Reading "The Dark Side," looking at David Addington and remembering Karl Rove, you realize that the Bush administration is not a cowboy presidency but the final triumph of the AV club. You know, those guys who ran the projector in the high school auditorium. Guys who preferred machines to humans and yet resented the inferior status their inability to relate created. Guys who dreamt of revenge and whose only chance at power was through the manipulation of dumb jocks through skewed truth. Guys who had no need of a moral code because they didn't interact with anyone except themselves. Guys who schemed to rule the world.
These days they'd be online video gamers, or perhaps hackers, or they'd be shooting up a high school - something they could only long for in my day. Smart, maybe brilliant, but with big holes in their souls. Guys who belonged to YAF. The pocket protector crowd, who finally got that vengeance against their "cool" tormentors.
Who else would chuck the Geneva Convention?
BLOG POSTS
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
WHO'S A MENSCH?
I don't like some things Obama is doing, but I am struck by the fact that he appears to be a mensch - something we haven't seen in presidential politics since Clinton. As a matter of fact, Clinton was not a mensch - in many ways he was a child. But in terms of government, he thought like a mensch, and when he was allowing himself to do so, acted like one. There are plenty of things he did that I didn't like - but I'm always comfortable when we have a president who thinks like a grown up, like a college graduate, even when he doesn't always act like one. Where presidents fail is when they override their menschlichkeit on some major issues. Lyndon Johnson is one of those. Or when they have no menschlichkeit. Need I identify one of those?
I think McCain is a mensch, too. He doesn't sound like one because he's forced to play to the simple minds of the morons whose votes he needs. One hopes that if he's elected he reverts to menschlichkeit, and he can prove that by keeping Republican jerkoffs out of his administration.
I have two questions about Obama: 1) Is he really a mensch, or does he just sound like one? For the moment, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
2) Does talking straight to people, as opposed to talking down to them, work anymore? That question will be answered on election night.
I think McCain is a mensch, too. He doesn't sound like one because he's forced to play to the simple minds of the morons whose votes he needs. One hopes that if he's elected he reverts to menschlichkeit, and he can prove that by keeping Republican jerkoffs out of his administration.
I have two questions about Obama: 1) Is he really a mensch, or does he just sound like one? For the moment, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
2) Does talking straight to people, as opposed to talking down to them, work anymore? That question will be answered on election night.
WHY?
Heard any explanation of why oil prices are dropping?
Since nothing else has changed, there are only two possibilities:
1) Somebody big - in oil or otherwise - demanded the drop to head off something he or it doesn't like, or possibly to help John McCain - although with demand so huge outside the US it doesn't make sense to me to assume a US-centric reason for any action in the oil markets; or
2) Speculators have decided to bust the bubble and profit from shorting oil, maybe as a defense against regulation of speculation.
Neither of these entirely satisfies, but what else could there be?
Since nothing else has changed, there are only two possibilities:
1) Somebody big - in oil or otherwise - demanded the drop to head off something he or it doesn't like, or possibly to help John McCain - although with demand so huge outside the US it doesn't make sense to me to assume a US-centric reason for any action in the oil markets; or
2) Speculators have decided to bust the bubble and profit from shorting oil, maybe as a defense against regulation of speculation.
Neither of these entirely satisfies, but what else could there be?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
THE SURGE
McCain's statement in a Katie Couric interview - which was, oddly, cut from the actual broadcast - that the surge produced the so-called Anbar Awakening, when in fact the awakening preceded the surge, may sound like another one of McCain's "gaffes." But it's not.
It's an example of the Republican practice of rewriting history to support ideology.
It's been my position - and apparently now Obama's, too - that while the surge may have made some contribution to the lessening of fighting in Iraq, the primary reasons were that Iraqis - including Sunnis - did not like al Qaeda or want them in the country, and that al Sadr had decided that too many people - at least too many of his people - were getting killed, and that it was better not to conduct the ultimate Shia power struggle until American troops were gone. The fact that the "awakening" against al Qaeda occurred before the surge tends to prove that the surge gained credibility because it was fortuitously timed to occur along with the other two events.
What this history shows is that the Iraqis have a more sophisticated - and less bloodthirsty - approach to the war than either Bush or McCain. Who'da thunk it? And also that McCain's command of foreign policy is not command of facts but command of ideology, in a time when pragmatism is a necessity in a president.
It's an example of the Republican practice of rewriting history to support ideology.
It's been my position - and apparently now Obama's, too - that while the surge may have made some contribution to the lessening of fighting in Iraq, the primary reasons were that Iraqis - including Sunnis - did not like al Qaeda or want them in the country, and that al Sadr had decided that too many people - at least too many of his people - were getting killed, and that it was better not to conduct the ultimate Shia power struggle until American troops were gone. The fact that the "awakening" against al Qaeda occurred before the surge tends to prove that the surge gained credibility because it was fortuitously timed to occur along with the other two events.
What this history shows is that the Iraqis have a more sophisticated - and less bloodthirsty - approach to the war than either Bush or McCain. Who'da thunk it? And also that McCain's command of foreign policy is not command of facts but command of ideology, in a time when pragmatism is a necessity in a president.
A NEW MEDAL OF HONOR
Every once in a while, in this era of creeping creeps, you get a nice surprise.
Navy Judge Keith Allred has ruled that evidence obtained during the interrogation of Salim Hamdan was produced in highly coercive conditions and will not be admissible at Hamdan's Guantanamo trial.
There needs to be a new Medal of Honor, given by the public, to people who protect our democracy. Maybe I'll set up a new website for that one of these days.
Navy Judge Keith Allred has ruled that evidence obtained during the interrogation of Salim Hamdan was produced in highly coercive conditions and will not be admissible at Hamdan's Guantanamo trial.
There needs to be a new Medal of Honor, given by the public, to people who protect our democracy. Maybe I'll set up a new website for that one of these days.
WHAT WE NEED
The FCC fine on CBS for Janet Jackson's boob has been thrown out by an appeals court.
The FCC claims it received over 540,000 complaints about the incident. The vast majority of those were generated by the Parents Television Council. In response to the court action, the organizations president said: "Ask a parent how many fleeting profanities are OK during the course of a day with their child. The answer is zero. The same thing with nudity."
Show me a person who never swears and I'll show you someone who may go postal at any moment. Show me a child who's been damaged by profanity - anyone, any kid, just point the kid out.
And - a kid should not be exposed to nudity ever? That lets out breastfeeding, unless you blindfold the kid, who otherwise will be permanently damaged by repeated exposure to the site of mommy's titties.
We need a national enema. Let's start with these guys.
The FCC claims it received over 540,000 complaints about the incident. The vast majority of those were generated by the Parents Television Council. In response to the court action, the organizations president said: "Ask a parent how many fleeting profanities are OK during the course of a day with their child. The answer is zero. The same thing with nudity."
Show me a person who never swears and I'll show you someone who may go postal at any moment. Show me a child who's been damaged by profanity - anyone, any kid, just point the kid out.
And - a kid should not be exposed to nudity ever? That lets out breastfeeding, unless you blindfold the kid, who otherwise will be permanently damaged by repeated exposure to the site of mommy's titties.
We need a national enema. Let's start with these guys.
JUST MCCAIN?
I suspect this is going to sound simple-minded, but I'm learning that the simplest thing is often the truth.
The AP reports that oil companies have spent 55% of their record profits on stock buybacks and dividends, while the money spent on exploration is in the mid single digits.
Now, they could claim that there's no use in spending money on exploration because there's no more oil to be found. But that would prove the point of those who want alternative energy sources.
Here's what I think: they already know there's little oil left to be found, and it is their intention to make as much money on what remains as possible, looking toward the day when they pack it in.
Or - they don't want to find more oil, because that would tend to reduce the price per barrel. I say "tend to," because I'm sure they could find a way to keep that from happening.
Or - they don't need more oil because refineries are already operating at capacity and they don't want to build more refineries because that might drop the price of gasoline.
Whichever of the above is true, why exactly do we want to let them drill offshore or in Alaska? In fact, why do they want to drill there? Is it that they want to keep environmentalist and alternative energy producers at bay? Or is it just McCain?
The AP reports that oil companies have spent 55% of their record profits on stock buybacks and dividends, while the money spent on exploration is in the mid single digits.
Now, they could claim that there's no use in spending money on exploration because there's no more oil to be found. But that would prove the point of those who want alternative energy sources.
Here's what I think: they already know there's little oil left to be found, and it is their intention to make as much money on what remains as possible, looking toward the day when they pack it in.
Or - they don't want to find more oil, because that would tend to reduce the price per barrel. I say "tend to," because I'm sure they could find a way to keep that from happening.
Or - they don't need more oil because refineries are already operating at capacity and they don't want to build more refineries because that might drop the price of gasoline.
Whichever of the above is true, why exactly do we want to let them drill offshore or in Alaska? In fact, why do they want to drill there? Is it that they want to keep environmentalist and alternative energy producers at bay? Or is it just McCain?
ALICE RULES
What is the difference between George W. Bush and Osama B. Ladin?
B. Ladin, to whom God speaks, although not recognized in Islam as an authority on religion, issued his own fatwas to certify that his jihad was in accordance with the Qur'an.
W. Bush, to whom God also speaks (suggesting that at least one of the two isn't translating well, or God has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth), did not issue his own fatwa. He did, however, have one issued by John Yoo to certify that his torture program was in accordance with the Constitution. So Bush is a bit more modest than Ladin. But if you think there's one bit of difference between Ladin's fatwa and Bush's, you are sadly underbright.
____________________________________
Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution says Congress has the power:
To declare War ...
To raise and support Armies ...
To provide and maintain a Navy ...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article II Sec. 2 says:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States ...
So how much clearer can it be? Congress is to decide who we go to war with. Congress controls the military. Congress makes the rules as to whether the military can or cannot torture, render, etc. The president is commander of chief of the military, not the nation. His function in that capacity is limited to directing the way the military is used once Congress has declared war, and that function must be conducted within the rules the Congress makes.
How have we gotten so far from the clear language of the Constitution that neocons can argue successfully that as commander in chief of the nation, the president has unlimited powers in wartime?
Apparently the Constitution is to be treated like the Bible. You can interpret it any way you want. The odd thing is that those who have perverted the document by interpreting it out of any sense call themselves "strict constructionists" - sort of identical to those religious folks who have perverted the Bible but insist they are reading it literally.
Alice in Wonderland rules.
The War Powers Act of 1973 was supposed to deal with the situation in which the US was under attack and Congress could not act quickly. Congress authorized the president to conduct military operations without a declaration of war if the United States of America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of force or a declaration of war.
The clear intent here was to retain the Constitutional primacy of Congress. In fact, the only time the act should be invoked is when Congress is in recess at the time we are attacked and things are too disrupted to bring them together quickly. Sloppily used, the resolution therefore could have been used to justify an immediate reaction to 9/11 - but in fact there was no immediate reaction, and by the time there was a reaction Congress was back in Washington.
The problem is the "serious threats" language. That is prior authorization for preventive war - and since it's pretty hard to stop a war once it starts, it was a major abdication of Congressional power.
Peculiarly, the constitutional arguments over this act have focused on whether it is a permissible limitation on presidential powers - whereas, to me, the act grants powers the president doesn't otherwise have. But then constitutional scholars are like Talmudists - they get so involved in minutiae they lose the big picture entirely, and anyway they're just arguing for what they want, not what is.
The proposed Baker-Christopher revision is called "The War Powers Consultation Act." By its very title it puts Congress in a subservient position.
It calls on the president to consult with key legislators before sending troops into "significant armed conflict," defined as a situation where fighting may last more than a week. It creates a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, composed of leaders of both parties and senior members of six key committees, and it guarantees that the committee and its staff have access to all the relevant intelligence the president sees.
Wow! Thanks a lot! And if they don't agree with the president, they can go suck eggs.
Well, the act also requires Congress to vote up or down on a deployment within 30 days, and it permits a cutoff of funds for deployments disapproved by two-thirds of the House and Senate.
But here's the problem folks: if they vote the deployment down, the president can veto. They have to have a veto-proof majority to have any say in the conduct of this presidentially-declared war. AND - as of now, leaving aside Senate rule peculiarities, a simple majority can cut off funding for one of these wars. This act requires a 2/3 vote.
It's just another Orwellian bamboozlement. In the guise of limiting presidential power, it actually grants more. And all of it probably unconstitutional, since a court with a true compass (when's the last time we had one?) would undoubtedly rule that Congress cannot constitutionally hand these powers over to the Executive.
Here's a fun question for you: What if Congress declares a war the president doesn't want? Or are we to assume Congress no longer has its constitutional power to declare war?
B. Ladin, to whom God speaks, although not recognized in Islam as an authority on religion, issued his own fatwas to certify that his jihad was in accordance with the Qur'an.
W. Bush, to whom God also speaks (suggesting that at least one of the two isn't translating well, or God has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth), did not issue his own fatwa. He did, however, have one issued by John Yoo to certify that his torture program was in accordance with the Constitution. So Bush is a bit more modest than Ladin. But if you think there's one bit of difference between Ladin's fatwa and Bush's, you are sadly underbright.
____________________________________
Article I Sec. 8 of the Constitution says Congress has the power:
To declare War ...
To raise and support Armies ...
To provide and maintain a Navy ...
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ...
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article II Sec. 2 says:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States ...
So how much clearer can it be? Congress is to decide who we go to war with. Congress controls the military. Congress makes the rules as to whether the military can or cannot torture, render, etc. The president is commander of chief of the military, not the nation. His function in that capacity is limited to directing the way the military is used once Congress has declared war, and that function must be conducted within the rules the Congress makes.
How have we gotten so far from the clear language of the Constitution that neocons can argue successfully that as commander in chief of the nation, the president has unlimited powers in wartime?
Apparently the Constitution is to be treated like the Bible. You can interpret it any way you want. The odd thing is that those who have perverted the document by interpreting it out of any sense call themselves "strict constructionists" - sort of identical to those religious folks who have perverted the Bible but insist they are reading it literally.
Alice in Wonderland rules.
The War Powers Act of 1973 was supposed to deal with the situation in which the US was under attack and Congress could not act quickly. Congress authorized the president to conduct military operations without a declaration of war if the United States of America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of force or a declaration of war.
The clear intent here was to retain the Constitutional primacy of Congress. In fact, the only time the act should be invoked is when Congress is in recess at the time we are attacked and things are too disrupted to bring them together quickly. Sloppily used, the resolution therefore could have been used to justify an immediate reaction to 9/11 - but in fact there was no immediate reaction, and by the time there was a reaction Congress was back in Washington.
The problem is the "serious threats" language. That is prior authorization for preventive war - and since it's pretty hard to stop a war once it starts, it was a major abdication of Congressional power.
Peculiarly, the constitutional arguments over this act have focused on whether it is a permissible limitation on presidential powers - whereas, to me, the act grants powers the president doesn't otherwise have. But then constitutional scholars are like Talmudists - they get so involved in minutiae they lose the big picture entirely, and anyway they're just arguing for what they want, not what is.
The proposed Baker-Christopher revision is called "The War Powers Consultation Act." By its very title it puts Congress in a subservient position.
It calls on the president to consult with key legislators before sending troops into "significant armed conflict," defined as a situation where fighting may last more than a week. It creates a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee, composed of leaders of both parties and senior members of six key committees, and it guarantees that the committee and its staff have access to all the relevant intelligence the president sees.
Wow! Thanks a lot! And if they don't agree with the president, they can go suck eggs.
Well, the act also requires Congress to vote up or down on a deployment within 30 days, and it permits a cutoff of funds for deployments disapproved by two-thirds of the House and Senate.
But here's the problem folks: if they vote the deployment down, the president can veto. They have to have a veto-proof majority to have any say in the conduct of this presidentially-declared war. AND - as of now, leaving aside Senate rule peculiarities, a simple majority can cut off funding for one of these wars. This act requires a 2/3 vote.
It's just another Orwellian bamboozlement. In the guise of limiting presidential power, it actually grants more. And all of it probably unconstitutional, since a court with a true compass (when's the last time we had one?) would undoubtedly rule that Congress cannot constitutionally hand these powers over to the Executive.
Here's a fun question for you: What if Congress declares a war the president doesn't want? Or are we to assume Congress no longer has its constitutional power to declare war?
Monday, July 21, 2008
FIFTY YEARS
Listening to Tom Ashbrook's 7/15 podcast with Martin Feldstein, one of the free market economists who has shaped our time, I was struck by the fact that though he was willing to take the blame for the failure of the recent stimulus tax cut he pushed hard for, he is not willing to take any blame for the conditions which created the housing bubble to which he assigns responsibility for the current crash. Feldman is now blaming failure of regulation. Is he not responsible for the anti-regulation moves, and did he ever warn about under-regulation when things were good for the markets?
Economists are not objective scientists. Like psychologists, their theories are the captives of their own mindsets; they will work to justify what they already believe with statistics. And they are the tools of those economic forces which operate in accordance with those mindsets. In economics, there is no truth except history; otherwise, there is only opinion, and it boggles the mind that the media, investors and politicians go after those opinions as if they'd gotten hold of the Holy Grail.
What economists don't understand - or maybe they do - is that with every yin comes a yang, and someone is going to get fucked if the world acts on their opinions. The question always is: who gets fucked. Marx fucked the capitalists; capitalism fucked the poor, and Bush capitalism fucked people who were middle class. The essence of a market is that it sucks money from one place to another place. So when people talk about markets, they're discussing fucking people. Access to the tools of market manipulation guarantees that the people at the top fuck everybody else. A free market (meaning an unregulated market) turns them loose to fuck others more deeply - it's like turning people around and going at them from behind. And one of the ways to do that is to give the people cheap shit from China so they think they're living in luxury as their debt goes up and their wages go down.
Economists are like shrinks in this way, too: they create illnesses which they then get paid to treat. The difference is that shrinks create illnesses by defining conduct as sick; economists actually make people sick. Nobody ever blames either of them for making, or calling, people sick. If they did, Allan Greenspan would be serving fifty years, and shrinks would be digging ditches in a new Cultural Revolution.
Communists called them parasites. And they are.
Economists are not objective scientists. Like psychologists, their theories are the captives of their own mindsets; they will work to justify what they already believe with statistics. And they are the tools of those economic forces which operate in accordance with those mindsets. In economics, there is no truth except history; otherwise, there is only opinion, and it boggles the mind that the media, investors and politicians go after those opinions as if they'd gotten hold of the Holy Grail.
What economists don't understand - or maybe they do - is that with every yin comes a yang, and someone is going to get fucked if the world acts on their opinions. The question always is: who gets fucked. Marx fucked the capitalists; capitalism fucked the poor, and Bush capitalism fucked people who were middle class. The essence of a market is that it sucks money from one place to another place. So when people talk about markets, they're discussing fucking people. Access to the tools of market manipulation guarantees that the people at the top fuck everybody else. A free market (meaning an unregulated market) turns them loose to fuck others more deeply - it's like turning people around and going at them from behind. And one of the ways to do that is to give the people cheap shit from China so they think they're living in luxury as their debt goes up and their wages go down.
Economists are like shrinks in this way, too: they create illnesses which they then get paid to treat. The difference is that shrinks create illnesses by defining conduct as sick; economists actually make people sick. Nobody ever blames either of them for making, or calling, people sick. If they did, Allan Greenspan would be serving fifty years, and shrinks would be digging ditches in a new Cultural Revolution.
Communists called them parasites. And they are.
NO ONE BUT US
I'll tell you why I am so dispirited by the world we live in: it is truly 1984.
We can trust nothing of what we're told by anyone. The government lies to us, the Fed and the finance industry lies to us, the oil companies lie, foreign governments lie ,,, all of these lies contradicting common sense but so complex that we can't get through them to the truth. Advertisers lie. Pharmaceuticals lie. Religious leaders lie. And the sad fact is that, unless we're involved in the concoction of at least one of those lies, we don't know the truth about anything any more.
Considering some of the things Obama has done recently, I don't see him as the counteragent against these lies. I think he will have his own lies to tell - and I wouldn't believe him unless he abandoned his campaign. Then, maybe, there'd be some reason to believe what he says.
The people who run everything have agendas which include the conviction that the truth no longer matters. Maybe the best statement of this is from the Bushie who said, years ago, that reality as we used to understand it no longer matters - we are now constructing a new reality.
I think much of the public understands this. But they are so pacific or undereducated that they have no way of getting to the truth - which is out there in books being put out almost daily, but only read by people who already know where their interests lie and will protest somebody else's falsehoods while defending their own.
Two of the underpinnings of American democracy are gone (well, a lot more are gone, but these are the critical two): 1) respect and demand for the truth, and 2) the understanding of what collective action - i.e., the streets - can do. With the economy in such disastrous condition and no one being blamed or punished, no one actually proposing any viable improvements, no one at the top even caring what is happening in the middle and bottom, you would expect to see mass demonstrations. Yet the only mass gathering I've seen in a long while was the huge line at the Apple Store to get the new iPhone. That is iconic, by the way.
If our economy is sliding toward the '30's, where are the protests of the '30's? Where are the populist initiatives? Maybe they're online, but we need visual - not virtual - resistance, in the streets. We need riots, if necessary. We need criminal trials, and if we can't get them, we need virtual lynchings. Most of all, we need to believe in at least one honest man - and unfortunately it is not Obama.
As horrible as it is to say so, I hope the economy gets worse to the point that people are no longer distracted by entertainment and tech toys because they can't afford them any more. It has been 40 years since the people spoke without the intervention of some liar or other. And there will be no satisfaction until responsible people go down. And no one can make that happen but us.
We can trust nothing of what we're told by anyone. The government lies to us, the Fed and the finance industry lies to us, the oil companies lie, foreign governments lie ,,, all of these lies contradicting common sense but so complex that we can't get through them to the truth. Advertisers lie. Pharmaceuticals lie. Religious leaders lie. And the sad fact is that, unless we're involved in the concoction of at least one of those lies, we don't know the truth about anything any more.
Considering some of the things Obama has done recently, I don't see him as the counteragent against these lies. I think he will have his own lies to tell - and I wouldn't believe him unless he abandoned his campaign. Then, maybe, there'd be some reason to believe what he says.
The people who run everything have agendas which include the conviction that the truth no longer matters. Maybe the best statement of this is from the Bushie who said, years ago, that reality as we used to understand it no longer matters - we are now constructing a new reality.
I think much of the public understands this. But they are so pacific or undereducated that they have no way of getting to the truth - which is out there in books being put out almost daily, but only read by people who already know where their interests lie and will protest somebody else's falsehoods while defending their own.
Two of the underpinnings of American democracy are gone (well, a lot more are gone, but these are the critical two): 1) respect and demand for the truth, and 2) the understanding of what collective action - i.e., the streets - can do. With the economy in such disastrous condition and no one being blamed or punished, no one actually proposing any viable improvements, no one at the top even caring what is happening in the middle and bottom, you would expect to see mass demonstrations. Yet the only mass gathering I've seen in a long while was the huge line at the Apple Store to get the new iPhone. That is iconic, by the way.
If our economy is sliding toward the '30's, where are the protests of the '30's? Where are the populist initiatives? Maybe they're online, but we need visual - not virtual - resistance, in the streets. We need riots, if necessary. We need criminal trials, and if we can't get them, we need virtual lynchings. Most of all, we need to believe in at least one honest man - and unfortunately it is not Obama.
As horrible as it is to say so, I hope the economy gets worse to the point that people are no longer distracted by entertainment and tech toys because they can't afford them any more. It has been 40 years since the people spoke without the intervention of some liar or other. And there will be no satisfaction until responsible people go down. And no one can make that happen but us.
STRONGEST SIGN YET
Obama has banned Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker from his European trip because of the cover with which Lizza had nothing to do. The magazine's coverage of Obama has been good.
This is the strongest sign yet that something is wrong in the Obama camp. Vengeance is sweet but stupid, and I don't like what it says about the man.
This is the strongest sign yet that something is wrong in the Obama camp. Vengeance is sweet but stupid, and I don't like what it says about the man.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
COOL
According to the Huffington Post, "in towns as small as Bloomfield, N.M., and metropolises as large as New York, customers and city officials are starting to write letters, place phone calls, circulate petitions and otherwise plead" with Starbucks not to close their local store.
I can just imagine what would be going on with IndyMac if they served a good cup of coffee and played Norah Jones in their banks,
These people are like Patty Hearst. They're so sucked in to Starbuck's ersatz feel-good environment that they're begging the company not to quit robbing them blind. Hey, if you really want them not to close your store, tell them you'll pay ten times as much for a latte grande macchiato (don't parse this, I don't drink coffee.) Get your friends to do it, too. That ought to convince them the store is viable. And you'll be even cooler! You will have personally saved a Starbucks store! That's even hipper than saving a polar bear!
Get real, people! Starbucks is not life, any more than Disney World. Or your local sports team. Or anything else you can buy to make yourself feel cool. Like an iPhone, or Obama.
Make your own coffee - wouldn't that be cool! You could buy the coolest beans from Nairobi, or the Galapagos, or wherever it's hip to get coffee from these days. Of course you'd have to shlep the package to work, or who would know how cool you are?
Or here's another idea - keep a couple of Starbucks cups and use them to carry in Dunkin Donuts coffee. Fiona says it's better than Starbucks and costs half the price. Of course it isn't cool. But why isn't it? If it's cool to drive a hybrid so people know you're not wasting money on gas, why isn't it cool to drink coffee that costs half as much?
Or you could pretend you're Jewish - like these people do. How hip is that? An Arab might try to kill you. That is cool! (As long as it's not Germans. That wouldn't be good.) Everybody knows Jews are tough and smart and make a lot of money and run the world. Let's go to Israel, the Jewish theme park. Then let's make everybody Christian, so they're really cool!
Or why not just give up being cool? Anyone you meet because you're cool is just the same kind of jerk you are. And tell the truth: if you really wanted to spend time with yourself, you wouldn't be hanging out at Starbucks, would you.
I can just imagine what would be going on with IndyMac if they served a good cup of coffee and played Norah Jones in their banks,
These people are like Patty Hearst. They're so sucked in to Starbuck's ersatz feel-good environment that they're begging the company not to quit robbing them blind. Hey, if you really want them not to close your store, tell them you'll pay ten times as much for a latte grande macchiato (don't parse this, I don't drink coffee.) Get your friends to do it, too. That ought to convince them the store is viable. And you'll be even cooler! You will have personally saved a Starbucks store! That's even hipper than saving a polar bear!
Get real, people! Starbucks is not life, any more than Disney World. Or your local sports team. Or anything else you can buy to make yourself feel cool. Like an iPhone, or Obama.
Make your own coffee - wouldn't that be cool! You could buy the coolest beans from Nairobi, or the Galapagos, or wherever it's hip to get coffee from these days. Of course you'd have to shlep the package to work, or who would know how cool you are?
Or here's another idea - keep a couple of Starbucks cups and use them to carry in Dunkin Donuts coffee. Fiona says it's better than Starbucks and costs half the price. Of course it isn't cool. But why isn't it? If it's cool to drive a hybrid so people know you're not wasting money on gas, why isn't it cool to drink coffee that costs half as much?
Or you could pretend you're Jewish - like these people do. How hip is that? An Arab might try to kill you. That is cool! (As long as it's not Germans. That wouldn't be good.) Everybody knows Jews are tough and smart and make a lot of money and run the world. Let's go to Israel, the Jewish theme park. Then let's make everybody Christian, so they're really cool!
Or why not just give up being cool? Anyone you meet because you're cool is just the same kind of jerk you are. And tell the truth: if you really wanted to spend time with yourself, you wouldn't be hanging out at Starbucks, would you.
WRONG
Petraeus says al Qaeda "may" be shifting its focus back to Afghanistan and off Iraq. If this is the level of understanding of our highest military officers, we are in a lot of trouble.
Al Qaeda was never focused on Iraq. The US gave it the opportunity to do some damage in Iraq by destabilizing a country which opposed al Qaeda. Maybe they thought they could actually take the country over - a foolish hope considering Iraqi attitudes. Leaving that aside, Iraq has always been a sideshow for al Qaeda. It has little or nothing to do with their ultimate aim of overthrowing regional Arab leaders and purifying Islam in the Middle East - except that it is an additional irritant to have American forces in their world.
Similarly, Afghanistan is not al Qaeda's focus. Afghanistan was its only available base. It has had to move into Pakistan, which is problematic, since no one really knows what the Pakistani government will do. What al Qaeda is trying to do is get its old base back. Afghanistan is not and has never been al Qaeda's goal.
Al Qaeda was never focused on Iraq. The US gave it the opportunity to do some damage in Iraq by destabilizing a country which opposed al Qaeda. Maybe they thought they could actually take the country over - a foolish hope considering Iraqi attitudes. Leaving that aside, Iraq has always been a sideshow for al Qaeda. It has little or nothing to do with their ultimate aim of overthrowing regional Arab leaders and purifying Islam in the Middle East - except that it is an additional irritant to have American forces in their world.
Similarly, Afghanistan is not al Qaeda's focus. Afghanistan was its only available base. It has had to move into Pakistan, which is problematic, since no one really knows what the Pakistani government will do. What al Qaeda is trying to do is get its old base back. Afghanistan is not and has never been al Qaeda's goal.
MEMES
Obama says Afghanistan must be the central front in the war on terror.
No.
Afghanistan must be one of the places in which we fight al Qaeda. There is no "war on terror." There is no "war." And if Obama keeps legitimizing these Republican memes, he engages in a struggle he cannot win.
No.
Afghanistan must be one of the places in which we fight al Qaeda. There is no "war on terror." There is no "war." And if Obama keeps legitimizing these Republican memes, he engages in a struggle he cannot win.
DID THE SURGE WORK?
Is the surge working? Well ...
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been minimalized, and I'm willing to give the US military some credit for that. But most of the credit has to go to the Iraqis. There has never been a significant Sunni fundamentalist presence in Iraq, and Iraqis don't like foreign Arabs any more than they like us. Which is why Iraq is not, has never been and could never have been the central focus of the "war on terror."
As for the Shia, there are differences among them which have not yet been resolved. But all Shia are convinced Iraq's future belongs to them, and I'm sure they see no point in fighting out power issues until the US is out of the country. That will probably change if McCain wins, since although the Shia are tremendously patient, I doubt they will wait a hundred years.
Bottom line: we're in a hiatus in Iraq. After January, if Obama wins, we'll stay in that hiatus through a US withdrawal. If McCain wins, all bets are off. In other words, if McCain is president, Americans will die in Iraq.
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been minimalized, and I'm willing to give the US military some credit for that. But most of the credit has to go to the Iraqis. There has never been a significant Sunni fundamentalist presence in Iraq, and Iraqis don't like foreign Arabs any more than they like us. Which is why Iraq is not, has never been and could never have been the central focus of the "war on terror."
As for the Shia, there are differences among them which have not yet been resolved. But all Shia are convinced Iraq's future belongs to them, and I'm sure they see no point in fighting out power issues until the US is out of the country. That will probably change if McCain wins, since although the Shia are tremendously patient, I doubt they will wait a hundred years.
Bottom line: we're in a hiatus in Iraq. After January, if Obama wins, we'll stay in that hiatus through a US withdrawal. If McCain wins, all bets are off. In other words, if McCain is president, Americans will die in Iraq.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
MUST-HEAR
Bill Moyers has been telling the truth for a long time now - sometimes the only one doing so. On this week's podcast of his Journal (7/18), for the first time I heard someone - William Grider (sp)- tell the whole truth about what has been done to America in the name of free market capitalism. This is a must-hear - particularly for politicians, but also for the rest of us, who (Grider says) may have to act because the government won't.
For your own sake, give it a listen.
For your own sake, give it a listen.
FOR SIZE
Try this on for size:
Bush threatens to attack Iran, expecting they'll cave and drop their nuclear weapons program. It doesn't work, because Iran knows (and we know) the US can't handle the consequences - and also maybe because (according to CIA) they don't have a nuclear weapons program.
So Israel - either prodded by the US or on its own - announces it will attack Iran, maybe with nukes, within four months. The US calls Iran and says: these Israelis are crazy, and the only consequence they care about is their own survival. They're going to fuck both of us, so we'd better sit down and try to resolve things right away.
We'll see if this works.
If this is what's happening, it's Nixonian, it's Cold War, and therefore it's Rice. Better late than never. It would have worked a little better, tho, if Bush hadn't given tentative approval to the Israeli strike. The implication being: nobody's going to outcrazy me. Since he's from Texas, we already knew that. But it's a little difficult to play good cop against Israel's bad cop when you come out in favor of the bad cop's routine. Rice probably should have explained that to Bush. But no one takes him seriously anyway.
Bush threatens to attack Iran, expecting they'll cave and drop their nuclear weapons program. It doesn't work, because Iran knows (and we know) the US can't handle the consequences - and also maybe because (according to CIA) they don't have a nuclear weapons program.
So Israel - either prodded by the US or on its own - announces it will attack Iran, maybe with nukes, within four months. The US calls Iran and says: these Israelis are crazy, and the only consequence they care about is their own survival. They're going to fuck both of us, so we'd better sit down and try to resolve things right away.
We'll see if this works.
If this is what's happening, it's Nixonian, it's Cold War, and therefore it's Rice. Better late than never. It would have worked a little better, tho, if Bush hadn't given tentative approval to the Israeli strike. The implication being: nobody's going to outcrazy me. Since he's from Texas, we already knew that. But it's a little difficult to play good cop against Israel's bad cop when you come out in favor of the bad cop's routine. Rice probably should have explained that to Bush. But no one takes him seriously anyway.
Friday, July 18, 2008
INTERESTING
There are some very interesting fundraising figures coming out of Florida.
In Broward County, primarily a working class area, Obama leads McCain by $163,231 to $80,411. In Miami-Dade, heavily Cuban, he leads $595,079 to $117,490. But in Palm Beach County, heavily Jewish and wealthy and normally Democratic, McCain leads by $219,016 to $99,138.
The conclusions seem obvious to me, but I'm not going to state them.
In Broward County, primarily a working class area, Obama leads McCain by $163,231 to $80,411. In Miami-Dade, heavily Cuban, he leads $595,079 to $117,490. But in Palm Beach County, heavily Jewish and wealthy and normally Democratic, McCain leads by $219,016 to $99,138.
The conclusions seem obvious to me, but I'm not going to state them.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
NOT SO GOOD?
Months ago I opined there was enough dumb McCain on YouTube to make a thousand Obama ads. And McCain keeps making more of them! So where are the ads?
What's running now are glutinous Obama generalities. The theory is they help us get to know Obama. As far as I can see from them, Obama is a bore. So he went to Harvard Law School - so what? So did I, and who gives a shit?
Can't they run negative and positive? Maybe they can't. Maybe they don't have the money to do it now. Maybe they don't want to do it now (God knows why.) Or may be Obama's decision to cut off funds to ancillary groups which could be throwing out the negative ads while he stays positive turns out to be pretty dumb, too. (Maybe there's some Obama videotape out there they don't want thrown back at them by McCain? Sure, and McCain won't use it, right?
Does one get the feeling that the folks who run Obama were really good at primaries but not so good at generals?
The following YouTube clips were collected in about five minutes. A solid day would mine more gold than they did in California. So?
What's running now are glutinous Obama generalities. The theory is they help us get to know Obama. As far as I can see from them, Obama is a bore. So he went to Harvard Law School - so what? So did I, and who gives a shit?
Can't they run negative and positive? Maybe they can't. Maybe they don't have the money to do it now. Maybe they don't want to do it now (God knows why.) Or may be Obama's decision to cut off funds to ancillary groups which could be throwing out the negative ads while he stays positive turns out to be pretty dumb, too. (Maybe there's some Obama videotape out there they don't want thrown back at them by McCain? Sure, and McCain won't use it, right?
Does one get the feeling that the folks who run Obama were really good at primaries but not so good at generals?
The following YouTube clips were collected in about five minutes. A solid day would mine more gold than they did in California. So?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
VICTIMS
Heroes used to be people who performed brilliantly in adversity, thus benefiting people besides themselves. The guy who fell on a grenade. The guy who stormed the machine gun nest. They made selfless choices, and that's why they were heroes.
Not any more.
The 9/11 victims are considered heroes. Why? What did they do except suffer in circumstances they could not affect. I'm sure there were heroes among them, but we don't know about them. I'm also sure all of them didn't do something to save somebody else. They may have been martyrs, but heroes? No.
These days, victims are heroes. A hero is someone who goes through something you don't want to go through. But it's selected victims. For example, is a rape victim a hero? I've never heard anyone say so. We only lay the title on victims of big events, because we want to celebrate ourselves through them.
How about John McCain? Was he a hero? He got shot down in Vietnam. That makes him a victim. Getting shot down is not a good thing. He was a prisoner for five years. But that was not through choice. What did he do that makes him a hero in the classical sense?
He volunteered for the military. So - do we consider every enlistee a hero? We never used to. What are we thinking about the Vietnam vet who's begging on street corners?
John McCain went through extraordinary pain. Maybe he's a hero because he survived. But I don't see how that benefited anybody else. To me, he's a victim. That's all.
Not any more.
The 9/11 victims are considered heroes. Why? What did they do except suffer in circumstances they could not affect. I'm sure there were heroes among them, but we don't know about them. I'm also sure all of them didn't do something to save somebody else. They may have been martyrs, but heroes? No.
These days, victims are heroes. A hero is someone who goes through something you don't want to go through. But it's selected victims. For example, is a rape victim a hero? I've never heard anyone say so. We only lay the title on victims of big events, because we want to celebrate ourselves through them.
How about John McCain? Was he a hero? He got shot down in Vietnam. That makes him a victim. Getting shot down is not a good thing. He was a prisoner for five years. But that was not through choice. What did he do that makes him a hero in the classical sense?
He volunteered for the military. So - do we consider every enlistee a hero? We never used to. What are we thinking about the Vietnam vet who's begging on street corners?
John McCain went through extraordinary pain. Maybe he's a hero because he survived. But I don't see how that benefited anybody else. To me, he's a victim. That's all.
RUINED
We may have hit that moment when Americans stop believing that things are OK, and convince themselves we are headed for economic disaster. Everybody seems to believe that their own banks are going down, and they know enough to know that when Bush tells them they're protected up to $100,000, that is not true of money in mutual funds, hedge funds or other unprotected venues - which is by far the largest part of the pie these days.
Phil Gramm said the recession is mental - and, as I said, he's right. If we all believe we're ruined, then we are. And that's what the market seems to be reflecting. Even Bernanke's bailout and horrendously belated endorsement of regulation isn't having much effect. No one trusts the Fed any more. Too bad they didn't figure it out before the shit hit the fan. Another instance of the failure of reason. Sort of makes you feel like Darwin got it wrong.
Phil Gramm said the recession is mental - and, as I said, he's right. If we all believe we're ruined, then we are. And that's what the market seems to be reflecting. Even Bernanke's bailout and horrendously belated endorsement of regulation isn't having much effect. No one trusts the Fed any more. Too bad they didn't figure it out before the shit hit the fan. Another instance of the failure of reason. Sort of makes you feel like Darwin got it wrong.
STRUCTURAL PROBLEM
Reports have it that Obama's fundraising is "slow." A part of the reason for that maybe resentment over Obama's FISA vote. But I think there's more to it. We may be running into the fundamental structural problem with relying on many small donations.
Small donors are most pinched by the current economic situation. If it's gas and food vs. money to Obama, not hard to guess which way it goes. Meanwhile, McCain's money comes from fat cats relatively unaffected by what's going on - at least, until the market nosedives. The lousy economy which Republicans created may turn out to be their greatest weapon.
What does this mean overall? It means that Obama may need Clinton's high rollers, and we may see him do a few things which are likely to doom his campaign.
Let's watch and wait.
Small donors are most pinched by the current economic situation. If it's gas and food vs. money to Obama, not hard to guess which way it goes. Meanwhile, McCain's money comes from fat cats relatively unaffected by what's going on - at least, until the market nosedives. The lousy economy which Republicans created may turn out to be their greatest weapon.
What does this mean overall? It means that Obama may need Clinton's high rollers, and we may see him do a few things which are likely to doom his campaign.
Let's watch and wait.
MY NATIONAL SECURITY STATEMENT
Obama has given his speech on national security. Here's mine:
The next attack on the US - if there is one - could come from anywhere. It's well to remember that the preparations for 9/11 were spread out over Europe and the Middle East. The next front against terrorism isn't Afghanistan. It's everywhere.
The way to prevent it is to cooperate on intelligence and control of known terrorists with as many nations as possible - including Iran. If an attack is being coordinated in a developed nation, a police action would be appropriate to deal with it. If it is being developed in Afghanistan, military action will be required. I'm afraid the same is true for Pakistan, which cannot be depended upon.
Certainly we need to keep a focus on the Taliban. But remaining in Afghanistan forever will not work. We will never eliminate the Taliban. Only the Afghans can do that. The same applies in Iraq.
The best way to prevent further attacks is to remove the reasons for them. This means an immediate major effort to get off oil, so we can stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. If, then, Iraq falls under Iranian control, so what?
It also means opening civilized communications with Islamic fundamentalists, at the very least to find out what they're up to. And it means compelling a solution in Israel. It means allowing Iran to develop as a civilized nation without constantly being reminded of why they ought to hate us. If free trade is the future of America, it requires open markets on both sides, everywhere. I know Republicans need foreign enemies to consolidate control at home. America does not need enemies. We need to think like China - ready for anything, but focused on the goal.
The most important thing is: we have to be smart. We can't turn our foreign policy over to short-sighted people, whether they're smart, or stupid, or ideologues. How we can accomplish that, I don't know. But if we don't, we can forget all the rest of it.
The next attack on the US - if there is one - could come from anywhere. It's well to remember that the preparations for 9/11 were spread out over Europe and the Middle East. The next front against terrorism isn't Afghanistan. It's everywhere.
The way to prevent it is to cooperate on intelligence and control of known terrorists with as many nations as possible - including Iran. If an attack is being coordinated in a developed nation, a police action would be appropriate to deal with it. If it is being developed in Afghanistan, military action will be required. I'm afraid the same is true for Pakistan, which cannot be depended upon.
Certainly we need to keep a focus on the Taliban. But remaining in Afghanistan forever will not work. We will never eliminate the Taliban. Only the Afghans can do that. The same applies in Iraq.
The best way to prevent further attacks is to remove the reasons for them. This means an immediate major effort to get off oil, so we can stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. If, then, Iraq falls under Iranian control, so what?
It also means opening civilized communications with Islamic fundamentalists, at the very least to find out what they're up to. And it means compelling a solution in Israel. It means allowing Iran to develop as a civilized nation without constantly being reminded of why they ought to hate us. If free trade is the future of America, it requires open markets on both sides, everywhere. I know Republicans need foreign enemies to consolidate control at home. America does not need enemies. We need to think like China - ready for anything, but focused on the goal.
The most important thing is: we have to be smart. We can't turn our foreign policy over to short-sighted people, whether they're smart, or stupid, or ideologues. How we can accomplish that, I don't know. But if we don't, we can forget all the rest of it.
Monday, July 14, 2008
WRONG NUMBER
I've always believed that on 9/11 the Air Force shot down the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. I think they were right to do it, and I think the government rightly concluded that America could not have handled that particular truth. Hence the creation of the ersatz heroes of "Let's roll."
Palm Beach Post columnist Tom Blackburn today tells a story I had not heard before. According to Blackburn, Cheney told Rumsfeld on 9/11 that he had ordered shoot downs and that the Air Force had "already taken a couple of aircraft out."
Blackburn says Cheney was fantasizing. I think he just had the number wrong.
Palm Beach Post columnist Tom Blackburn today tells a story I had not heard before. According to Blackburn, Cheney told Rumsfeld on 9/11 that he had ordered shoot downs and that the Air Force had "already taken a couple of aircraft out."
Blackburn says Cheney was fantasizing. I think he just had the number wrong.
UNABLE TO THINK
So we're going to attack Iran? Three things come to mind:
1) We arm the mujahidin to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. It does not occur to us this is creating a new enemy.
2) We arm Saddam Hussein to fight Iran. It does not occur to us he might turn bad.
3) We attack Iraq. It does not occur to us we are helping Iran.
The US is not very good at anticipating consequences, being unable to think any further ahead than the average labrador retriever. Anybody taking a bet an attack on Iran produces all sorts of consequences we couldn't think of?
1) We arm the mujahidin to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. It does not occur to us this is creating a new enemy.
2) We arm Saddam Hussein to fight Iran. It does not occur to us he might turn bad.
3) We attack Iraq. It does not occur to us we are helping Iran.
The US is not very good at anticipating consequences, being unable to think any further ahead than the average labrador retriever. Anybody taking a bet an attack on Iran produces all sorts of consequences we couldn't think of?
CONSEQUENCES
Okay, they have to bail out the banks. But there need to be conditions.
1) Everybody who made a fortune selling bad mortgages needs to give all the money back. With interest.
2) Everybody whose business attitude is "screw everybody else" needs to be exiled to the Sudan.
3) Every politician who played a role in deregulating the banks needs to be hung on a cross in a series of crosses put up along Wall Street. That includes you, Bill Clinton.
4) Alan Greenspan must be condemned to an eternity of being a contestant on "The Bachelorette."
We need to replace this gaggle of rapacious financial geniuses with the next gaggle of the same. We'll at least get a bit of a breather while they get up to speed.
1) Everybody who made a fortune selling bad mortgages needs to give all the money back. With interest.
2) Everybody whose business attitude is "screw everybody else" needs to be exiled to the Sudan.
3) Every politician who played a role in deregulating the banks needs to be hung on a cross in a series of crosses put up along Wall Street. That includes you, Bill Clinton.
4) Alan Greenspan must be condemned to an eternity of being a contestant on "The Bachelorette."
We need to replace this gaggle of rapacious financial geniuses with the next gaggle of the same. We'll at least get a bit of a breather while they get up to speed.
TOO SUBTLE
It is hysterically funny. The reaction to it suggests America has lost its sense of humor. But it hasn't - vale The Daily Show. So what's wrong with this picture? Are liberals actually offended by it, or are they afraid of its consequences?
If the former, the reaction reminds me of Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoon of the Prophet. The offense is sacrilege. But I think it's the latter.
The fear is, I suspect, that it's too subtle. When Stewart or Colbert pillary rednecks and Republicans, the targets know they're targets and they don't attempt to use Stewart's material to their own advantage. Stewart is anything but subtle.
At first blush, this cover would seem to be a comment on the Obamas. But it isn't - it's a comment on rednecks and wingnuts. Rednecks and wingnuts, it is suspected, won't get that. They'll take the cartoon as confirmation of what they already believe. Just as they'll believe a woman gave birth to a 600 lb baby if they see it in the supermarket tabloids.
The danger, I guess, is in those rednecks and wingnuts who were not yet quite convinced that Obama was a Muslim terrorist. Seeing it in print might kick them over the line. But, dear friends, they were going that way anyway, with a little help from the Limbaugh types, who will, no doubt, make the redneck world aware of The New Yorker for the first time in its history.
Too bad they won't be buying the magazine. If they did, they might actually learn something. So might liberals, actually. What Obama's people ought to be afraid of is the Ryan Lizza article inside the magazine. I haven't read it yet, but apparently it elaborates on this theme:
"[P]erhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them....he has always played politics by the rules as they exist, not as he would like them to exist. He runs as an outsider, but he has succeeded by mastering the inside game."
Which explains an awful lot. I'll have to read the article to know whether Lizza thinks this is a good thing or bad.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
Let's trash Obama's nomination and pick a candidate from this list of the senators who voted against the FISA bill:
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Friday, July 11, 2008
POLITICAL JERK
I begin to think that his FISA vote may be the beginning of the end for Obama. I certainly can't support a man who can compromise on the fundamental requirements of freedom. Of course, I couldn't vote for McCain, but I could stay home - and at this point Obama is going to have convince me he's sufficiently different from McCain to warrant my support. If democracy is doomed in America anyway, why should I bother to involve myself? And I get the feeling that other people are feeling the same way.
Anyway, the RFK and MLK analogies just went by the boards. And if Obama is just another political jerk, there's absolutely no reason to vote for him.
Anyway, the RFK and MLK analogies just went by the boards. And if Obama is just another political jerk, there's absolutely no reason to vote for him.
CRIST ENGAGED? WOW!
Florida Governor Charlie Crist - long dogged by rumors that he's gay - has announced he's getting married. This after Republican strategists told him that if he wants any chance of the Republican VP nomination, he'd better get a wife.
This could be one of the most cynical moves in an era in which every move is cynical and suspect. That the blatancy of this move does not deter the mover indicates either that he thinks Americans are too stupid to get it, or that he doesn't care whether they get it or not. The latter is the worse option; it's a sign of the ruling class' disdain for the average guy, akin to the attitude of the average African dictator toward the poor souls who live in his bailiwick. And even worse, it's justified, because it works. We are a nation of fools. We accept anything. We believe it's an advantage for Obama to be black. We believe John McCain has foreign policy experience. We're so dumb we deserve everything we get.
Why do I keep living in this intellectual shithole?
And what is the "girfriend" getting out of this deal?
This could be one of the most cynical moves in an era in which every move is cynical and suspect. That the blatancy of this move does not deter the mover indicates either that he thinks Americans are too stupid to get it, or that he doesn't care whether they get it or not. The latter is the worse option; it's a sign of the ruling class' disdain for the average guy, akin to the attitude of the average African dictator toward the poor souls who live in his bailiwick. And even worse, it's justified, because it works. We are a nation of fools. We accept anything. We believe it's an advantage for Obama to be black. We believe John McCain has foreign policy experience. We're so dumb we deserve everything we get.
Why do I keep living in this intellectual shithole?
And what is the "girfriend" getting out of this deal?
HOW FAR BACK?
John McCain doesn't know how to use a computer.
I suppose you could argue that it's not strictly necessary that a president be computer literate. But what this admission reveals is a disturbing lack of curiosity about how the modern world works - even a disdain for technology - which is reflected in McCain's world view. It could also indicate an unwillingness, or inability, to learn. For the first time, I have to consider that it may be true that McCain is too old to be president.
Even Bin Laden - who wants to take the world back thirteen hundred years - uses computers. How far back does McCain want to take us?
I suppose you could argue that it's not strictly necessary that a president be computer literate. But what this admission reveals is a disturbing lack of curiosity about how the modern world works - even a disdain for technology - which is reflected in McCain's world view. It could also indicate an unwillingness, or inability, to learn. For the first time, I have to consider that it may be true that McCain is too old to be president.
Even Bin Laden - who wants to take the world back thirteen hundred years - uses computers. How far back does McCain want to take us?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
FREE TRADE
Free trade is good for China. What do I mean by that?
It is certainly good for Chinese capitalists who are getting rich making and selling things all over the world. But it is also good for a much wider circle of Chinese. One couldn't say that Chinese capitalists give a damn about the people who produce the goods they sell - in China, for example, health insurance is available only to the rich (and government employees). But the peole who make those goods are Chinese, and they are paid far better than they would be if they were still, like 75% of the population, on the farm. Moreover, since the Chinese still believe in what they call "filial piety," the increased income of Chinese workers benefits their parents. If you define "China" as the country inhabited by Chinese, it seems clear that free trade is good for China.
Theoretically, Chinese free trade is good for America, too. As they get more money, the Chinese buy more American things. But here's where the fundamental difference lies:
When Chinese buy American goods, they are buying American brands. The specific product they buy is more likely made in China, but it is made according to American design and specifications and has cache for its quality and the fact that it is foreign.
So the people who work for the American brands involved profit from free trade. Unfortunately, that number includes less and less Americans. The designers and sellers of these products are American, but the people who make them are Chinese. In fact, therefore, this is just another way that free trade benefits China. China is, essentially, trading with itself. There are just a few Americans caught up in the process.
If you are not corporate in America (that is, if you're not in marketing), the only way you can benefit from free trade is by the availability of cheaper products which you can buy if you can find a way to earn a living outside of the free trade ambit. (This is oversimplified; stock ownership or working in finance provide other ways of benefiting from free trade, but again for a relatively limited American population.)
While, in the free trade context, China defines itself as the country in which Chinese live, America defines itself as the corporate headquarters of the producers of free-traded goods - and/or as the place where consumers live. It does not define itself as the home of all Americans. The spillover to non-corporate America of corporate America's profits is gratuitous and could be altered or eliminated at any time, while the spill-over to non-corporate China of corporate China's profits is essential to the success of China in a free trade system.
John Edwards said there are two Americas. In fact, that's true, but the two Americas are defined in entirely different ways. One America is corporate, and is American by choice; corporate America can pick up and move anywhere it wants to, and if it does move, by and by corporate America ceases to think of itself as American. Non-corporate America is American by necessity. It has nowhere else to go. If corporate America does pick up and leave, what's left behind is an America with no future at all.
And those are the folks who are voting Republican.
It is certainly good for Chinese capitalists who are getting rich making and selling things all over the world. But it is also good for a much wider circle of Chinese. One couldn't say that Chinese capitalists give a damn about the people who produce the goods they sell - in China, for example, health insurance is available only to the rich (and government employees). But the peole who make those goods are Chinese, and they are paid far better than they would be if they were still, like 75% of the population, on the farm. Moreover, since the Chinese still believe in what they call "filial piety," the increased income of Chinese workers benefits their parents. If you define "China" as the country inhabited by Chinese, it seems clear that free trade is good for China.
Theoretically, Chinese free trade is good for America, too. As they get more money, the Chinese buy more American things. But here's where the fundamental difference lies:
When Chinese buy American goods, they are buying American brands. The specific product they buy is more likely made in China, but it is made according to American design and specifications and has cache for its quality and the fact that it is foreign.
So the people who work for the American brands involved profit from free trade. Unfortunately, that number includes less and less Americans. The designers and sellers of these products are American, but the people who make them are Chinese. In fact, therefore, this is just another way that free trade benefits China. China is, essentially, trading with itself. There are just a few Americans caught up in the process.
If you are not corporate in America (that is, if you're not in marketing), the only way you can benefit from free trade is by the availability of cheaper products which you can buy if you can find a way to earn a living outside of the free trade ambit. (This is oversimplified; stock ownership or working in finance provide other ways of benefiting from free trade, but again for a relatively limited American population.)
While, in the free trade context, China defines itself as the country in which Chinese live, America defines itself as the corporate headquarters of the producers of free-traded goods - and/or as the place where consumers live. It does not define itself as the home of all Americans. The spillover to non-corporate America of corporate America's profits is gratuitous and could be altered or eliminated at any time, while the spill-over to non-corporate China of corporate China's profits is essential to the success of China in a free trade system.
John Edwards said there are two Americas. In fact, that's true, but the two Americas are defined in entirely different ways. One America is corporate, and is American by choice; corporate America can pick up and move anywhere it wants to, and if it does move, by and by corporate America ceases to think of itself as American. Non-corporate America is American by necessity. It has nowhere else to go. If corporate America does pick up and leave, what's left behind is an America with no future at all.
And those are the folks who are voting Republican.
GRAMM'S RIGHT
Today the Huffington Post castigates Phil Gramm for saying that America is in a mental recession and that we have become a nation of whiners on economics. Gramm is, of course, right on both counts.
All recessions are in some part - often a large part - psychological. As is every move of the stock market. It's perception, not truth, that creates market conditions. And all the fuss over gas prices proves Americans are whiners - not just on economics, but on everything. It's the old entitlement, exceptionalist beliefs again. We think America is entitled to have everything go right. Truth is, if average gasoline usage is about 20 gallons a week, we're talking about a maximum addition of about $40 here. The vast majority of Americans can handle that easily. If not, maybe we're more Third World than we thought. (Actually we are. The hallmark of a Third World country is an oligarchy which rapes the economy and a peasantry which passively accepts it. That's us.)
There was a story on NBC News about Americans turning to bicycles. And I thought: China is moving from bicycles to cars and we're moving the other way. That should tell you everything we need to know about who's Third World and who is not. And as Gramm says, it's all psychological. We've developed a Third World mentality. And, considering the way Americans think (or are unable to think) these days, that may be an accurate perception. For example, thinking Gramm is wrong is not thinking at all.
Why is it Gramm is catching it for what he said? Because Americans have an absolute right not to be insulted, not to be told they're deficient in any way, not to be disabused of cherished illusions and not to be told the truth if they don't want to hear it. How do you maintain an empire with an attitude like that?
SO
So Obama votes for telecom immunity. That's bad enough. But read the comments on this article on the Huffington Post and then think: these are Democrats, alleged progressives, alleged liberals. They're supposed to be the smart ones. Who use reason instead of invective.
It just isn't worth it. The whole thing. Let it go.
It just isn't worth it. The whole thing. Let it go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
