My guess is that retailers who discounted deep did very well, volumewise, on Black Friday and today.
Since the economy is now 70% dependent on consumption, Americans have been pushed to shop for decades now. And since buying is an addictive habit, triggers like sales will drive them into the stores - and, incidentally, over the prostrate bodies of Walmart greeters. Beyond that, millions of us define ourselves by what we buy. The dominant element of who they are is what they own - sadly.
Since September those people have had to rein it in - and the pent-up desire was bound to explode if given the opportunity.
The question is: are they satiated? I bet they are - if they managed to buy what they so desperately wanted. How long does it take for the urge to rebuild until it can't be controlled - particularly when they know very well this is not the time to be spending? That will determine how the rest of the season goes.
BLOG POSTS
Saturday, November 29, 2008
SOCIALISTS
So who out there understands the power and value of collective bargaining?
Farmers in Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and New Mexico - those staunch individualists - have gathered in local groups to deal more effectively with developers who want rights of way on their land, either to set up wind mills or to run cable over the acreage to get the electricity to where it will be used. They're helping each other with information and agreeing not to deal alone.
Sounds like a union, don't it? God damn socialists.
Farmers in Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and New Mexico - those staunch individualists - have gathered in local groups to deal more effectively with developers who want rights of way on their land, either to set up wind mills or to run cable over the acreage to get the electricity to where it will be used. They're helping each other with information and agreeing not to deal alone.
Sounds like a union, don't it? God damn socialists.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
THE HONEYMOON THIS TIME
What Obama is saying (by what he is doing) is that progressives are not capable of governing. Thinking, maybe, but not actually doing something.
This is no surprise. Obama is no progressive. In fact, if it were not for the economic troubles, Obama might never have said a populist word.
The honeymoon, this time - the benefit of the doubt - is being granted by progressives. It won't last long if they get nothing in return.
This is no surprise. Obama is no progressive. In fact, if it were not for the economic troubles, Obama might never have said a populist word.
The honeymoon, this time - the benefit of the doubt - is being granted by progressives. It won't last long if they get nothing in return.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
THE "OFFER"
From Elizabeth Drew on the Huffington Post:
"Mrs. Clinton's and her closest advisers' turning a suggestion by the President-elect that she might, among other things, head the State Department into an "offer" and reports that she was agonizing over whether to accept it, did not please officials in Chicago, some of whom hoped that issues over disclosure of Bill Clinton's post-presidential record might block the appointment. But the former president's camp blocked that by promising to cooperate with requests for information and to accept limits on his activities, including clearance of speaking engagements abroad. Statements by the Hilary camp on November 21 saying that "she's ready" for the position but then backtracking, saying that some matters were "under discussion," typified the whole mess, the only snag thus far in an otherwise unusually smooth transition involving impressive choices--an object lesson to Obama (which he had reason to know already) that getting involved with the Clintons is rarely uncomplicated."
Does devious, self-involved, scheming and calculated describe someone fitted to be Secretary of State? Well, we did have Kissinger - and there's Metternich. Maybe Obama finds the whole thing amusing. We'll have to see from the results whether we do.
"Mrs. Clinton's and her closest advisers' turning a suggestion by the President-elect that she might, among other things, head the State Department into an "offer" and reports that she was agonizing over whether to accept it, did not please officials in Chicago, some of whom hoped that issues over disclosure of Bill Clinton's post-presidential record might block the appointment. But the former president's camp blocked that by promising to cooperate with requests for information and to accept limits on his activities, including clearance of speaking engagements abroad. Statements by the Hilary camp on November 21 saying that "she's ready" for the position but then backtracking, saying that some matters were "under discussion," typified the whole mess, the only snag thus far in an otherwise unusually smooth transition involving impressive choices--an object lesson to Obama (which he had reason to know already) that getting involved with the Clintons is rarely uncomplicated."
Does devious, self-involved, scheming and calculated describe someone fitted to be Secretary of State? Well, we did have Kissinger - and there's Metternich. Maybe Obama finds the whole thing amusing. We'll have to see from the results whether we do.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
SIMPLISTIC
Here's what puzzles me:
The proposal for government spending on repairing infrastructure, developing fuel-efficient cars and alternate energy sources will allegedly create 2,000,000 jobs.
So the 50,000 people fired from Citigroup, and all those retail employees who have been let go, are now going to go to work on construction crews? Kind of Maoist, isn't it? Smacks of the Cultural Revolution. How many people will it take to design electric cars? A couple of hundred?
For the most part, it seems to me, this stimulus package is going to create the kind of jobs Americans no longer want. Now, create a million new jobs on Wall Street and a whole lot of college grads will be deliriously happy. But those are the kinds of jobs America doesn't need.
The whole thing seems simplistic to me - a plan designed for an era 70 years gone. America isn't even close to what it was before the Depression. I think a whole lot more thinking is in order.
On the other hand, half of Mexico will find work here in these proposals.
The proposal for government spending on repairing infrastructure, developing fuel-efficient cars and alternate energy sources will allegedly create 2,000,000 jobs.
So the 50,000 people fired from Citigroup, and all those retail employees who have been let go, are now going to go to work on construction crews? Kind of Maoist, isn't it? Smacks of the Cultural Revolution. How many people will it take to design electric cars? A couple of hundred?
For the most part, it seems to me, this stimulus package is going to create the kind of jobs Americans no longer want. Now, create a million new jobs on Wall Street and a whole lot of college grads will be deliriously happy. But those are the kinds of jobs America doesn't need.
The whole thing seems simplistic to me - a plan designed for an era 70 years gone. America isn't even close to what it was before the Depression. I think a whole lot more thinking is in order.
On the other hand, half of Mexico will find work here in these proposals.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
DELUSIONAL
Women see Hillary Clinton's nomination as Secretary of State as a major triumph for women? Did they feel the same about Condoleeza Rice?
I don't think so.
Many women are personally invested in Hillary. To paraphrase the old song, she is woman, hear her roar. And I suspect it has a lot to do with the crap she took from Bill, and the crap she took from Republicans, etc. I.e., from men. She has surmounted the crap. Condoleeza never had to live with it.
Women are telling themselves they're satisfied with this appointment, but it isn't really what they want. According to the Times, "On pro-Clinton e-mail lists, supporters were already calling their heroine the next George Marshall, a figure who would reshape the world while President-elect Barack Obama becomes entangled in the sinking economy." And, quoting Christine Quinn, “The president, who has a job that you have the deepest respect for, says ‘You are our gal, put our country back on the world stage.’"
Both of these pronouncements are entirely bizarre. They both position Hillary above Obama. They see Hillary as the glorious President of Foreign Policy, while Obama is the lesser President of The Economy. If that's what we get, it's not going to work out too well.
It doesn't matter, though, if feminists are delusional - as long as Clinton and Obama are not.
I don't think so.
Many women are personally invested in Hillary. To paraphrase the old song, she is woman, hear her roar. And I suspect it has a lot to do with the crap she took from Bill, and the crap she took from Republicans, etc. I.e., from men. She has surmounted the crap. Condoleeza never had to live with it.
Women are telling themselves they're satisfied with this appointment, but it isn't really what they want. According to the Times, "On pro-Clinton e-mail lists, supporters were already calling their heroine the next George Marshall, a figure who would reshape the world while President-elect Barack Obama becomes entangled in the sinking economy." And, quoting Christine Quinn, “The president, who has a job that you have the deepest respect for, says ‘You are our gal, put our country back on the world stage.’"
Both of these pronouncements are entirely bizarre. They both position Hillary above Obama. They see Hillary as the glorious President of Foreign Policy, while Obama is the lesser President of The Economy. If that's what we get, it's not going to work out too well.
It doesn't matter, though, if feminists are delusional - as long as Clinton and Obama are not.
Friday, November 21, 2008
THE WAVE
Why did the auto execs ride their private planes to Washington? Because it never occurred to them not to.
These guys have never seen an American populist sentiment which was not created by corporate manipulation and propaganda. They thought Reagan had crushed forever any possibility that the middle class might recognize that they were losing a class war they didn't even know was on. They had never experienced any significant opposition. And obviously they didn't read history, particularly the history of the American period which was most like today.
And that's the best argument for firing them.
Businesses and politicians succeed when they recognize a wave and ride it. Hillary Clinton didn't get that; neither do these guys. Obama did, and we'll have to see whether any corporations do - and whether the wave continues, or ebbs away.
These guys have never seen an American populist sentiment which was not created by corporate manipulation and propaganda. They thought Reagan had crushed forever any possibility that the middle class might recognize that they were losing a class war they didn't even know was on. They had never experienced any significant opposition. And obviously they didn't read history, particularly the history of the American period which was most like today.
And that's the best argument for firing them.
Businesses and politicians succeed when they recognize a wave and ride it. Hillary Clinton didn't get that; neither do these guys. Obama did, and we'll have to see whether any corporations do - and whether the wave continues, or ebbs away.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
NEGOTATIONS?
Word is that Clinton's people are asking Obama - again - to pick up her campaign debt as part of the negotiations on whether she does or does not serve as Secretary of State.
Negotiations? You mean, she's really that important?
Yep. She thinks so. That's who she is.
Give this woman a talk show. She's worse than Palin.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama is putting up with one day of this.
Negotiations? You mean, she's really that important?
Yep. She thinks so. That's who she is.
Give this woman a talk show. She's worse than Palin.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama is putting up with one day of this.
KEEP IT MOVING
I got the following fascinating email from David Plouffe:
I have a special request for you.
The Obama-Biden Transition Project is a nonpartisan entity whose purpose is to facilitate the transition to a new government and prepare for the next administration.
In the past, efforts like these have often been very secretive and funded by the D.C. lobbying and corporate community.
But, like in the campaign, we've decided to do things differently.
For the first time, transition efforts won't be financed with donations from Washington lobbyists and PACs -- which means we'll need to keep asking for your help. Your generosity during the campaign helped get us here, but building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people to do this the right way.
We only have a few weeks to assess the state of the federal agencies, prepare our agenda, and staff key positions in the new administration. Your support right now will be crucial to helping us accomplish these goals.
Will you help support the urgent mission of our transition team with a donation of $100 or more?
https://donate.barackobama.com/transition
You know that we got here by building this campaign from the ground up. We're committed to building the White House team the same way.
Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
_________________________________________________
First, it had never occurred to me to think about who would pay for transition efforts. I guess I thought it would be the party.
Second, before I contribute to this, I would like to understand where the money is going. Who are they paying in regard to the transition? Where else are they spending - are we talking about legal pads?
But thirdly, I had suggested a few posts back that Obama should continue to reach to the base that elected him for help to solve problems that may get stuck in politics. I included fund raising as one possibility, though not for this particular cause. I just gave MoveOn a good chunk of change, but as soon as I understand what my money is for, I'll probably contribute just to keep the engine moving.
I have a special request for you.
The Obama-Biden Transition Project is a nonpartisan entity whose purpose is to facilitate the transition to a new government and prepare for the next administration.
In the past, efforts like these have often been very secretive and funded by the D.C. lobbying and corporate community.
But, like in the campaign, we've decided to do things differently.
For the first time, transition efforts won't be financed with donations from Washington lobbyists and PACs -- which means we'll need to keep asking for your help. Your generosity during the campaign helped get us here, but building a more transparent and open government means continuing to rely on a broader group of people to do this the right way.
We only have a few weeks to assess the state of the federal agencies, prepare our agenda, and staff key positions in the new administration. Your support right now will be crucial to helping us accomplish these goals.
Will you help support the urgent mission of our transition team with a donation of $100 or more?
https://donate.barackobama.com/transition
You know that we got here by building this campaign from the ground up. We're committed to building the White House team the same way.
Thank you,
David
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America
_________________________________________________
First, it had never occurred to me to think about who would pay for transition efforts. I guess I thought it would be the party.
Second, before I contribute to this, I would like to understand where the money is going. Who are they paying in regard to the transition? Where else are they spending - are we talking about legal pads?
But thirdly, I had suggested a few posts back that Obama should continue to reach to the base that elected him for help to solve problems that may get stuck in politics. I included fund raising as one possibility, though not for this particular cause. I just gave MoveOn a good chunk of change, but as soon as I understand what my money is for, I'll probably contribute just to keep the engine moving.
DROP IT
From the New York Times re Clinton for Secretary of State:
Both sides were engaged in a delicate public and private dance, maneuvering for position and reputation in case the deal falls through. Aides in each camp have grown increasingly sour toward the other in recent days as the matter played out publicly.
In their public signals, the Clintons are trying to take the former president's activities off the table as an issue, in their view eliminating any excuses for Mr. Obama not to give Mrs. Clinton the job. Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.
The tension could foreshadow a complex relationship burdened by suspicion and enmity should Mrs. Clinton become secretary of state. By putting her in the cabinet, Mr. Obama could remove a potential thorn in the Senate on issues like health care and a potential rival for the nomination in 2012 if his term proves rocky. But he could also face a rival power center within his own administration with her on his team.
___________________________
It's already ruined. Drop it and start over.
Both sides were engaged in a delicate public and private dance, maneuvering for position and reputation in case the deal falls through. Aides in each camp have grown increasingly sour toward the other in recent days as the matter played out publicly.
In their public signals, the Clintons are trying to take the former president's activities off the table as an issue, in their view eliminating any excuses for Mr. Obama not to give Mrs. Clinton the job. Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.
The tension could foreshadow a complex relationship burdened by suspicion and enmity should Mrs. Clinton become secretary of state. By putting her in the cabinet, Mr. Obama could remove a potential thorn in the Senate on issues like health care and a potential rival for the nomination in 2012 if his term proves rocky. But he could also face a rival power center within his own administration with her on his team.
___________________________
It's already ruined. Drop it and start over.
NATIONALIZE
About the auto bailout:
Since nobody's buying cars these days, the $25 bn bailout would only maintain the companies on life support until the market returns - or, more likely, since it will take quite a while for the market to return, it will be the first of many such bailouts.
If we have to pay continuously to keep the American auto industry alive, why not just nationalize it? That way it can be improved with all that money instead of just treating water. If Obama uses his usual vetting process to select government officials to run the auto industry, we have at least a decent chance of winding up with someone in charge who has the national interest in mind.
That goes for everyone else who wants a bailout, too. The stock market will tank, but we'll be better off in the end, and ultimately the nationalization can be reversed.
Since nobody's buying cars these days, the $25 bn bailout would only maintain the companies on life support until the market returns - or, more likely, since it will take quite a while for the market to return, it will be the first of many such bailouts.
If we have to pay continuously to keep the American auto industry alive, why not just nationalize it? That way it can be improved with all that money instead of just treating water. If Obama uses his usual vetting process to select government officials to run the auto industry, we have at least a decent chance of winding up with someone in charge who has the national interest in mind.
That goes for everyone else who wants a bailout, too. The stock market will tank, but we'll be better off in the end, and ultimately the nationalization can be reversed.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
BERNIE
Now here's a nice Jewish guy from Home Depot talking about unions as the death of civilization. I bet his grandpa didn't think that.
Class war is always with us. The guys who got don't want to have to give to the guys who ain't got. And they certainly don't want to be lectured by little union punks. Some people are born with no social conscience. But Jews are not supposed to be born that way. Only goyim think that Jews are heartless capitalists. Jews think even their capitalists are socially responsible.
Sometimes, however, they aren't. And no one calls them on it.
So Saul Alinsky worked for the death of civilization? Here are a few other people Bernie probably hates.
Come on, Bernie, a little respect for the tradition. Or we'll tell your rabbi not to sell you a seat for Yom Kippur.
Class war is always with us. The guys who got don't want to have to give to the guys who ain't got. And they certainly don't want to be lectured by little union punks. Some people are born with no social conscience. But Jews are not supposed to be born that way. Only goyim think that Jews are heartless capitalists. Jews think even their capitalists are socially responsible.
Sometimes, however, they aren't. And no one calls them on it.
So Saul Alinsky worked for the death of civilization? Here are a few other people Bernie probably hates.
Come on, Bernie, a little respect for the tradition. Or we'll tell your rabbi not to sell you a seat for Yom Kippur.
DITHERING WITH A PURPOSE
I've already said what I thought of the proposed nomination of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. What she's doing now is identical to what she did after Obama won the nomination - dragged out her acquiescence to keep the cameras on her. That is NOT what we need in a Secretary of State.
The thing's already an issue, and I'm sure Obama is regretting it. I'm sure he expected Hillary to be thinking about the country instead of herself - something she has never quite been able to do. The extension of the offer was a bad mistake. But it's time to cut the losses.
Obama needs to tell Clinton that she has until tomorrow at midnight to say yes or no. After that, the offer is withdrawn.
And God, I hope she dithers past midnight.
The thing's already an issue, and I'm sure Obama is regretting it. I'm sure he expected Hillary to be thinking about the country instead of herself - something she has never quite been able to do. The extension of the offer was a bad mistake. But it's time to cut the losses.
Obama needs to tell Clinton that she has until tomorrow at midnight to say yes or no. After that, the offer is withdrawn.
And God, I hope she dithers past midnight.
WAR AGAINST THE WORLD
So you thought the North finally won the Civil War with the election of Obama?
Not so fast.
The AP points out that much of the Congressional opposition to the Detroit bailout comes from representatives of Southern states. Why? Because the imports have taken advantage of the South's anti-union attitudes to build plants in South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama - not surprisingly, the deepest of the Deep South. And these goobers have stated frankly that their opposition is regional.
Making the case, as they do, that it's good for America not to have any native conceived vehicles is just a step above the already accepted contention that it's better for everyone if everything is made in China. It's an idea with a Southern soul, although it's pretty widespread.
I don't approve of a bailout which doesn't require, and oversee, major changes in the companies' management, goals and methods. I don't expect they will agree to any of that. It's possible that the companies could come out of bankruptcy more competitive. It's just about definite that bankruptcy will destroy the last major American manufacturing unions and leave 600,000 people without promised pensions and health care (and that's just the current retirees). Millions of jobs will likely disappear. And if bankruptcy doesn't work, or doesn't happen, we could be looking at the collapse of the world economy. The Dow's below 7000. We are fast approaching the point at which there will be no buyers for stocks people want to sell. And that's what triggered the Great Depression.
So the South, with nihilistic glee, declares war against the world, and fires the first cannon shot at the new Fort Sumter.
The president is a black guy, and his chief of staff is a Jew? The wrong people are buying guns.
Not so fast.
The AP points out that much of the Congressional opposition to the Detroit bailout comes from representatives of Southern states. Why? Because the imports have taken advantage of the South's anti-union attitudes to build plants in South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama - not surprisingly, the deepest of the Deep South. And these goobers have stated frankly that their opposition is regional.
Making the case, as they do, that it's good for America not to have any native conceived vehicles is just a step above the already accepted contention that it's better for everyone if everything is made in China. It's an idea with a Southern soul, although it's pretty widespread.
I don't approve of a bailout which doesn't require, and oversee, major changes in the companies' management, goals and methods. I don't expect they will agree to any of that. It's possible that the companies could come out of bankruptcy more competitive. It's just about definite that bankruptcy will destroy the last major American manufacturing unions and leave 600,000 people without promised pensions and health care (and that's just the current retirees). Millions of jobs will likely disappear. And if bankruptcy doesn't work, or doesn't happen, we could be looking at the collapse of the world economy. The Dow's below 7000. We are fast approaching the point at which there will be no buyers for stocks people want to sell. And that's what triggered the Great Depression.
So the South, with nihilistic glee, declares war against the world, and fires the first cannon shot at the new Fort Sumter.
The president is a black guy, and his chief of staff is a Jew? The wrong people are buying guns.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
EVERYONE KNOWS
If Obama has offered the Secretary of State position to Hillary Clinton, he has also handed her power over him, after he beat her back for the nomination and at a time when he needs to be seen as in charge. If he didn't make the offer, things are even worse.
What power did he give her - or allow her to take? Because of who she is - both her position and her personality - the media have moved at least some of their focus off Obama and onto her, making him look like a bit of an afterthought - or worse, like someone who is who she campaigned saying he was: an inexperienced kid who was going to need her brilliant help. In fact, Obama is taken to have just conceded Hillary's extensive international experience, when he proved in the campaign that she had actually had next to none.
By intentionally leaking the "news" that she's "torn" over whether or not to accept, she creates a story which moves even more media spotlight onto her, and extends her power over Obama over a longer period of time. AND conveys the message that Obama is not an unstoppable juggernaut, or even someone she needs - and by extension, we need - to respect. In other words, she has just won the nomination, although a little after the fact.
And if she turns him down? What a slap in the face. What a way to convey her own superiority. And what a message to others to the effect that this guy ain't all that much, he's easily dissable.
It's all petty, a cheap meaningless power play, a vengeful attempt at satisfaction and a statement of the infinitude of the Clintons. But Obama let her do it. Maybe he's confident whatever she does can't hurt him. I'm not.
Obama's instinctual apprehension of exactly this kind of behavior led him to ignore Hillary when thinking about his vice president. He should have followed that instinct all the way to its conclusion. This is not the way Obama needs to begin things. Or to maintain his control over international policy.
Nobody needs Hillary, least of all Obama. This was a graceful gesture extended to a woman who has no grace.
What power did he give her - or allow her to take? Because of who she is - both her position and her personality - the media have moved at least some of their focus off Obama and onto her, making him look like a bit of an afterthought - or worse, like someone who is who she campaigned saying he was: an inexperienced kid who was going to need her brilliant help. In fact, Obama is taken to have just conceded Hillary's extensive international experience, when he proved in the campaign that she had actually had next to none.
By intentionally leaking the "news" that she's "torn" over whether or not to accept, she creates a story which moves even more media spotlight onto her, and extends her power over Obama over a longer period of time. AND conveys the message that Obama is not an unstoppable juggernaut, or even someone she needs - and by extension, we need - to respect. In other words, she has just won the nomination, although a little after the fact.
And if she turns him down? What a slap in the face. What a way to convey her own superiority. And what a message to others to the effect that this guy ain't all that much, he's easily dissable.
It's all petty, a cheap meaningless power play, a vengeful attempt at satisfaction and a statement of the infinitude of the Clintons. But Obama let her do it. Maybe he's confident whatever she does can't hurt him. I'm not.
Obama's instinctual apprehension of exactly this kind of behavior led him to ignore Hillary when thinking about his vice president. He should have followed that instinct all the way to its conclusion. This is not the way Obama needs to begin things. Or to maintain his control over international policy.
Nobody needs Hillary, least of all Obama. This was a graceful gesture extended to a woman who has no grace.
COOL
Something is fundamentally wrong with Republican brains.
Here's Tim Pawlenty, considered a leading light among moderate Republicans:
"People are worried--"How am I gonna pay for my kid's tuition?" Republicans could be very modern, reach out to young people by saying, "We're going to reduce your tuition, and here's how we're going to do it. We're gonna offer money to regional universities or universities that can put all or most of their degrees online. And we're gonna help pay for it. Instead of building more buildings, we're migrating delivery of higher education services online and once you add one more student to an online program, the marginal cost is zero--and so instead of having a debate about tuition going up X percent or Y percent, we could be talking about tuition going down X percent or Y percent. And, by the way, you can access it anywhere, any time, best of class..." And that would, I think, relate to young people. It would be technologically "current," it would be talking about reforming the way we deliver a service, it would about providing it better, cheaper, faster... it would be "cool."
Cool.
What does a Republican know about cool?
The reason you go to a university is not to learn catechistically, but through an exchange of ideas, discussion, mental stimulation. You also go to college to meet people whom you can make a part of your future life and career path. You can't do either of those online.
We don't want people making education policy who don't understand how education works.
Here's Tim Pawlenty, considered a leading light among moderate Republicans:
"People are worried--"How am I gonna pay for my kid's tuition?" Republicans could be very modern, reach out to young people by saying, "We're going to reduce your tuition, and here's how we're going to do it. We're gonna offer money to regional universities or universities that can put all or most of their degrees online. And we're gonna help pay for it. Instead of building more buildings, we're migrating delivery of higher education services online and once you add one more student to an online program, the marginal cost is zero--and so instead of having a debate about tuition going up X percent or Y percent, we could be talking about tuition going down X percent or Y percent. And, by the way, you can access it anywhere, any time, best of class..." And that would, I think, relate to young people. It would be technologically "current," it would be talking about reforming the way we deliver a service, it would about providing it better, cheaper, faster... it would be "cool."
Cool.
What does a Republican know about cool?
The reason you go to a university is not to learn catechistically, but through an exchange of ideas, discussion, mental stimulation. You also go to college to meet people whom you can make a part of your future life and career path. You can't do either of those online.
We don't want people making education policy who don't understand how education works.
PATSY?
In the three personnel matters involving Obama and the Democrats, we have so far seen nothing new.
Rahm Emanuel is the essence of politics as usual. Probably a good appointment as chief of staff, since he therefore knows Washington so well. But Emanuel stood with Schumer against the 50 state strategy and is as tied to Wall Street as the Clintons are.
Speaking of which - Hillary Clinton doesn't have even the qualifications of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State. She didn't wind up on the Obama ticket because Obama couldn't trust her or her husband not to knife him in the back. Now he gives her the up front role in American foreign policy? As David Ignatius put it:
"Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that's hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options."
Justin Raimundo of antiwar.com:
"Hillary opposed every significant peace initiative he put forward during the campaign, including a timetable to get us out of Iraq and direct negotiations with our adversaries. She derided this last - and very encouraging - stance as 'naïve' and 'dangerous.' Is this the person who will now be expected to take the lead in facilitating those talks?"
And Lieberman keeps his committee chairmanship? I understand that his vote may be necessary if the Democrats get to 59 - but so far they haven't, and they probably won't; so if that was important, why not wait until the unresolved elections are resolved?
I understand that Obama believes in reaching out - but if he doesn't reach out to progressives pretty soon, with some new faces in some significant posts (for example, Max Cleland in charge of veterans affairs, an appointment for which there is no other logical candidate and no reason why it could not be announced immediately - yet it hasn't been) people are going to look at him the way they look at Bush - as a patsy for the party establishment. People believed the Obama campaign was about principle. Now we get to find out if we got fooled.
Perhaps the most cogent sign that Obama is prey to politics as usual is that, while during his campaign there were no leaks, everything is leaking out now. That has to mean that Obama is losing more control with every old pol he consults or integrates. Plus ca change, etc. Too bad.
Rahm Emanuel is the essence of politics as usual. Probably a good appointment as chief of staff, since he therefore knows Washington so well. But Emanuel stood with Schumer against the 50 state strategy and is as tied to Wall Street as the Clintons are.
Speaking of which - Hillary Clinton doesn't have even the qualifications of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State. She didn't wind up on the Obama ticket because Obama couldn't trust her or her husband not to knife him in the back. Now he gives her the up front role in American foreign policy? As David Ignatius put it:
"Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that's hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options."
Justin Raimundo of antiwar.com:
"Hillary opposed every significant peace initiative he put forward during the campaign, including a timetable to get us out of Iraq and direct negotiations with our adversaries. She derided this last - and very encouraging - stance as 'naïve' and 'dangerous.' Is this the person who will now be expected to take the lead in facilitating those talks?"
And Lieberman keeps his committee chairmanship? I understand that his vote may be necessary if the Democrats get to 59 - but so far they haven't, and they probably won't; so if that was important, why not wait until the unresolved elections are resolved?
I understand that Obama believes in reaching out - but if he doesn't reach out to progressives pretty soon, with some new faces in some significant posts (for example, Max Cleland in charge of veterans affairs, an appointment for which there is no other logical candidate and no reason why it could not be announced immediately - yet it hasn't been) people are going to look at him the way they look at Bush - as a patsy for the party establishment. People believed the Obama campaign was about principle. Now we get to find out if we got fooled.
Perhaps the most cogent sign that Obama is prey to politics as usual is that, while during his campaign there were no leaks, everything is leaking out now. That has to mean that Obama is losing more control with every old pol he consults or integrates. Plus ca change, etc. Too bad.
Monday, November 17, 2008
THE LIBERAL THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT
Newark mayor Cory Booker opened my eyes tonight.
On Rachel Maddow, he pointed out that the huge fundraising capabilities Obama developed over the internet for his campaign could be used to enlist active support, and even fundraising, for other things.
What if some worthy charitable cause needed funding? Or some important technology project, or people working on global warming, or electric cars? What if the government needed funds to perform some function? Why not raise the money the same way Obama did, using the same network, and with his endorsement?
Call it the liberal thousand points of light. Call it mass based venture capital. Here is a chance for the public - or a specific segment of the public with a specific political philosophy - to directly fund projects deemed necessary for the success of America outside of the political process. No need for Congressional squabbles. No need for tax revenues. It's the people helping government, rather than the other way around.
I really like it.
UPDATE: And it begins.
On Rachel Maddow, he pointed out that the huge fundraising capabilities Obama developed over the internet for his campaign could be used to enlist active support, and even fundraising, for other things.
What if some worthy charitable cause needed funding? Or some important technology project, or people working on global warming, or electric cars? What if the government needed funds to perform some function? Why not raise the money the same way Obama did, using the same network, and with his endorsement?
Call it the liberal thousand points of light. Call it mass based venture capital. Here is a chance for the public - or a specific segment of the public with a specific political philosophy - to directly fund projects deemed necessary for the success of America outside of the political process. No need for Congressional squabbles. No need for tax revenues. It's the people helping government, rather than the other way around.
I really like it.
UPDATE: And it begins.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
SOCIAL JUSTICE?
Was just listening to a caller to On Point, in a program discussing Catholicism now. She was from Rhode Island and was commending the bishop there for speaking out against anti-immigration policies. She saw this as a commitment to social justice.
Forgive me, but I can't help believing that the reason the American Catholic church is pro-immigration is that most immigrants are Hispanic, and many Hispanics are fervently Catholic. It seems to me that what the church is looking to do is refill its pews, which are otherwise emptying out.
A church cannot be selective about its commitment to social justice. It's either all in or all out. If you don't care about everyone's well being, then you're just promoting your own theology in supporting social justice concerns in a few cases.
Forgive me, but I can't help believing that the reason the American Catholic church is pro-immigration is that most immigrants are Hispanic, and many Hispanics are fervently Catholic. It seems to me that what the church is looking to do is refill its pews, which are otherwise emptying out.
A church cannot be selective about its commitment to social justice. It's either all in or all out. If you don't care about everyone's well being, then you're just promoting your own theology in supporting social justice concerns in a few cases.
WE'LL SEE
This is worth reading. But it misses the point.
There are three kinds of Jews who will vote Republican: those for whom money is everything, those for whom Israel is everything, and those who are dumb enough to believe, for example, that Obama is a Muslim.
As to the first, there are not many of those, and most of them are in New York. It's always intrigued me that many in high finance are and have been Jews (and today I heard, on On Point, a caller express for the first time what I suspect many are thinking: that Jews are responsible for the economic crash) and also that many prominent socialists, labor leaders and even Communists have been Jews (Marx and Trotsky). Which proves that Jews do not think as a group on economics.
As to the second, most are extremely religious and hard right, and a perfect fit for Republicanism.
As to the third, there are less of those than in any other racial, social or religious grouping other than Asians.
For those for whom Israel is important but not everything, whether or not they should have voted for Obama depends primarily on whether they see peace or power as the best guarantee of Israel's security.
Obama, I suspect, will choose peace. I think he will put some pressure on Israel to enter into serious negotiations toward a final Mideast resolution. I don't think he will want to support the settler movement. What I don't know is how far he will go toward acting on his beliefs.
On the other hand, McCain would have continued Bush's "Israel right or wrong" policies. So if you believe guns and nukes will be enough to secure Israel, and that peace is an utter impossibility, you should have voted Republican. I think. We'll see.
There are three kinds of Jews who will vote Republican: those for whom money is everything, those for whom Israel is everything, and those who are dumb enough to believe, for example, that Obama is a Muslim.
As to the first, there are not many of those, and most of them are in New York. It's always intrigued me that many in high finance are and have been Jews (and today I heard, on On Point, a caller express for the first time what I suspect many are thinking: that Jews are responsible for the economic crash) and also that many prominent socialists, labor leaders and even Communists have been Jews (Marx and Trotsky). Which proves that Jews do not think as a group on economics.
As to the second, most are extremely religious and hard right, and a perfect fit for Republicanism.
As to the third, there are less of those than in any other racial, social or religious grouping other than Asians.
For those for whom Israel is important but not everything, whether or not they should have voted for Obama depends primarily on whether they see peace or power as the best guarantee of Israel's security.
Obama, I suspect, will choose peace. I think he will put some pressure on Israel to enter into serious negotiations toward a final Mideast resolution. I don't think he will want to support the settler movement. What I don't know is how far he will go toward acting on his beliefs.
On the other hand, McCain would have continued Bush's "Israel right or wrong" policies. So if you believe guns and nukes will be enough to secure Israel, and that peace is an utter impossibility, you should have voted Republican. I think. We'll see.
HILLARY AND STATE
Nancy L. Cohen writes on the Huffington Post:
If we shift the angle of vision from the habits we formed during the campaign, Hillary Clinton emerges into view as an inspired choice for secretary of state and a potential agent of transformational change -- exactly what President-elect Barack Obama is seeking. Obama will not choose Hillary to make party peace, nor to bring warmed-over Clintonism into the inner sanctums of the new administration. He will not choose her because she is a woman. If Hillary is the one, she will have been chosen because she has shown visionary leadership on two of the critical international (and moral) questions of our age: climate change and the human rights of women.
If we were picking a secretary of state based on his or her position on climate change, the logical choice would be Al Gore. And women's rights issues will not be at the forefront of international relations in the next few years. And the only thing transformational that Hillary would bring to the post is ... well, she won't even bring that, considering the gender of the person now holding the post, not to mention Madeleine Albright. Ms. Cohen wants a woman. Well, okay.
Ms. Cohen does go on to say:
Others legitimately call attention to her record in the campaign (bad), her record and rhetoric on classic international issues (mixed), the experience and prestige she would bring to the position (mixed). Right. Clinton was a war hawk, and her international attitude is very much tied to Davos and big finance. She'd transform Obama's image, that's for sure.
Which brings me to my point. What Clinton wants or believes in should be irrelevant to her post. There are two tests for the position of secretary of state: what can she bring to Obama in the way of extensive international knowledge, and will she obey Obama's orders? I don't know that Hillary is particularly reliable on either - but I would approve the appointment on the condition that the moment she steps out of line, Obama cans her ass.
If we shift the angle of vision from the habits we formed during the campaign, Hillary Clinton emerges into view as an inspired choice for secretary of state and a potential agent of transformational change -- exactly what President-elect Barack Obama is seeking. Obama will not choose Hillary to make party peace, nor to bring warmed-over Clintonism into the inner sanctums of the new administration. He will not choose her because she is a woman. If Hillary is the one, she will have been chosen because she has shown visionary leadership on two of the critical international (and moral) questions of our age: climate change and the human rights of women.
If we were picking a secretary of state based on his or her position on climate change, the logical choice would be Al Gore. And women's rights issues will not be at the forefront of international relations in the next few years. And the only thing transformational that Hillary would bring to the post is ... well, she won't even bring that, considering the gender of the person now holding the post, not to mention Madeleine Albright. Ms. Cohen wants a woman. Well, okay.
Ms. Cohen does go on to say:
Others legitimately call attention to her record in the campaign (bad), her record and rhetoric on classic international issues (mixed), the experience and prestige she would bring to the position (mixed). Right. Clinton was a war hawk, and her international attitude is very much tied to Davos and big finance. She'd transform Obama's image, that's for sure.
Which brings me to my point. What Clinton wants or believes in should be irrelevant to her post. There are two tests for the position of secretary of state: what can she bring to Obama in the way of extensive international knowledge, and will she obey Obama's orders? I don't know that Hillary is particularly reliable on either - but I would approve the appointment on the condition that the moment she steps out of line, Obama cans her ass.
Friday, November 14, 2008
THE SAME MISTAKE
I beg Obama not to get involved in opposition to California Proposition 8, or any gay issues - at least not until his second year in office. Gays in the military turned Clinton's first term into hell. God forbid Obama makes the same mistake.
Monday, November 10, 2008
NUTCASE?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he's still trying to keep Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman within the Democratic caucus despite anger over Lieberman's support of Republican presidential nominee John McCain.
While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, "Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."
"Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase," he said. "Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."
Well, now - that insults not only Chris Dodd but Chris Shays. Whether or not Lieberman is a right-wing nutcase depends on whether or not you consider neocons nutcases. Because that's what he is.
Pressure is coming from somewhere to keep Lieberman in the caucus. I guess it makes sense not to squander a possible vote at this time. Whether Lieberman stays or goes - if that's up to the Democrats - is a decision which should be postpone until things shake out some more.
While he has opposed Democratic efforts to end the war in Iraq, "Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators," Reid told CNN's "Late Edition."
"Joe Lieberman is not some right-wing nutcase," he said. "Joe Lieberman is one of the most progressive people ever to come from the state of Connecticut."
Well, now - that insults not only Chris Dodd but Chris Shays. Whether or not Lieberman is a right-wing nutcase depends on whether or not you consider neocons nutcases. Because that's what he is.
Pressure is coming from somewhere to keep Lieberman in the caucus. I guess it makes sense not to squander a possible vote at this time. Whether Lieberman stays or goes - if that's up to the Democrats - is a decision which should be postpone until things shake out some more.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
DISAPPOINTED
Steve Clemons says at the Huffington Post:
I'd like to see Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, James Galbraith, Leo Hindery, Clyde Prestowitz, Charlene Barshefsky, C. Fred Bergsten, Adam Posen, Robert Kuttner, Robert Samuelson, Alan Murray, William Bonvillian, Doug & Heidi Rediker, Bernard Schwartz, Tom Gallagher, Sheila Bair, Sherle Schwenninger, and Kevin Phillips added to Obama's discussion group on the economy. It would be far more diverse, less predictable, genuinely interesting and produce greater policy option possibilities than the quite "regal" group on stage.
Add Naomi Klein and I'm on board.
The people who are now in the group are heavily business weighted and many of them are implicated in creating the current situation. Academics and out-of-the-box thinkers are entirely absent. If this lineup is indicative of the way Obama thinks, don't look for a new FDR or much of a new anything from Obama.
I'd like to see Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, James Galbraith, Leo Hindery, Clyde Prestowitz, Charlene Barshefsky, C. Fred Bergsten, Adam Posen, Robert Kuttner, Robert Samuelson, Alan Murray, William Bonvillian, Doug & Heidi Rediker, Bernard Schwartz, Tom Gallagher, Sheila Bair, Sherle Schwenninger, and Kevin Phillips added to Obama's discussion group on the economy. It would be far more diverse, less predictable, genuinely interesting and produce greater policy option possibilities than the quite "regal" group on stage.
Add Naomi Klein and I'm on board.
The people who are now in the group are heavily business weighted and many of them are implicated in creating the current situation. Academics and out-of-the-box thinkers are entirely absent. If this lineup is indicative of the way Obama thinks, don't look for a new FDR or much of a new anything from Obama.
Friday, November 07, 2008
THE RIGHT THING
The auto industry has asked the government for $25 billion to retool to make fuel efficient cars. I.e., they want us to pay for what they should have done with their profits from when SUVS and trucks were hot.
The right answer? Not interested. We will give you money if 1) you get rid of all the management people who brought you to this pass; 2) you start respecting the people who work for you financially; and 3) you change the names of your corporation and your cars, because nobody wants the shit you make. In order to guarantee that you do the above, we want over 50% of your voting stock. If you're not interested in this deal, we'll wait until you go under and then give the money to buy your plants at a nickel on the dollar to people who know how to run a socially conscious business.
And THEN they want another $25 billion to set up an employee health trust. The right answer: rather than giving you, who have proven your lack of brains and bad attitude, money for health insurance, why don't we take that $25 billion and seed single payer coverage, i.e., the kind of socialism that doesn't just get you off the hook for health care coverage your union contracts require of you, but offers the same coverage to tons of people who don't work for you. How many people could we cover with $25 billion. Bet it's a lot more than are on your payroll.
That would be the right thing to do.
The right answer? Not interested. We will give you money if 1) you get rid of all the management people who brought you to this pass; 2) you start respecting the people who work for you financially; and 3) you change the names of your corporation and your cars, because nobody wants the shit you make. In order to guarantee that you do the above, we want over 50% of your voting stock. If you're not interested in this deal, we'll wait until you go under and then give the money to buy your plants at a nickel on the dollar to people who know how to run a socially conscious business.
And THEN they want another $25 billion to set up an employee health trust. The right answer: rather than giving you, who have proven your lack of brains and bad attitude, money for health insurance, why don't we take that $25 billion and seed single payer coverage, i.e., the kind of socialism that doesn't just get you off the hook for health care coverage your union contracts require of you, but offers the same coverage to tons of people who don't work for you. How many people could we cover with $25 billion. Bet it's a lot more than are on your payroll.
That would be the right thing to do.
TAX BREAKS WILL DO NOTHING
Obama talks about giving tax breaks to the middle class, but a tax break is no substitute for a job that pays well. That area is where the most important work has to be done, in both the short and the long term.
You either stop the bleeding of good jobs overseas, or you create good jobs which can't go overseas - or both. The first requires a shift in corporate attitude back to where it was when companies valued their employees. It always amazes me when kids crow about their job fluidity. They think they can manipulate the employer system - and they can, if they're uniquely skilled. But most aren't, and can't - and those that are could manipulate even a socialist system to get to the level they want to reach.
I don't know how you legislate a requirement that corporations pay more of their profits to their workers than they now do - in other words, higher pay for work. In the old days, it took revolutions in Europe, and here a hard-fought labor war for unionization, to accomplish that. The problem in the US is not just corporate preference for shareholders over workers; it's also worker compliance in that preference, a contempt for unionization without even understanding what it's for. As I've said before, the real triumph of Reaganism was an immense redistribution of wealth upward with minimal resistance from workers, and no armed conflict. Marx would have been amazed at the accomplishment, and saddened by his inability to work the game the other way. So to expect this change to happen voluntarily is foolish. Class war will be necessary.
As for the second, government can contribute to that by investing in new technologies and, through tax policy or direct legislation, making it painful for companies to shift that work overseas. The argument against that sort of protectionism is that it makes the US uncompetitive. But being competitive isn't worth much when all the profits go straight to executives who are constitutionally unwilling to share a dime of them.
That's what you do if you're the president of America and not just the president of the top 1%.
You either stop the bleeding of good jobs overseas, or you create good jobs which can't go overseas - or both. The first requires a shift in corporate attitude back to where it was when companies valued their employees. It always amazes me when kids crow about their job fluidity. They think they can manipulate the employer system - and they can, if they're uniquely skilled. But most aren't, and can't - and those that are could manipulate even a socialist system to get to the level they want to reach.
I don't know how you legislate a requirement that corporations pay more of their profits to their workers than they now do - in other words, higher pay for work. In the old days, it took revolutions in Europe, and here a hard-fought labor war for unionization, to accomplish that. The problem in the US is not just corporate preference for shareholders over workers; it's also worker compliance in that preference, a contempt for unionization without even understanding what it's for. As I've said before, the real triumph of Reaganism was an immense redistribution of wealth upward with minimal resistance from workers, and no armed conflict. Marx would have been amazed at the accomplishment, and saddened by his inability to work the game the other way. So to expect this change to happen voluntarily is foolish. Class war will be necessary.
As for the second, government can contribute to that by investing in new technologies and, through tax policy or direct legislation, making it painful for companies to shift that work overseas. The argument against that sort of protectionism is that it makes the US uncompetitive. But being competitive isn't worth much when all the profits go straight to executives who are constitutionally unwilling to share a dime of them.
That's what you do if you're the president of America and not just the president of the top 1%.
IRRELEVANT
The stock market is not a financial institution. It isn't even a casino anymore.
The stock market is a place where people put money in which people with lots of money buy low in volume and drive the averages up, then sell high in volume and drive the averages down so that they can do it all over again.
What happens in the stock markets should have nothing whatever to do with what a president does to improve the economy.
The stock market is a place where people put money in which people with lots of money buy low in volume and drive the averages up, then sell high in volume and drive the averages down so that they can do it all over again.
What happens in the stock markets should have nothing whatever to do with what a president does to improve the economy.
POST-RACIAL
Everybody says Obama is black. But he's no more black than he is white - unless we're talking about color, not race. So I can say Obama is white in the same way you can say he's black. Emphasis on his blackness suggests he has certain attitudes which I do not think he has.
Obama is post-racial. As will America be in 30-40 years. He, and his supporters, are just ahead of their time.
Obama is post-racial. As will America be in 30-40 years. He, and his supporters, are just ahead of their time.
TALIBAN REPUBLICANS
Only days after losing the White House and suffering large defeats in both houses of Congress, the Republican Party is striking a posture of defiance.
Within the past 48 hours, the RNC has sent out memos blasting the president elect for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and hiring David Axelrod to serve an advisory role.
"Barack Obama's first White House hires are hyper-partisan operatives," read a statement from spokesman Alex Conant. "For a President-elect who promised to change the tone in Washington, it's disappointing that he is filling his White House with partisan bomb-throwers."
Additionally, Republicans have put out a press release drawing attention to the fact that the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had congratulated Obama on his victory -- as if it represented a certain brand of foreign policy acquiescence.
This is reaching across the aisle?
We are never going to be rid of these Taliban Republicans.
Within the past 48 hours, the RNC has sent out memos blasting the president elect for appointing Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and hiring David Axelrod to serve an advisory role.
"Barack Obama's first White House hires are hyper-partisan operatives," read a statement from spokesman Alex Conant. "For a President-elect who promised to change the tone in Washington, it's disappointing that he is filling his White House with partisan bomb-throwers."
Additionally, Republicans have put out a press release drawing attention to the fact that the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had congratulated Obama on his victory -- as if it represented a certain brand of foreign policy acquiescence.
This is reaching across the aisle?
We are never going to be rid of these Taliban Republicans.
NOW IT HAS A NAME
Sheldon Adelson, the 74-year-old casino billionaire who has become the third richest man in America and who has strong ties to the hard-line Likud Party in Israel, has emerged this year a major benefactor of the American right. Past evidence suggests that Adelson will capitalize on his ascent to the top of the Republican money elite to try to build opposition in America to any Middle East peace settlement calling for the division of Israel into two states, one Jewish, the other Palestinian.
In the current election cycle, Adelson has surpassed such past financial mainstays of conservative causes and of the GOP as oilman-corporate raider T. Boone Pickens ($4.6 million 2003-4), Houston real estate magnate Bob Perry ($18.5 million 2003-6) and former Univision CEO Jerry Perenchio ($9.1 million 2003-6).
Here in the US, Adelson is the single largest source of cash for two 501(c)4s: the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and a sister organization, Freedom's Watch, an Iraq War advocacy group largely run by top officials of RJC. Freedom's Watch intends to spend substantially more than $30 million for "independent" ads and phone banks designed to undermine support for Democrats.
In the current election cycle, Adelson has surpassed such past financial mainstays of conservative causes and of the GOP as oilman-corporate raider T. Boone Pickens ($4.6 million 2003-4), Houston real estate magnate Bob Perry ($18.5 million 2003-6) and former Univision CEO Jerry Perenchio ($9.1 million 2003-6).
Here in the US, Adelson is the single largest source of cash for two 501(c)4s: the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and a sister organization, Freedom's Watch, an Iraq War advocacy group largely run by top officials of RJC. Freedom's Watch intends to spend substantially more than $30 million for "independent" ads and phone banks designed to undermine support for Democrats.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
THE LIST
It being November 1, today I begin a list of people - I use the term loosely - who, whether Obama wins or not, should be shunned in future by progressives for their utterly contemptible political behavior. That means no acknowledgement, no recognition, no "reaching across the aisle." Without cutting these people out of our lives, we will never know a moment's peace.
So ...
John McCain
Sarah Palin
Elizabeth Dole
Members of the Republican Jewish Coalition, many of whom are identified here (I will list them individually sooner or later)
John Boehner
Tim McClellan
Members of the National Republican Trust PAC, a few of whom are identified here
Dick Cheney
Victoria Jackson
Whoever contributed to the Justice Department's new deregulatory guidelines on antitrust law
Steve Schmidt
Nicole Wallace
Ted Stevens
Rudy Giuliani
Opinion Access Corporation
Mike Huckabee
Dick Morris
Bill Cunningham
Michael Savage
Jerome Corsi
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Hilmar von Campe
Laura Hollis
Robin Roberts
Rose Tennant
Gordon Liddy
David Bossie
Katherine Kersten, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Jill Stanek
I will keep adding to this list, and moving it to the top of the blog.
So ...
John McCain
Sarah Palin
Elizabeth Dole
Members of the Republican Jewish Coalition, many of whom are identified here (I will list them individually sooner or later)
John Boehner
Tim McClellan
Members of the National Republican Trust PAC, a few of whom are identified here
Dick Cheney
Victoria Jackson
Whoever contributed to the Justice Department's new deregulatory guidelines on antitrust law
Steve Schmidt
Nicole Wallace
Ted Stevens
Rudy Giuliani
Opinion Access Corporation
Mike Huckabee
Dick Morris
Bill Cunningham
Michael Savage
Jerome Corsi
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Mark Levin
Hilmar von Campe
Laura Hollis
Robin Roberts
Rose Tennant
Gordon Liddy
David Bossie
Katherine Kersten, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Jill Stanek
I will keep adding to this list, and moving it to the top of the blog.
THE MOVEMENT
Obama's victory was the triumph of a movement that began with the Freedom Riders. But we have heard nothing much from that movement since Kent State. How is that the culmination comes now?
There were three reasons why the movement disintegrated: 1) the assassinations of the '60's; 2) the ascension of Nixon; and 3) the failure of blacks to produce a new inspirational leader. Kent State effectively ended the participation of whites in what was then considered radical politics and movements. The blacks were not able to carry the movement on by themselves.
However, individual blacks took advantage of the accomplishments of the movement - because though no one was talking about it, white barriers to the admission of blacks to white ranks were down. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, etc. took advantage of that. And so did Obama.
But neither Rice nor Powell had the guts to run for office. What Obama did was put himself out there as a candidate who was no different from many educated whites, and happened to be black. It was whites who picked up on him and his inspiration, which had little to do with his being black. So in a strange sort of way his movement revived at least the spirit of the '60's counterculture, which had been invisible since Kent State. And in the reverse of the '60's, that counterculture led to a revival of the civil rights movement, rather than the other way around. Whites did not really think of Obama as black - not until yesterday, when history reawoke.
And now Obama is considering Bobby Kennedy Jr for head of the EPA (a brilliant choice if he makes it) and Caroline Kennedy for UN Ambassador (another brilliant choice). And all I can think is: why did we let them bury that light for forty years? I'd feel like a kid again, except I'm not a kid, and there've been so many wasted years.
There were three reasons why the movement disintegrated: 1) the assassinations of the '60's; 2) the ascension of Nixon; and 3) the failure of blacks to produce a new inspirational leader. Kent State effectively ended the participation of whites in what was then considered radical politics and movements. The blacks were not able to carry the movement on by themselves.
However, individual blacks took advantage of the accomplishments of the movement - because though no one was talking about it, white barriers to the admission of blacks to white ranks were down. Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, etc. took advantage of that. And so did Obama.
But neither Rice nor Powell had the guts to run for office. What Obama did was put himself out there as a candidate who was no different from many educated whites, and happened to be black. It was whites who picked up on him and his inspiration, which had little to do with his being black. So in a strange sort of way his movement revived at least the spirit of the '60's counterculture, which had been invisible since Kent State. And in the reverse of the '60's, that counterculture led to a revival of the civil rights movement, rather than the other way around. Whites did not really think of Obama as black - not until yesterday, when history reawoke.
And now Obama is considering Bobby Kennedy Jr for head of the EPA (a brilliant choice if he makes it) and Caroline Kennedy for UN Ambassador (another brilliant choice). And all I can think is: why did we let them bury that light for forty years? I'd feel like a kid again, except I'm not a kid, and there've been so many wasted years.
OUT
In an interview with right-wing radio host Glenn Beck, Joe Lieberman made clear that he firmly opposes Democrats gaining 60 seats in the Senate, saying that the survival of the country is in doubt if Democrats break the filibuster threshold.
Enough already. Kick him out.
Enough already. Kick him out.
PEACE AND QUIET
It's as if the Germans had thrown the Nazis out in 1936, and elected Jesse Owens.
Tom Friedman says the North won the Civil War last night. I agree, but not for his reasons. The symbolic event of electing a black man is thrilling enough, but what really gets to me is that the hateful mindset of the last 14 years has been driven back into its home ground, the deep South. And there it will remain as strong as ever until the South decides to give up The Cause and join the rest of humanity. I was calling for the division of the US, but the victory last night was wide enough to obviate that. We simply need to ignore any part of the South that will not change, and learn that we don't have to listen to Fox News anymore. The word that struck me in Obama's speech last night was "immaturity" - describing recent American behavior. We don't have to tolerate tantrums any more. Unlike actual parents, we can simply divorce the children.
And that's the best of it - for a while, it will be safe to seek a little peace and quiet.
Tom Friedman says the North won the Civil War last night. I agree, but not for his reasons. The symbolic event of electing a black man is thrilling enough, but what really gets to me is that the hateful mindset of the last 14 years has been driven back into its home ground, the deep South. And there it will remain as strong as ever until the South decides to give up The Cause and join the rest of humanity. I was calling for the division of the US, but the victory last night was wide enough to obviate that. We simply need to ignore any part of the South that will not change, and learn that we don't have to listen to Fox News anymore. The word that struck me in Obama's speech last night was "immaturity" - describing recent American behavior. We don't have to tolerate tantrums any more. Unlike actual parents, we can simply divorce the children.
And that's the best of it - for a while, it will be safe to seek a little peace and quiet.
Monday, November 03, 2008
PALIN'S QUALIFIED (IN THE REPUBLICAN VIEW)
It's easy to understand why Republicans think Palin is qualified to be president. After all, they thought the same of George Bush.
By Republican doctrine, a president doesn't need to actually know anything. Since they view the president's role as implementing Republican policy and improving Republican prospects politically, all the president really needs is to be presentable (hopefully lovable), ideologically attuned and energized, and available. The president is a salesman, a tool for those who actually make the policy and do the governing. No reason why Palin can't do that.
By Republican doctrine, a president doesn't need to actually know anything. Since they view the president's role as implementing Republican policy and improving Republican prospects politically, all the president really needs is to be presentable (hopefully lovable), ideologically attuned and energized, and available. The president is a salesman, a tool for those who actually make the policy and do the governing. No reason why Palin can't do that.
ALONE
On Hardball tonight, Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri said that Obama's pitch for economic fairness is socialistic. And I've heard the same from McCain. I never thought I would hear a major American political party condemn fairness as something undesirable.
Couple that with Bond's anti-union statements and this is what you get: you who do not belong to the power elite are alone out there. We are not going to let you combine with others against us. You will have to focus your life on making as much money as you can, and getting into our circle, because that's what being an American means. And you're going to get no help from us. And if you choose to live your life for some other reason, the hell with you.
Kudos to the Republicans for finally putting it right out there, and recognizing that America is loaded with boobs who have no clue that's what they're saying - or actually agree, against their own economic interest. Nor do I believe that Obama's election is going to change their attitudes. The preachers are going to have to convert their concept of Christianity back to what it was before they invented the warrior Christ. And if Obama manages to get things done, these people may learn by experience how wrong they are. We're talking years here, people. And we may not have years.
Couple that with Bond's anti-union statements and this is what you get: you who do not belong to the power elite are alone out there. We are not going to let you combine with others against us. You will have to focus your life on making as much money as you can, and getting into our circle, because that's what being an American means. And you're going to get no help from us. And if you choose to live your life for some other reason, the hell with you.
Kudos to the Republicans for finally putting it right out there, and recognizing that America is loaded with boobs who have no clue that's what they're saying - or actually agree, against their own economic interest. Nor do I believe that Obama's election is going to change their attitudes. The preachers are going to have to convert their concept of Christianity back to what it was before they invented the warrior Christ. And if Obama manages to get things done, these people may learn by experience how wrong they are. We're talking years here, people. And we may not have years.
DESPAIR
The LA Times reports that Israel's top domestic security official reportedly warned Sunday that radical Jewish settlers might target Israeli leaders for assassination in order to scuttle any peace proposal that involves ceding occupied West Bank land to the Palestinians.
Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency, told Cabinet members Sunday that he was "very concerned" that settlers and their supporters would "use firearms in order to halt diplomatic processes and harm political leaders," the Associated Press reported, according to an account from a participant at the meeting.
It moves me toward despair to consider that Jews can behave like this.
And there are people just as crazy here.
Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security agency, told Cabinet members Sunday that he was "very concerned" that settlers and their supporters would "use firearms in order to halt diplomatic processes and harm political leaders," the Associated Press reported, according to an account from a participant at the meeting.
It moves me toward despair to consider that Jews can behave like this.
And there are people just as crazy here.
ON THE VOTING LINE IN TAMPA
People with Obama stickers on their shirts were passing out bottled water, snacks and bringing chairs for people that were having trouble standing for long periods. The McCain supporters outside the line were shouting, and holding signs like "Communist", "Terrorist", "Baby Killer", "Liberals are diseased", etc...
And there you have it.
And there you have it.
AWFUL
The word on possible McCain cabinet and staff picks? Terrifying.
Joe Lieberman as Secretary of State? Omigod! It is not possible to send a worse signal out to the world.
Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina as official or unofficial advisers? Fiorina wrecked HP. Whitman oversaw global marketing for Mr. Potato Head. Major league members of the corporate goniffocracy.
Rudy Giuliani as attorney general? Kiss your democracy goodbye.
Heather Wilson for Energy or national security? She's one of the New Mexico politicians who put pressure on David Iglesias to prosecute phony vote fraud claims.
So far, awful. Will it get worse?
Joe Lieberman as Secretary of State? Omigod! It is not possible to send a worse signal out to the world.
Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina as official or unofficial advisers? Fiorina wrecked HP. Whitman oversaw global marketing for Mr. Potato Head. Major league members of the corporate goniffocracy.
Rudy Giuliani as attorney general? Kiss your democracy goodbye.
Heather Wilson for Energy or national security? She's one of the New Mexico politicians who put pressure on David Iglesias to prosecute phony vote fraud claims.
So far, awful. Will it get worse?
SHE'S OUT OF THE CLOSET
On Sunday morning, vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin spoke in Canton following a warm-up performance by Grammy winner Gretchen Wilson, a popular singer who has had five singles in the Top Ten on the Billboard country charts, including her #1 hit Redneck Woman.
I guess it is now officially OK to call Palin a redneck.
I guess it is now officially OK to call Palin a redneck.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
THE GRAYS
So Wright has finally come up. Again.
What doesn't come up, on either side, is any kind of understanding of where Wright is coming from.
Younger, successful blacks like Obama and Rice don't need liberation theology. But it's not to be expected that someone Wright's age is going to feel overwhelming love for America, considering what it put his generation - and those before him - through. He's simply telling the truth as he sees it - and, agree or not, he has good reason to feel the way he does.
The American inability to tolerate criticism, and to conflate criticism of behavior or policy to criticism of the country (meaning what the country theoretically stands for and is about) reminds me of the attitude of many Jews toward Israel. Criticize Israel's policy toward Palestinians and you're an anti-Semite - you hate Jews. Criticize America's policy towards blacks and you're ... what? Terrorist? Socialist? Communist?
You know, my country right or wrong is fine when the chips are down - but if you can't criticize what your country does, you are powerless. Suppose some president dissolved Congress and declared a dictatorship. It's still America (barely); is it okay to be critical?
You don't make progress if you see things in black and white. It's the people who see the grays that move things along.
What doesn't come up, on either side, is any kind of understanding of where Wright is coming from.
Younger, successful blacks like Obama and Rice don't need liberation theology. But it's not to be expected that someone Wright's age is going to feel overwhelming love for America, considering what it put his generation - and those before him - through. He's simply telling the truth as he sees it - and, agree or not, he has good reason to feel the way he does.
The American inability to tolerate criticism, and to conflate criticism of behavior or policy to criticism of the country (meaning what the country theoretically stands for and is about) reminds me of the attitude of many Jews toward Israel. Criticize Israel's policy toward Palestinians and you're an anti-Semite - you hate Jews. Criticize America's policy towards blacks and you're ... what? Terrorist? Socialist? Communist?
You know, my country right or wrong is fine when the chips are down - but if you can't criticize what your country does, you are powerless. Suppose some president dissolved Congress and declared a dictatorship. It's still America (barely); is it okay to be critical?
You don't make progress if you see things in black and white. It's the people who see the grays that move things along.
VANUATU
David Broder says this is the best campaign he's ever covered. It's time for him to retire.
What he means is that it's the most fascinating, the most dramatic, the best from a reportorial point of view. Standing detached - in Vanuatu? - he sees it and marvels. But you'd have to be in Vanuatu to manage such detachment, because I don't think anywhere in the world there are people, those people think this horror show is the "best" campaign.
The consequences of this fascinating show don't seem to matter to Broder.
Another story on the Today Show, about a Chanel store in New York which contains art "inspired" by Chanel's signature handbag. Exactly how shallow are we going to get?
What he means is that it's the most fascinating, the most dramatic, the best from a reportorial point of view. Standing detached - in Vanuatu? - he sees it and marvels. But you'd have to be in Vanuatu to manage such detachment, because I don't think anywhere in the world there are people, those people think this horror show is the "best" campaign.
The consequences of this fascinating show don't seem to matter to Broder.
Another story on the Today Show, about a Chanel store in New York which contains art "inspired" by Chanel's signature handbag. Exactly how shallow are we going to get?
POP CULTURE
According to the Today Show, there's great interest in this election because it's a pop culture event. As with American Idol. We're into the characters and the story line. We want to see who wins. And we're all going to have election night parties. (They were giving us recipes.)
If they're right, we can expect a low turnout from the young and the pop culture obsessed - because most people don't participate in pop culture, they watch it. And that, it appears, is what's happening. My guess: fewer young people will vote in this election than voted on American Idol. Too bad you can't text a vote in ...
If they're right, we can expect a low turnout from the young and the pop culture obsessed - because most people don't participate in pop culture, they watch it. And that, it appears, is what's happening. My guess: fewer young people will vote in this election than voted on American Idol. Too bad you can't text a vote in ...
Saturday, November 01, 2008
GUNS
Gun possession has become a critical factor in the self-definition of the right. Why? Their guns are not for fun, or for shooting meese. Their guns are to "defend" themselves against - increasingly - "liberals." And liberals have now been officially determined to be socialists, even communists, and the next step - in the wonderful alchemy of ignorance - will be islamofascists, or whatever word they concoct next. If we have a black president, the war will have begun. So I advise you, if you're a liberal, to get a gun - preferably a big one - and learn how to use it. I mean, people like you are not the reason we need gun control, right?
HOWARD DEAN ON THE JEWISH VOTE
You know, I'll tell you, as someone who has "married into the tribe," as they say...the reason that American Jews vote for Democrats has nothing to do with Israel. It has everything to do with what makes a Jew in America. These are folks who emigrated from lands where most of the time they were persecuted - I'm not talking just about the people who came over because of Hitler, I'm talking about the people who came over before that because of pogroms in the Ukraine, or Russia. They have such a community-based view of what we owe each other as people; this is a very community-minded group, and that's why they vote Democratic. And the Republicans, always, every year, [say] "Oh my God, the Democrats aren't going to get the Jewish vote because of Israel!" First of all, the Democrats are just as pro-Israel as the Republicans are. But secondly, the Democratic values are core values in the Jewish community, and that is why we always end up with between 70% and 80% of the Jewish vote.
_________________________________
I must know, or know of, the entire 25% of Jews who hate Obama. So does this mean I can stop freaking out?
_________________________________
I must know, or know of, the entire 25% of Jews who hate Obama. So does this mean I can stop freaking out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
