I told him I thought he didn't believe in the social contract. From his response, I'm not sure he knew what it was - but he did say that as far as he knew the social contract was not in the US Constitution. I found this response staggering in so many ways.
The social contract is the concept of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes. It is explained in some depth here, but it is basically defined as follows:
Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes, Hobbes 1651). In other words, anyone in the state of nature can do anything he likes; but this also means that anyone can do anything he likes to anyone else. To avoid this, we jointly agree to a social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for subjecting ourselves to civil law or to political authority. Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so.
So, my dear Republican friend, the social contract is not only in the Constitution, but it is the Constitution, it is the reason the Constitution exists.
But beyond that, it is the basis of civilization and, I think, the basis for all moral order. It is found in all religions as the Golden Rule. I'm afraid if you believe that the US Constitution is the be-all and end-all of social organization, you may be an American but you are not civilized.
I think the Republicans are trying to return us to a state of nature, reversing not just the New Deal but the progress of civilization since the Enlightenment. My friend shows no concern for interests other than his own. Admittedly, he sets out those interests in generalized principles - but they don't include much of our better selves.
And if we go along with the Republicans, it's back to tribalism (because the Republicans are a tribe who are concerned only with themselves, and protecting their own interests). This election could be the watershed, determining whether we go back to the state of nature or continue to perfect humanity. In the Buddhist sense.
Bet you didn't know there was so much at stake.
What they in collaboration are working on is enhancing the part of the brain that produces compassion and altruism.
Now there is a religion I can respect - and I think at this late date I had better learn more about it.
I was having a conversation with a Republican friend and I told him I thought he didn't believe in the social contract. From his response, I'm not sure he knew what it was - but he did say that as far as he knew the social contract was not in the US Constitution. I found this response staggering in so many ways.
The social contract is the concept of Jean Jacques Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes. It is explained in some depth here, but it is basically defined as follows:
Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes, Hobbes 1651). In other words, anyone in the state of nature can do anything he likes; but this also means that anyone can do anything he likes to anyone else. To avoid this, we jointly agree to a social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for subjecting ourselves to civil law or to political authority. Alternatively, some have argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so.
So, my dear Republican friend, the social contract is not only in the Constitution, but it is the Constitution, it is the reason the Constitution exists.
But beyond that, it is the basis of civilization and, I think, the basis for all moral order. It is found in all religions as the Golden Rule. I'm afraid if you believe that the US Constitution is the be-all and end-all of social organization, you may be an American but you are not civilized.
I think the Republicans are trying to return us to a state of nature, reversing not just the New Deal but the progress of civilization since the Enlightenment. My friend shows no concern for interests other than his own. Admittedly, he sets out those interests in generalized principles - but they don't include much of our better selves.
And if we go along with the Republicans, it's back to tribalism (because the Republicans are a tribe who are concerned only with themselves, and protecting their own interests). This election could be the watershed, determining whether we go back to the state of nature or continue to perfect humanity. In the Buddhist sense.
Bet you didn't know there was so much at stake.
DANCING
So Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Tenet and Rice used to sit in the White House Situation Room and okay particular forms of harsh interrogation. Before they authorized some of them, they got CIA demonstrations right there in the White House Situation Room. In case you don't think they had some knowledge that what they were authorizing was illegal, they ordered the Justice Department (remember, Ashcroft headed it) to issue fatwas stating that what they intended to do was legal. You know, fatwas - like Bin Laden used to issue, and for much the same reason and in much the same way. You put on your robe and become the clergy, or the law, and you authorize yourself to do what you were going to do anyway.
And, like Bin Laden's, these fatwas were not the law of the land, judicially, Congressionally or (in BL's case) heavenly determined. They were the opinion of a lawyer in the Justice Department whom these people arbitrarily raised to the level or authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. It's like writing a law review article which concludes that the U.S. has no freedom of speech, and then claiming that article establishes the law.
The first fatwa by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. So pulling out your fingernails or electrocuting your balls or hanging you by your wrists for a couple of weeks - probably not similar in intensity to death, so definitely not torture, according to this genius. I don't guess the demonstrations included any of the above - or if they did, they were not performed on Condoleeza Rice (we know that because she kept all her manicure appointments, and nobody saw her walking funny).
The second fatwa justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives. Now that's a tricky one. See, if the first fatwa redefines "torture" as "not torture," then if what you want to do is "not torture" you certainly don't intend to torture. So it's okay.
I guess when these guys went to law school they were taught that they have no obligation to the truth, only to their clients. That ain't what they told me at HLS. But it is what you are told by the Republican Party: everything you do must be to the party's benefit.
These ridiculous constructions were not invented because of Ashcroft. They were invented because of you. Ashcroft already knew what he was going to authorize. He just wanted to give you an excuse to say it was okay. So you wouldn't, like, want to throw him over a cliff.
In Florida this week, the Legislature approved stiff cuts in education and help for the needy while refusing to eliminate corporate tax loopholes specifically designed to further enrich the rich. But that's okay, because under another law they passed, all those poor and uneducated people can now happily bring their guns to work. I wonder if any of them are employed at the Legislature.
Look, if you want to be governed by people like that - i.e., if you want to be the stupid suckers they obviously believe you are - then you get what you deserve. You should be on the barricades. But you're watching "Dancing With the Stars."
And, like Bin Laden's, these fatwas were not the law of the land, judicially, Congressionally or (in BL's case) heavenly determined. They were the opinion of a lawyer in the Justice Department whom these people arbitrarily raised to the level or authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. It's like writing a law review article which concludes that the U.S. has no freedom of speech, and then claiming that article establishes the law.
The first fatwa by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. So pulling out your fingernails or electrocuting your balls or hanging you by your wrists for a couple of weeks - probably not similar in intensity to death, so definitely not torture, according to this genius. I don't guess the demonstrations included any of the above - or if they did, they were not performed on Condoleeza Rice (we know that because she kept all her manicure appointments, and nobody saw her walking funny).
The second fatwa justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives. Now that's a tricky one. See, if the first fatwa redefines "torture" as "not torture," then if what you want to do is "not torture" you certainly don't intend to torture. So it's okay.
I guess when these guys went to law school they were taught that they have no obligation to the truth, only to their clients. That ain't what they told me at HLS. But it is what you are told by the Republican Party: everything you do must be to the party's benefit.
These ridiculous constructions were not invented because of Ashcroft. They were invented because of you. Ashcroft already knew what he was going to authorize. He just wanted to give you an excuse to say it was okay. So you wouldn't, like, want to throw him over a cliff.
In Florida this week, the Legislature approved stiff cuts in education and help for the needy while refusing to eliminate corporate tax loopholes specifically designed to further enrich the rich. But that's okay, because under another law they passed, all those poor and uneducated people can now happily bring their guns to work. I wonder if any of them are employed at the Legislature.
Look, if you want to be governed by people like that - i.e., if you want to be the stupid suckers they obviously believe you are - then you get what you deserve. You should be on the barricades. But you're watching "Dancing With the Stars."
Monday, April 07, 2008
HOW IT WORKS
People who are in the information business - particularly the political information business, and particularly the political opinion business - condemn bloggers as pompous, ignorant blowhards. And God knows there are plenty of those.
But - if you speak to someone who used to be in government and is willing to tell you the truth, you invariably learn that what is or was actually going on has no relationship to what the media have told you. The way things are actually run in this world is rarely discussed.
So - either the media people know the truth, and aren't sharing it (which is possible, given their connections, but which I doubt) or they are just as ignorant as, or in some cases more ignorant than, the more perspicacious of the rest of us. Of course they're going to defend their "professional status." But it would be nice to know that being an opinion professional means you actually understand how the world works.
But - if you speak to someone who used to be in government and is willing to tell you the truth, you invariably learn that what is or was actually going on has no relationship to what the media have told you. The way things are actually run in this world is rarely discussed.
So - either the media people know the truth, and aren't sharing it (which is possible, given their connections, but which I doubt) or they are just as ignorant as, or in some cases more ignorant than, the more perspicacious of the rest of us. Of course they're going to defend their "professional status." But it would be nice to know that being an opinion professional means you actually understand how the world works.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
ACCEPTANCE
Apparently 25% of White Democrats of a certain age believe Obama is Muslim. These people are deeply and willfully ignorant. By "willfully ignorant," I mean that they are not willing to do the minimal work it would take to discover that they are wrong. They're like the 1/3 of Republicans who continue to believe that Saddam engineered 9/11.
For Democrats, this is depressing news. Like Jews, Democrats are shocked to find out that there are stupid members of their sect. This is not supposed to happen to the superior group.
I have written often about the separation occurring in the US now of the wealthy from the rest of America, to the point that the wealthiest and most global of them are no longer truly American, but citizens of some unnamed world entity. What bothers me about that is that they leave behind and to their obviously less talented devices those of us who are quite bright and quite educated but haven't figured out how to make a billion bucks. The dummies, I begin to believe, deserve to be left behind. They should be cared for, but not cared about.
Unfortunately, having reached that conclusion, I can also understand why the rich feel the same way about everyone who is not them. So maybe I should stop bitching and accept that they're leaving us behind.
For Democrats, this is depressing news. Like Jews, Democrats are shocked to find out that there are stupid members of their sect. This is not supposed to happen to the superior group.
I have written often about the separation occurring in the US now of the wealthy from the rest of America, to the point that the wealthiest and most global of them are no longer truly American, but citizens of some unnamed world entity. What bothers me about that is that they leave behind and to their obviously less talented devices those of us who are quite bright and quite educated but haven't figured out how to make a billion bucks. The dummies, I begin to believe, deserve to be left behind. They should be cared for, but not cared about.
Unfortunately, having reached that conclusion, I can also understand why the rich feel the same way about everyone who is not them. So maybe I should stop bitching and accept that they're leaving us behind.
PLEASE, MR. MCCAIN!
Condoleeza Rice wants to be the Republican VP candidate.
Oh, God, Mr. McCain, please pick her! That diffuses the race issue if Obama is the Democratic candidate, and the gender issue if Clinton is. With all her recorded lies, and with the Senate yet to indict her for her role in the run-up to Iraq or her failures just about everywhere else, Rice (who has never run for anything) is likely to be as incompetent and inarticulate a candidate as she has been in the Bush Administration. And it ties McCain directly to Bush and his policies.
Unfortunately, McCain couldn't possibly be that stupid.
Oh, God, Mr. McCain, please pick her! That diffuses the race issue if Obama is the Democratic candidate, and the gender issue if Clinton is. With all her recorded lies, and with the Senate yet to indict her for her role in the run-up to Iraq or her failures just about everywhere else, Rice (who has never run for anything) is likely to be as incompetent and inarticulate a candidate as she has been in the Bush Administration. And it ties McCain directly to Bush and his policies.
Unfortunately, McCain couldn't possibly be that stupid.
Friday, April 04, 2008
TEXAS AGAIN!
And this shit happened in Texas! Texas, again! If a fresh wind doesn't blow out of Austin soon, give Texas back to Mexico. Please.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
ADVICE
After being endorsed by Lee Hamilton, co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group, Obama said: "Few public servants have done more to advance American foreign policy or to serve the people of Indiana, and I look forward to drawing on his counsel in the months ahead."
That's the way to do it. Now Hamilton is part of the brain trust. I wonder what worthwhile advice Geraldine Ferraro has to offer?
And now another brilliant move: A woman at a town hall asked the Illinois senator if elected president would he consider tapping Gore for his Cabinet, or an even higher level office, to address global warming.
"I would," Obama said. "Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now."
How long ago did I suggest he do this?
That's the way to do it. Now Hamilton is part of the brain trust. I wonder what worthwhile advice Geraldine Ferraro has to offer?
And now another brilliant move: A woman at a town hall asked the Illinois senator if elected president would he consider tapping Gore for his Cabinet, or an even higher level office, to address global warming.
"I would," Obama said. "Not only will I, but I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem. He's somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I'm already consulting with him in terms of these issues, but climate change is real. It is something we have to deal with now, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now."
How long ago did I suggest he do this?
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
WHAT IF?
You're going to hate me for this one.
All this effort devoted to living as long as you can is the narcissistic result of the baby boomer's emphasis on youth, which - now that they're moving out of their earning years - they are suddenly remembering. And the result of their firm belief that they ought to live longer because ... well, because they deserve to.
What if they took all that effort and devoted it instead to leaving behind a legacy that changes the world? (For the better, please. Hitler changed the world.) What if they took the money they spent on hormone injections and put solar paneling on their houses - or, better yet, somebody else's?
Of course, if you've already done either of those things, feel free to work on living as long as you can - because you're the kind of person we're going to miss when you're gone.
All this effort devoted to living as long as you can is the narcissistic result of the baby boomer's emphasis on youth, which - now that they're moving out of their earning years - they are suddenly remembering. And the result of their firm belief that they ought to live longer because ... well, because they deserve to.
What if they took all that effort and devoted it instead to leaving behind a legacy that changes the world? (For the better, please. Hitler changed the world.) What if they took the money they spent on hormone injections and put solar paneling on their houses - or, better yet, somebody else's?
Of course, if you've already done either of those things, feel free to work on living as long as you can - because you're the kind of person we're going to miss when you're gone.
UNTERDELEGATE
In a interview for NBC News, one of the Democratic superdelegates said it was up to the two candidates to heal the split in the party because they had caused it.
How? By running? Joe Biden ran, too. Did he split the party? What's supposed to happen? If you have the potential to run strong, you need to stay out of it?
The party is split because its members are split between two candidates. That's the way the cookie crumbles. And if this woman really believes what she said - I mean, thought about it first - she ought to be an unterdelegate.
She probably liked it better when Hillary was "inevitable." But that's another way the cookie crumbles.
How? By running? Joe Biden ran, too. Did he split the party? What's supposed to happen? If you have the potential to run strong, you need to stay out of it?
The party is split because its members are split between two candidates. That's the way the cookie crumbles. And if this woman really believes what she said - I mean, thought about it first - she ought to be an unterdelegate.
She probably liked it better when Hillary was "inevitable." But that's another way the cookie crumbles.
I WONDER
I was just listening to a Bill Moyers' Journal episode on the 1967 Newark and Detroit riots and the findings of the Kerner Commission which LBJ set up to determine the causes of the riots. I was listening to Fred Harris, who was on the commission, make the argument that what government was doing to alleviate discrimination and poverty was working, until the Reagan administration stopped it cold.
I've been having discussion with somebody recently. He believes that government is inherently incapable of accomplishing anything. (I think he might except the military from that.) He thinks the private sector can do anything better.
To me, the goverment is just another corporation - except that, by tradition in America, its officers are supposed to foreswear enriching themselves. A corporation is not inherently bad or good, effective or ineffective. It is as good or bad or effective as its leaders intend it to be, and as its shareholders (or voters) want it to be. So if you elect leaders who either intentionally want government to be ineffective or are so ineffective that it reflects them, ineffective is what it will be. I have no more respect for government than private business, as entities. What I respect or despise is the policies it enacts, and the people responsible for enacting them, and the people who are perfectly happy living with those policies.
What he really believes is that no one has a right to his money except himself. He therefore has to accept that he has no right to anyone else's money either. So if his house catches fire, I hope he's got a good garden hose. Or he's bought a membership in a good private firefighting company - which, it is possible, might cost him less than fire district taxes. But what happens if his neighbor's house catches fire - and the neighbor has no good hose, or firefighting company membership? Let's hope our friend's private company doesn't have a rule that they won't come out to protect your house unless the fire starts in that house. Sort of like an exception in an insurance policy. The thing you have to remember about private enterprise is that - particularly these days - there are no limits to what they can do. And what they can do could be very bad for you.
Anyway - this is what really struck me, listening to Moyers: the 1967 riots did not start because blacks were hopeless, but because they had gotten a glimmer of hope from the Civil Rights Act and from their own efforts toward black pride. And I wonder whether, if Obama is elected, a new glimmer of hope might produce some pretty rough results? And I wonder whether this country will have a soul left if the reaction goes Nixonian and Reaganite again?
I've been having discussion with somebody recently. He believes that government is inherently incapable of accomplishing anything. (I think he might except the military from that.) He thinks the private sector can do anything better.
To me, the goverment is just another corporation - except that, by tradition in America, its officers are supposed to foreswear enriching themselves. A corporation is not inherently bad or good, effective or ineffective. It is as good or bad or effective as its leaders intend it to be, and as its shareholders (or voters) want it to be. So if you elect leaders who either intentionally want government to be ineffective or are so ineffective that it reflects them, ineffective is what it will be. I have no more respect for government than private business, as entities. What I respect or despise is the policies it enacts, and the people responsible for enacting them, and the people who are perfectly happy living with those policies.
What he really believes is that no one has a right to his money except himself. He therefore has to accept that he has no right to anyone else's money either. So if his house catches fire, I hope he's got a good garden hose. Or he's bought a membership in a good private firefighting company - which, it is possible, might cost him less than fire district taxes. But what happens if his neighbor's house catches fire - and the neighbor has no good hose, or firefighting company membership? Let's hope our friend's private company doesn't have a rule that they won't come out to protect your house unless the fire starts in that house. Sort of like an exception in an insurance policy. The thing you have to remember about private enterprise is that - particularly these days - there are no limits to what they can do. And what they can do could be very bad for you.
Anyway - this is what really struck me, listening to Moyers: the 1967 riots did not start because blacks were hopeless, but because they had gotten a glimmer of hope from the Civil Rights Act and from their own efforts toward black pride. And I wonder whether, if Obama is elected, a new glimmer of hope might produce some pretty rough results? And I wonder whether this country will have a soul left if the reaction goes Nixonian and Reaganite again?
SHOULD BE OBVIOUS
I love all the discussion about whose health care plan is better.
What are the odds that either Obama's plan or Hillary's is actually going to get passed? If there is a health care plan passed, it will be an amalgamation of the inputs of half the Congress and maybe the president. That's why these candidates' stand on the issues - which for the most part differ in small details - has really nothing to do with who should be president.
That should be obvious. But it doesn't seem to be.
What are the odds that either Obama's plan or Hillary's is actually going to get passed? If there is a health care plan passed, it will be an amalgamation of the inputs of half the Congress and maybe the president. That's why these candidates' stand on the issues - which for the most part differ in small details - has really nothing to do with who should be president.
That should be obvious. But it doesn't seem to be.
SUSPICIONS
Lots of people are calling on Hillary to get out of the race on the theory that continuing it only helps McCain.
1) This is fundamentally anti-democratic.
2) She could win.
3) There are thousands of time bombs lurking in McCain's records. Thousands of YouTube explosions are waiting to be launched. There's no great rush. And I don't get the sense that McCain is making any serious headway. He looks like he's doddering, and what he's been saying - some of which I respect - has to be alienating his base. In the meantime, the Democrats get all the coverage. This is not a bad thing, I suspect.
1) This is fundamentally anti-democratic.
2) She could win.
3) There are thousands of time bombs lurking in McCain's records. Thousands of YouTube explosions are waiting to be launched. There's no great rush. And I don't get the sense that McCain is making any serious headway. He looks like he's doddering, and what he's been saying - some of which I respect - has to be alienating his base. In the meantime, the Democrats get all the coverage. This is not a bad thing, I suspect.
DAMN RIGHT TOO
Time is (fortunately) running out on Condi Rice. As our increasingly peripatetic Secretary of State makes here upmteenth photo op diplomatic drive-by to the Middle East, she is putting the finishing touches on a legacy that will add yet one more failure to her excruciating and unending list of diplomatic disasters in the region.
No secretary of state in recent memory has been as unfit to navigate the quicksand of the Middle East as Rice, and her record has repeatedly demonstrated her callowness. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, a deteriorating Palestinian conflict, the unchecked rise of jihadism -- all representing a cumulative toll on American interests and prestige. When I debated Rice in the 2000 presidential campaign on behalf of then Vice President Gore, I couldn't help but believe based on her performance that her entire career exposure to the Middle East probably amounted to a puff on a Sheesha (a.k.a. water pipe) at Stanford. Events have proven me correct.
Four months ago, in a desperate attempt to salvage a reputation tarnished by her central role fostering nearly a decade of painful global decline for the United States, Rice embarked upon a hasty, ill-conceived, and hapless attempt in Annapolis, Maryland to produce an agreement between Israel and one half of the Palestinian people, which was blessed by a promise from her boss to produce a comprehensive agreement before the expiration of his term.
Before Annapolis and the fanfare she orchestrated around it Rice was repeatedly warned by far more seasoned diplomats that not enough groundwork had been put in place, and that raising expectations without results would only set America back further in the tumultuous region.
Now, I, for one, believe that America has a central role in helping to foster peace in the region, and when the U.S. steps up to the plate, even if we do not immediately succeed, we are given regional credit for trying, and that is credit in the bank when we need it. But Rice has never truly committed herself to the enterprise, preferring instead to talk the talk of peace, but not walking the walk of peacemaking.
The Annapolis Summit that Rice insisted on convening appears to becoming yet another temporary, dying flicker of hope in Middle East diplomacy.
True, the Middle East hand she herself helped draw would have challenged the most seasoned and experienced secretary of state. Hamas' missile-driven determination to torpedo post-Annapolis progress, Israel's settlement expansion and blockades, and the weakness of the two principal leaders (Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas) all constituted obstacles that had to be oversome.
But If there was going to be any hope that Annapolis would produce meaningful progress between Israel and the Palestinians, heavy, 24/7 American diplomatic lifting would be vital. Yet, rather than seize the initiative that Annapolis provided her, Rice demurred and dropped the baton once again, just as she has every time the Middle East beckoned her to do more than merely engage in drive-by diplomatic self-promotion. She has actually come close breaking her arm as she repeatedly patted herself on the back with every wheels up from the region, failing to appreciate that everything diplomatic in the Middle East is on endless life support thanks to her own missteps, requiring the constant attention of senior American diplomats.
Can Rice do anything to salvage Annapolis?
Probably not at this point. There is a three-ring diplomatic circus taking place, and no American ringmaster: in one ring the government of Yemen is attempting to mediate some form of reconciliation between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, in the second ring, Egypt is attempting to negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, and in the third, Rice has been half-heartedly cajoling Olmert and Abbas to meet Bush's pipe dream to produce an agreement before the expiration of his term (293 days from now, for those who are counting). Each ring is linked to the other, and here again, Rice has proven unable to rise to the occasion. Instead, she had to abide Dick Cheney traveling to the region to lend his "enormous gravitas" (facetiously stated for those who miss the quotes) to orchestrate the appearance of positive movement.
The next president will have to pick up the pieces. The best that Rice should try to do at this point is the following:
1. Lend more overt support to Egyptian efforts to facilitate some tacit cease fire between Hamas and Israel.
2. Work 24/7 to urge Israel to expedite the removal of barriers that will enable more freedom of movement for the Palestinians.
3. Increase the policing capability of the Palestinian Authority to eliminate terror cells from the West Bank.
4. Facilitate an Israeli-Egyptian agreement to improve the humanitarian condition of Gaza's population while improving joint Egyptian-Palestinian policing of Gaza's borders with Egypt and Israel.
Rice has clearly bitten off more than she can chew. There is no chance that Annapolis will result in a final Israel-Palestinian agreement, and the parties have made that clear despite Bush's commitment and next visit to the region in June.
Now is the time with the few remaining months Rice has left to make it easier, rather than harder, for the next president to undo the damage she and her cohorts have brought to the region by concentrating on what is doable, and not the impossible.
DAMN RIGHT
Economic, financial and regulatory issues should dominate politics and government in the United States for the next two or three years, which is important enough. National discourse may also have a new and deserving bogeyman. Franklin D. Roosevelt had Big Business, Ronald Reagan had Big Labor, and my guess is that the new president inaugurated next January will have Big Finance.
True, finance has been whupped by presidents before. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, for example. But that was in the quill-pen era when the financial sector was a pup. Today's financial services sector, by contrast, is a grasping, gargantuan combination of banks, stockbrokers, insurancemen, loan sharks, credit-card issuers, hedge fund speculators, securitization mavens and mortgage operators. Over the last five years, financial services has reached a swollen 20-21% of U.S. GDP -- the largest sector of the private economy.
Manufacturing led financial services by 2:1 back in the 1970s, but by 2006 beaten goods production had shrunk to just 12% of GDP.
Do most Americans understand this? Of course not. Newspaper front pages have shunned any discussion; 60 Minutes has not even spared the transformation sixty seconds, despite its vast implications. This upheaval is probably "the greatest story never told" about the two decades between, say, 1986 and 2006.
Nor was it an economic accident. Computerization was a prequisite, as was the rise of financial mathematics. However, I would say that the two most important underpinnings of financialization lay in the rise of public and private debt as a mainstay of American culture and economics and the perpetual liquidity and bail-out support of the Federal Reserve Board under Alan Greenspan. During Greenspan's 1987-2005 tenure, the sum of public and private debt in the United States quadrupled from just over $10 trillion to $43 trillion. Finance became the industry that was not allowed to fail but was permitted to enlarge and metastasize its behavior almost at will. Regulation was minimal. Favoritism was omnipresent.
The result, alas, has been all over recent headlines. America's biggest ever housing bubble, with 57 varieties of exotic mortgages and home prices now plummeting at rates unseen since the 1930s. The United States turned Credit Card Nation, with a citzenry in thrall to plastic, 20% interest rates and late fees for just about everything. Huge banks like Citigroup feel no shame in paying billion-dollar fines for colluding with Enron's tax and accounting deceits. And since mid-2007, national and world credit markets have been panicked and paralyzed by hitherto obscure instruments -- the stand-outs are collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) -- that not even their designers and packagers can explain.
Adolescent versions of Frankenstein finance became a crash and a disaster for Americans in 1929 when the industry was new and represented only 10-15% of the economic weight of American manufacturing. Now, by contrast, the unraveling of a second financial sector-turned casino involves literally the biggest force in the American economy. Who knows how much of this hubris and malfeasance is going to unwind unpleasantly or how long that will take?
In fact, phony Washington statistics and warped market measurements make it doubly hard to tell. The federal Consumer Price Index is already regarded by many Americans as a con job, and the press periodically quotes investors who state their belief that current U.S. inflation is really 6 to 9 percent a year, not the 2-4 percent the government alleges. I agree. On top of which, because the value of the dollar has dropped so far, the Dow Jones Industrial Average at the end of March was not really 12,200, a number barely up from its 11,700 peak in 2000. If you measure the Dow in Swiss francs or euros, two strong currencies, it has already lost some forty percent of its 2000 value. Too many Americans live in a dream-world of economic misinformation.
I began writing about these matters with a 1990 book entitled The Politics of Rich and Poor, and in several other volumes since then. Today, the economic negligence of Washington and Wall Street, more than two decades in the making, has led to a multi-dimensional crisis in which this country faces an unprecedented convergence of problems: unprecedented debt, tumbling home prices, reckless money supply expansion, growing inflation, insufficient and expensive oil, and an eroding dollar. Sadly, there may no longer be a plausible way out.
Kevin Phillips' new book, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism, is being published in April by Viking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
