What's wrong with Kumbaya? Even Frank Rich disparages it. In the late 50's and early 60's it was a song sung by people in groups to facilitate common purpose in dealing with issues like civil rights. It brought people together and gave them hope. This is a bad thing?
Kumbaya is now a Republican mnemonic like tort reform. It implies that idealism, altruism and optimism are bad things. Which they certainly are from the Republican perspective, as they tend to frustrate oligarchy. Republicans hated the '60's - mostly I think because they couldn't get or couldn't handle any of that free love. Of course they don't want to see those times come again - which in present circumstances they very well might.
It depresses me to hear liberals sign on to these mnemonics. I don't know what Rich wanted in the '60's, but I bet he got it. Was he ever in one of those circles of kids holding hands and swaying back and forth to that song? And how many who did are working on Wall Street now? And is Kimbaya a code word for progressive Jew - because that's who were singing it back in the day?
A little more careful please, Mr Rich.
BLOG POSTS
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Stop now!
I am begging progressive bloggers and commentators to stop refuting right wing talk show hosts. The people who read or hear you don't listen to Glenn Beck. The people who listen to him don't listen to you. So why give him another pulpit, more exposure.
There are very few reasons for progressives to pay attention to Beck:
1) his ratings start climbing
2) to become aware of republican talking points
3) to get a sense of what their tactics are and what they are going to do next.
If anything important turns up in those regards, by all means please let us know. But if it's just the usual blather, spare us please. There's nobody hearing you need to or have a chance to convince. There's a reason we don't listen to them. Mostly we don't need to. If they start making inroads beyond their own pathetic demographic, we might need to rethink the point. Otherwise they are irrelevant. You might as well be refuting zoo chimp behavior - and what does that accomplish, I'd like to know?
There are very few reasons for progressives to pay attention to Beck:
1) his ratings start climbing
2) to become aware of republican talking points
3) to get a sense of what their tactics are and what they are going to do next.
If anything important turns up in those regards, by all means please let us know. But if it's just the usual blather, spare us please. There's nobody hearing you need to or have a chance to convince. There's a reason we don't listen to them. Mostly we don't need to. If they start making inroads beyond their own pathetic demographic, we might need to rethink the point. Otherwise they are irrelevant. You might as well be refuting zoo chimp behavior - and what does that accomplish, I'd like to know?
Doubt
I doubt the current stimulus package - or any stimulus package - can turn the economy around. The problem had gotten too large for any government to control it short of creating a centralized economy, which even I don't want. That's why the Republicans are doing what they are doing - or rather not doing. In the next election cycle, they'll be blaming Democrats and the stimulus bill for continuing problems. At least in the House, since the bill was going to pass anyway there was no real downside to voting against it. The Senate is a different story. There, if they filibuster, the bill won't pass, and Obama can lay the blame for those problems at Republican feet. So I expect different tactics there. Some Republicans may vote for passage, so that if the package works they can take part of the credit, and if it doesn't they can still blame the Dems.
Or not.
Or not.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The facts, please
American Jewish organizations are very upset with Turkey, one of Israel's few muslim friends, because of what they describe as antisemetic words and deeds following israel's invasion of Gaza. They are so pissed that they may withdraw their opposition to a Congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide.
The words, so far as identified, are criticisms of the Gaza action. American Jewish organizations so often unfairly conflate criticism of Israeli policy that I am going to need a lot more specifics before I concede that the Turkish comments are in fact antisemitic, and that the desecration of a synagogue is a national Turkish expression and not the act of a couple of nuts. As for the Armenian genocide it either is or isn't. Whether it was genocide does not depend on how you're feeling about the Turks at any particular moment. Many Jews oppose calling what happened to Armenians genocide because they want that term exclusively reserved for the holocaust, which they use to protect the specialness of Jewish victimhood. If they're really ready to give that up they must be really pissed at the Turks.
How sad to know that there are so many Jewish neocons. But they do provide a sense of continuity. Just like republicans, they'll say or do anything to protect their own power base. So get used to it.
The words, so far as identified, are criticisms of the Gaza action. American Jewish organizations so often unfairly conflate criticism of Israeli policy that I am going to need a lot more specifics before I concede that the Turkish comments are in fact antisemitic, and that the desecration of a synagogue is a national Turkish expression and not the act of a couple of nuts. As for the Armenian genocide it either is or isn't. Whether it was genocide does not depend on how you're feeling about the Turks at any particular moment. Many Jews oppose calling what happened to Armenians genocide because they want that term exclusively reserved for the holocaust, which they use to protect the specialness of Jewish victimhood. If they're really ready to give that up they must be really pissed at the Turks.
How sad to know that there are so many Jewish neocons. But they do provide a sense of continuity. Just like republicans, they'll say or do anything to protect their own power base. So get used to it.
Not my fault
As we learn more about DNA, we move closer toward the adoption of a new form of Social Darwinism. There is a selfish gene which overpowers the altruistic gene - I.e., I'm not a bad person; I can't help myself.
That's not a new concept. Most religions assume a predisposition toward selfishness and presume to provide rules to help us correct that inner deficiency. But science does not provide such rules. So if science is all you believe in, you can feel free to be a son of a bitch. As a matter of fact, most religions have abandoned those rules. Some evangelical sects teach selfishness as doctrine, and all of them preach a direct route to God, which eliminates the need to consider anybody else.
It's all bullshit. Evolution is contradictory. It has taught some of us the necessity for altruism in an increasingly complex and crowded world. Others have learned that the road to success leads over broken bodies. Apparently evolution has not yet made a choice.
I think the latter are vestigial tails. But whether they are or not, it's up to you, not your genes, how you choose to play it.
That's not a new concept. Most religions assume a predisposition toward selfishness and presume to provide rules to help us correct that inner deficiency. But science does not provide such rules. So if science is all you believe in, you can feel free to be a son of a bitch. As a matter of fact, most religions have abandoned those rules. Some evangelical sects teach selfishness as doctrine, and all of them preach a direct route to God, which eliminates the need to consider anybody else.
It's all bullshit. Evolution is contradictory. It has taught some of us the necessity for altruism in an increasingly complex and crowded world. Others have learned that the road to success leads over broken bodies. Apparently evolution has not yet made a choice.
I think the latter are vestigial tails. But whether they are or not, it's up to you, not your genes, how you choose to play it.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
It makes sense
If Israel's true intention is to keep the West Bank - which it is, and which the Palestinians know very well - why would anyone expect Hamas to recognize Israel? As if that recognition mattered to either side. After 40 years of repression, occupation and now colonization, why would Palestinians not hate Israel, and why would the PA and its sycophantic stance merit any Palestinian respect.
Actually, it really isn't colonization. Colonizers exploit the labor and resources of the colonized. The better colonizers gave at least some effort - though it was for their own benefit - to better the lives of the colonized.Israel has certainly exploited Palestinian labor and resources (water). But they don't have a real interest in exploiting that labor, as evidenced by the fact that recent measures have focused on keeping Palestinians from working in Israel. In fact, their interest is in getting the Palestinians out of the West Bank altogether. And some of them will actually say so.
The most apt comparison is with the German concept of Lebensraum which sent them into Eastern Europe. They wanted the territory, but not the people in it. You know what the consequence was.
The Germans were driven by the religion of Nazism. The Israelis are driven by another faith. But the nature of the faith makes no difference. And I have no doubt that many Israelis expect to be more successful than the Germans were.
Actually, it really isn't colonization. Colonizers exploit the labor and resources of the colonized. The better colonizers gave at least some effort - though it was for their own benefit - to better the lives of the colonized.Israel has certainly exploited Palestinian labor and resources (water). But they don't have a real interest in exploiting that labor, as evidenced by the fact that recent measures have focused on keeping Palestinians from working in Israel. In fact, their interest is in getting the Palestinians out of the West Bank altogether. And some of them will actually say so.
The most apt comparison is with the German concept of Lebensraum which sent them into Eastern Europe. They wanted the territory, but not the people in it. You know what the consequence was.
The Germans were driven by the religion of Nazism. The Israelis are driven by another faith. But the nature of the faith makes no difference. And I have no doubt that many Israelis expect to be more successful than the Germans were.
Religion again!
Do you realize that if the Middle East explodes with Israel at the center of it, religion will be responsible for two great destructive events of the new century? And this time it will be Judaism's turn. Because the West Bank settlements will be the cause, and religion is the cause of the settlements.
When God is the cause, the fight is to the death. Haven't we had enough of it?
When God is the cause, the fight is to the death. Haven't we had enough of it?
How do they get away with it?
Just listened to the CBS piece on Gaza - and I'm astounded. They told the truth about Israel that no other media organization has had the guts or the motivation to tell. In America, that is. That story is well known in the rest of the world.
Coupled with frequent quality reporting on Katie Courics news, this tells me that CBS is less likely to lie, and more likely to inform, than any other major tv group. What I want to know is why that is. What's going on at CBS and nowhere else?
Coupled with frequent quality reporting on Katie Courics news, this tells me that CBS is less likely to lie, and more likely to inform, than any other major tv group. What I want to know is why that is. What's going on at CBS and nowhere else?
Who wrote it?
Does anyone know who wrote the so-called Republican stimulus plan?
Republicans never say or publish anything that doesn't come from their Central Committee (I use the soviet term advisedly). Don't we want to know who's on that committee?
Republicans never say or publish anything that doesn't come from their Central Committee (I use the soviet term advisedly). Don't we want to know who's on that committee?
Why not?
A N Y Times reporter said on On Point that we do not want banks nationalized. Why? Because we don't want the banking system politicized.
Excuse me?
First, I don't think I'll be reading this woman's reporting, since she's obviously approaching her subject from an ideological perspective. Second, what is banking if not politicized when a Republican administration has done all it can to favor and enrich the banks?
The argument is that government is not competent to run the banks. But then neither are the bankers, looking not only at the public interest but the interest of the banks themselves. Their sole protection is the general view that they're too big to fail. Which means they don't have to be competent since they'll always be bailed out.
Right now there is no trust in banks. There is increasing trust in government. Sure, politicians will screw things up. But if the banks are put into the hands of skilled public servants, they're more likely to be operated efficiently, fairly and with the public interest in mind.
Public servants have been ridiculed since Reagan as the essence of incompetence. But the civil service was created to deal with circumstances where private and political people were corrupt. If there's anything left, after Bush, of the unpoliticized civil service, they are the only ones to be trusted with the current disaster.
Short-term nationalization is the only way.
Excuse me?
First, I don't think I'll be reading this woman's reporting, since she's obviously approaching her subject from an ideological perspective. Second, what is banking if not politicized when a Republican administration has done all it can to favor and enrich the banks?
The argument is that government is not competent to run the banks. But then neither are the bankers, looking not only at the public interest but the interest of the banks themselves. Their sole protection is the general view that they're too big to fail. Which means they don't have to be competent since they'll always be bailed out.
Right now there is no trust in banks. There is increasing trust in government. Sure, politicians will screw things up. But if the banks are put into the hands of skilled public servants, they're more likely to be operated efficiently, fairly and with the public interest in mind.
Public servants have been ridiculed since Reagan as the essence of incompetence. But the civil service was created to deal with circumstances where private and political people were corrupt. If there's anything left, after Bush, of the unpoliticized civil service, they are the only ones to be trusted with the current disaster.
Short-term nationalization is the only way.
The prematurely declared death of ideology
Apparently Republicans are insisting that money given to the states under the stimulus bill to bolster state shortfalls be in the form of loans, not grants. Since I assume just about all states will be getting something - I haven't heard about any states that predicted the collapse
and planned for it - the only differential between states may be in amounts received. Since everybody's getting it, what difference does it make if it's a loan or paid outright out of federal funds?
But Republicans still deny that any American has an obligation to assist anyone but himself. So even though everybody's getting help they can't tolerate the idea that their money might be allocated to someone else. They've taken us back pretty near to the state of nature, and they don't want to see us slipping back towards civilization.
and planned for it - the only differential between states may be in amounts received. Since everybody's getting it, what difference does it make if it's a loan or paid outright out of federal funds?
But Republicans still deny that any American has an obligation to assist anyone but himself. So even though everybody's getting help they can't tolerate the idea that their money might be allocated to someone else. They've taken us back pretty near to the state of nature, and they don't want to see us slipping back towards civilization.
There's a theory that the way to repress opposition is to give them no hope - and that when you do give them hope, they dare more. This is the Israeli idea of how to deal with Palestinians. And I wish it was Obama's idea of how to deal with
Republicans. How bizarre is it that after their huge defeat, Republicans are getting far more play than Democrats? Obama is going to have to stop this soon or risk the loss of all his political capital. Republicans played this confusion game all through Clinton's presidency. It's not new and it works well. It has to be stopped.
Republicans. How bizarre is it that after their huge defeat, Republicans are getting far more play than Democrats? Obama is going to have to stop this soon or risk the loss of all his political capital. Republicans played this confusion game all through Clinton's presidency. It's not new and it works well. It has to be stopped.
Monday, January 26, 2009
FATAL
I believe progressivism is now entering its most dangerous period.
Corporations announced 62,000 upcoming job cuts today alone. Why? Because the world is ruled by MBA logic.
MBA logic prescribes that when you have to cut costs, labor comes first, or close to it. There was a time when workers were willing to cut their own pay to keep others employed. I think many of them still feel that way. They know, probably instinctively, that throwing people out of work is destructive, not only to the economy but to the entire social structure. I also think many of them are capable of empathy - the kind of empathy Obama has been preaching lately. But not MBAs. They are reacting to the short term, as they always do, and the hell with the ultimate consequences.
With every job cut, public purchasing power declines, and more jobs are cut. I don't believe any government stimulus package - particularly considering the fighting over the current proposals - can do one damn thing about it. Until the world mindset changes.
Corporations need to be taken out of the hands of MBAs and put into the hands of real people. And good luck with that. The MBA track has been the route to fabulous wealth for years. Most people who have followed it are entirely self-absorbed. And all things considered, maybe they should be. But the course they follow will destroy not only society but themselves. The ultimate outcome will be anarchy until a movement develops which forcefully rearranges human relationships. We've already tried those - and they weren't pleasant.
The only way to stop the slide is to stop the job cuts. Counting on new companies, built on new products and technologies, to pick up the slack is foolish if they are run by the same old mindset. What America, and the world, needs is a change of heart and a change of perception. And, as I said, good luck with that.
So Obama will fail, the world will slide into desperate depression and progressives are going to take the blame. We're not going to like what we end up with.
Corporations announced 62,000 upcoming job cuts today alone. Why? Because the world is ruled by MBA logic.
MBA logic prescribes that when you have to cut costs, labor comes first, or close to it. There was a time when workers were willing to cut their own pay to keep others employed. I think many of them still feel that way. They know, probably instinctively, that throwing people out of work is destructive, not only to the economy but to the entire social structure. I also think many of them are capable of empathy - the kind of empathy Obama has been preaching lately. But not MBAs. They are reacting to the short term, as they always do, and the hell with the ultimate consequences.
With every job cut, public purchasing power declines, and more jobs are cut. I don't believe any government stimulus package - particularly considering the fighting over the current proposals - can do one damn thing about it. Until the world mindset changes.
Corporations need to be taken out of the hands of MBAs and put into the hands of real people. And good luck with that. The MBA track has been the route to fabulous wealth for years. Most people who have followed it are entirely self-absorbed. And all things considered, maybe they should be. But the course they follow will destroy not only society but themselves. The ultimate outcome will be anarchy until a movement develops which forcefully rearranges human relationships. We've already tried those - and they weren't pleasant.
The only way to stop the slide is to stop the job cuts. Counting on new companies, built on new products and technologies, to pick up the slack is foolish if they are run by the same old mindset. What America, and the world, needs is a change of heart and a change of perception. And, as I said, good luck with that.
So Obama will fail, the world will slide into desperate depression and progressives are going to take the blame. We're not going to like what we end up with.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
JUMPING
We need to begin with the proposition that, for most Republicans, the goal is not the health and success of America but the health and success of the Republican Party and its clients. There is no other America worth considering. This hasn't changed since Engine Charlie Wilson said, some fifty years ago, that what was good for General Motors was good for America.
So, as they see it, there is no percentage in cooperating with Obama. The more success he has, the more they lose. I suspect they would see it the same way even if Obama adopted every single one of their policy positions. For them, the goal is power, not policy change. After all, once in power they can accomplish many things which will never be visible in the political process, and that's far better than passing some law.
The question is how they will oppose Obama. The wise way would be not to make a fuss about legislation which will clearly help America - just vote against it quietly. Make the fuss either on issues on which their constituents demand a contrary position, or where Obama is clearly wrong or heading for a screw-up. That kind of opposition gets you elected the next time - just like Obama's opposition to the war.
There's another way they can go - and are going - exemplified by a man I know. Whenever you move toward his position in negotiations, he moves to a more extreme point. There will never be an agreement, but what you have done (if you go along) is to move the center of the argument from the actual center toward his position. And when the negotiations fail, he can justify his position by pointing out that you've moved toward at least some of it, while he has not moved an iota toward yours. Bush and the Republican Congress used this successfully for years.
So far the Republicans have been jumping on anything and everything. That turns you into the boy who cried wolf. It isn't smart. But I guess it is soul-satisfying, for them. They'll just have to wait until America once again prefers to elect an idiot. Hopefully, that won't be for quite a while.
So, as they see it, there is no percentage in cooperating with Obama. The more success he has, the more they lose. I suspect they would see it the same way even if Obama adopted every single one of their policy positions. For them, the goal is power, not policy change. After all, once in power they can accomplish many things which will never be visible in the political process, and that's far better than passing some law.
The question is how they will oppose Obama. The wise way would be not to make a fuss about legislation which will clearly help America - just vote against it quietly. Make the fuss either on issues on which their constituents demand a contrary position, or where Obama is clearly wrong or heading for a screw-up. That kind of opposition gets you elected the next time - just like Obama's opposition to the war.
There's another way they can go - and are going - exemplified by a man I know. Whenever you move toward his position in negotiations, he moves to a more extreme point. There will never be an agreement, but what you have done (if you go along) is to move the center of the argument from the actual center toward his position. And when the negotiations fail, he can justify his position by pointing out that you've moved toward at least some of it, while he has not moved an iota toward yours. Bush and the Republican Congress used this successfully for years.
So far the Republicans have been jumping on anything and everything. That turns you into the boy who cried wolf. It isn't smart. But I guess it is soul-satisfying, for them. They'll just have to wait until America once again prefers to elect an idiot. Hopefully, that won't be for quite a while.
Friday, January 23, 2009
HE NEEDS TO
Republicans are blocking Hilda Solis' nomination as Secretary of Labor. What a shock.
They will block any pro-labor nominee. Some senator will put a hold on the nomination and never take it off. It will be impossible to get a vote.
Obama will have to decide quickly if he wants to be pro-labor or not. If he does, he is going to have to go to the public with this. Not that any Republicans will be influenced - and it's possible that the most Democrats can get out of this is to paint Republicans further into a corner. We may never have another Labor Secretary.
Obama may not pick this fight. But he needs to.
They will block any pro-labor nominee. Some senator will put a hold on the nomination and never take it off. It will be impossible to get a vote.
Obama will have to decide quickly if he wants to be pro-labor or not. If he does, he is going to have to go to the public with this. Not that any Republicans will be influenced - and it's possible that the most Democrats can get out of this is to paint Republicans further into a corner. We may never have another Labor Secretary.
Obama may not pick this fight. But he needs to.
ONE WAY OR THE OTHER
Apparently a released Guantanamo prisoner is now a big cheese in al Qaeda in Yemen. This is not good. How did it happen?
The guy was released to a Saudi "rehabilitation" program.
The American "alliance" with Saudi Arabia derives from a convergence of absurdities. The Saudis are conflicted about al Qaeda. On the one hand, the organization runs on and is an extension of Saudi religious doctrine. On the other hand, they want to bring down the Saudi monarchy. The Saudi response to al Qaeda has everything to do with maintaining the Sauds in power, and with absolutely nothing else. They are constantly cutting deals with anyone who's a threat to them - we'll support your bloody work if you leave us alone. Considering the Saudi regime to be an ally in the so-called "war on terror," or in fact on any other front, is ridiculous unless you know for a fact that their interests unequivocally coincide with ours. Which is something you can never know for sure, and which, on the face of things, is highly unlikely.
The solution to this dilemma, as far as Guantanamo prisoners are concerned? If they're to be released, it should be with continued US surveillance. They need to be followed by us, not by our "allies" - and if it turns out that they're significantly involved in threats to us, they need to be contained, one way or the other. No one would have bitched if we'd assassinated Hitler, once we were at war with him.
The guy was released to a Saudi "rehabilitation" program.
The American "alliance" with Saudi Arabia derives from a convergence of absurdities. The Saudis are conflicted about al Qaeda. On the one hand, the organization runs on and is an extension of Saudi religious doctrine. On the other hand, they want to bring down the Saudi monarchy. The Saudi response to al Qaeda has everything to do with maintaining the Sauds in power, and with absolutely nothing else. They are constantly cutting deals with anyone who's a threat to them - we'll support your bloody work if you leave us alone. Considering the Saudi regime to be an ally in the so-called "war on terror," or in fact on any other front, is ridiculous unless you know for a fact that their interests unequivocally coincide with ours. Which is something you can never know for sure, and which, on the face of things, is highly unlikely.
The solution to this dilemma, as far as Guantanamo prisoners are concerned? If they're to be released, it should be with continued US surveillance. They need to be followed by us, not by our "allies" - and if it turns out that they're significantly involved in threats to us, they need to be contained, one way or the other. No one would have bitched if we'd assassinated Hitler, once we were at war with him.
THROUGH THE BEDSHEETS
Is there anyone in politics whose spouse is not a lobbyist or a "financial consultant"? The connection between politics and money so often runs through the bedsheets.
Kirsten Gillibrand's husband is a "financial consultant". They live near Albany, not a bastion of sophistication. I bet the school superintendent of Piscataway, New Jersey is married to another "financial consultant." When I find a senator whose wife is a concert violinist, maybe I'll be able to relax a little.
Kirsten Gillibrand's husband is a "financial consultant". They live near Albany, not a bastion of sophistication. I bet the school superintendent of Piscataway, New Jersey is married to another "financial consultant." When I find a senator whose wife is a concert violinist, maybe I'll be able to relax a little.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A LITTLE PEACE AND QUIET
Bill O'Reilly and at least Sen. Jim Demint have announced as their raison d'etre the war against socialism. I think they're wise to do that - because without an enemy, they have no reason to exist.
I assume Obama will spend a little time trying to draw some of these people into his orbit. Failing that - and he surely will - I assume he will then ignore them. As should anyone with any decency who is asked to appear on O'Reilly, Hannity or any of the rest of those shows. And it's time for Olbermann to stop mentioning them.
As Obama succeeds, and as O'Reilly's ratings drop to Bush level, maybe we'll finally get a little peace and quiet.
I assume Obama will spend a little time trying to draw some of these people into his orbit. Failing that - and he surely will - I assume he will then ignore them. As should anyone with any decency who is asked to appear on O'Reilly, Hannity or any of the rest of those shows. And it's time for Olbermann to stop mentioning them.
As Obama succeeds, and as O'Reilly's ratings drop to Bush level, maybe we'll finally get a little peace and quiet.
WELL OUT
From what I see, Caroline Kennedy is well out of it. Now Obama should appoint her to a policy position which does not require that she sell either herself or a policy.
WON'T BE LONG
I can't say I'm surprised, but I'm finding that, since Obama has taken office, the Huffington Post doesn't have much to say.
It was entertaining to read the arguments pro and con various actions proposed for Obama to take, and the speculation on what he would do, when he wasn't in office. But now he is, and the only thing that matters is what he does - or what others do to stop him. Speculation right now is a waste of time. (That does not hold for suggestions, however.) We don't even know what we should be speculating on.
I expect that will change when debates begin to develop within the government. But right now we want to bask in the new direction, or we're so tired after eight years of Bush we want to take a nap. Besides, everything Obama seems to be doing satisfies progressives.
We need to stop talking just to talk, and save our energy for when our input will be sorely needed. Or when some outrage is on the horizon, or Obama asks for help. Be patient, huh? It won't be long.
It was entertaining to read the arguments pro and con various actions proposed for Obama to take, and the speculation on what he would do, when he wasn't in office. But now he is, and the only thing that matters is what he does - or what others do to stop him. Speculation right now is a waste of time. (That does not hold for suggestions, however.) We don't even know what we should be speculating on.
I expect that will change when debates begin to develop within the government. But right now we want to bask in the new direction, or we're so tired after eight years of Bush we want to take a nap. Besides, everything Obama seems to be doing satisfies progressives.
We need to stop talking just to talk, and save our energy for when our input will be sorely needed. Or when some outrage is on the horizon, or Obama asks for help. Be patient, huh? It won't be long.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
WEAK
I've been trying to figure out why Obama's inauguration speech left me flat. And I think it was not what he said, but how he said it.
"I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors." Three or four cliches in his first sentence. Not a good start.
"The still waters of peace ...", "amidst gathering clouds and raging storms ..." Amidst? In 2009? This is not poetry, it's bad 19th century prose. "Today I say to you ..." This is Roosevelt - but Teddy, not Franklin.
"They packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans"? You mean, like, they picked up the few things they had and got on a boat?
Obama missed the boat here because, rather than respond to the history he was making, he was responding to history already made - by Lincoln, by Roosevelt, by Washington. Those guys were great, but they are unfortunately dead. And nobody talks the way they did anymore.
There was a lot of JFK material in Obama's speech. JFK used a lot of salad greens (a lot of "let us"). But JFK did not say "Today I say to you .." And that was fifty years ago.
I wonder whether Obama's other speeches - to which we thrilled - were as rhetorically weak, and only powerful because Bush was still out there and Obama was challenging him. But I'm too lazy to go back and read those speeches. So I guess I'll never know.
"I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors." Three or four cliches in his first sentence. Not a good start.
"The still waters of peace ...", "amidst gathering clouds and raging storms ..." Amidst? In 2009? This is not poetry, it's bad 19th century prose. "Today I say to you ..." This is Roosevelt - but Teddy, not Franklin.
"They packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans"? You mean, like, they picked up the few things they had and got on a boat?
Obama missed the boat here because, rather than respond to the history he was making, he was responding to history already made - by Lincoln, by Roosevelt, by Washington. Those guys were great, but they are unfortunately dead. And nobody talks the way they did anymore.
There was a lot of JFK material in Obama's speech. JFK used a lot of salad greens (a lot of "let us"). But JFK did not say "Today I say to you .." And that was fifty years ago.
I wonder whether Obama's other speeches - to which we thrilled - were as rhetorically weak, and only powerful because Bush was still out there and Obama was challenging him. But I'm too lazy to go back and read those speeches. So I guess I'll never know.
Monday, January 19, 2009
RANDOM FATES
Three times we've been told that men with weak minds and politics they couldn't understand acted alone in assassination, and succeeded by sheer luck - because they certainly did not have a complex plan. But there was a plan - it just wasn't theirs. They could not have come up with it.
The similarity between the three of them is enough reason to suspect that the same group goaded each of them to murder.
But all you need to convince yourself they didn't act alone is the realization that with those three killings they wiped out a nascent political movement which, for a while, had transformed America. The movement carried on after these deaths, but the leadership was weak and it fell apart.
It is simply impossible to believe that these were random fates. And the proof that no one believes it is the awful fear, shared by millions, that Obama may meet the same destiny. They know why the three were killed, and they don't want to see it again.
The similarity between the three of them is enough reason to suspect that the same group goaded each of them to murder.
But all you need to convince yourself they didn't act alone is the realization that with those three killings they wiped out a nascent political movement which, for a while, had transformed America. The movement carried on after these deaths, but the leadership was weak and it fell apart.
It is simply impossible to believe that these were random fates. And the proof that no one believes it is the awful fear, shared by millions, that Obama may meet the same destiny. They know why the three were killed, and they don't want to see it again.
SUSTAIN THE MOOD
Is Obama who we thinks he is? We'll find out soon enough.
But what is clear is that more of America is hungry for exhilaration than has ever been before. Some of us were hungry for it in 1968, but not enough of us. After they shot Bobby down we knew we wouldn't get it (and don't ever tell me Sirhan acted alone. We have learned too much about conspiracy in the last eight years ever to go back to that fairy tale.)
We got it this time. How long it lasts remains to be seen. But America is in the mood to take the biggest political dump in years. We won't excrete all the parasites and tapeworms, but we have a good chance of driving political extremism into very dark corners for a while.
So the most important thing for Obama to do is ro sustain and feed the mood. And the evidence so far indicates that is something he can do.
But what is clear is that more of America is hungry for exhilaration than has ever been before. Some of us were hungry for it in 1968, but not enough of us. After they shot Bobby down we knew we wouldn't get it (and don't ever tell me Sirhan acted alone. We have learned too much about conspiracy in the last eight years ever to go back to that fairy tale.)
We got it this time. How long it lasts remains to be seen. But America is in the mood to take the biggest political dump in years. We won't excrete all the parasites and tapeworms, but we have a good chance of driving political extremism into very dark corners for a while.
So the most important thing for Obama to do is ro sustain and feed the mood. And the evidence so far indicates that is something he can do.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
WHAT'S OUT THERE
The Obama concert brought back thoughts and feelings I haven't had since Bobby Kennedy was shot. Of course, it was theater - but I never thought I'd see America want to hear the message they were delivering.
From Tiger Woods on, it degenerated into the Grammys. Renee Fleming was awesome, and Stevie Wonder meant a lot because he was there the first time (and it was great to watch the joy on the pit musicians' faces). The rest - even Obama's speech - was redundant and over-produced. But then Pete Seeger. Pete Seeger!
And I felt like doing what I used to love to do - get in the car, put down the top and go see what's out there in America.
From Tiger Woods on, it degenerated into the Grammys. Renee Fleming was awesome, and Stevie Wonder meant a lot because he was there the first time (and it was great to watch the joy on the pit musicians' faces). The rest - even Obama's speech - was redundant and over-produced. But then Pete Seeger. Pete Seeger!
And I felt like doing what I used to love to do - get in the car, put down the top and go see what's out there in America.
WHAT YA THINK?
Any chance Israel stopped its attack on Gaza because Obama will be president in two days?
YIPPEE! FRIEDMAN GETS ANOTHER ONE RIGHT!
Read.
It should additionally be perfectly clear that Tim Geithner cannot possibly participate in the kind of tactic Friedman recommends. I am seriously hoping that the left and right get together and block Geithner's confirmation. My only concern is that Obama would come back with Larry Summers.
It should additionally be perfectly clear that Tim Geithner cannot possibly participate in the kind of tactic Friedman recommends. I am seriously hoping that the left and right get together and block Geithner's confirmation. My only concern is that Obama would come back with Larry Summers.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
HOW THINGS GO
I get the sense that America thinks that at the moment Obama is sworn in, the hourglass is turned over and a new era begins. Well, maybe yes and maybe no.
Obama may not be up to the job. But I think it more likely that America is not up to the job.
The banks which got TARP money have been free to say that they are primarily using the money to strengthen their own institutions, and not using it for any overriding social purpose. These are minds which see no change coming at all.
It's true that some Americans are expressing a social conscience. But many Americans have no idea what that is. It's now up to Obama to teach the subject, but that may be impossible. It hasn't been taught in this country for over thirty years. Once past age 10 or 12, you don't learn social consciousness. It's too tough, too alien and too late.
I remember very clearly the early documentation of the development in the 70's of the first 'Me" generation. There have been nothing but "me" generations since. America is a one-sided combat zone. Those who are aware a war is on are fighting to preserve their own wealth and prerogatives. Their natural opponents haven't known the war is on.
If "those who have not" are not prepared to fight to get, and if "those who have" recognize no obligation to "those who have not" (short of, maybe, deigning to drop a dime in a cup on the street), there is no way out of American decline. I am not an optimist on this. In the '60's a new generation shook the foundations of power. By ten years later they were co-opted by money and pleasure, and devastated by defeat and assassination, and they had no more accomplishments.
Will a new generation try it again? And will they actually succeed this time?
Some people are greedy and selfish, some people are weak, and some are all of these. It will take a sizable cohort of those with moral strength to get things back to their original track.
So I will watch with interest how things go from noon on the 20th forward.
Obama may not be up to the job. But I think it more likely that America is not up to the job.
The banks which got TARP money have been free to say that they are primarily using the money to strengthen their own institutions, and not using it for any overriding social purpose. These are minds which see no change coming at all.
It's true that some Americans are expressing a social conscience. But many Americans have no idea what that is. It's now up to Obama to teach the subject, but that may be impossible. It hasn't been taught in this country for over thirty years. Once past age 10 or 12, you don't learn social consciousness. It's too tough, too alien and too late.
I remember very clearly the early documentation of the development in the 70's of the first 'Me" generation. There have been nothing but "me" generations since. America is a one-sided combat zone. Those who are aware a war is on are fighting to preserve their own wealth and prerogatives. Their natural opponents haven't known the war is on.
If "those who have not" are not prepared to fight to get, and if "those who have" recognize no obligation to "those who have not" (short of, maybe, deigning to drop a dime in a cup on the street), there is no way out of American decline. I am not an optimist on this. In the '60's a new generation shook the foundations of power. By ten years later they were co-opted by money and pleasure, and devastated by defeat and assassination, and they had no more accomplishments.
Will a new generation try it again? And will they actually succeed this time?
Some people are greedy and selfish, some people are weak, and some are all of these. It will take a sizable cohort of those with moral strength to get things back to their original track.
So I will watch with interest how things go from noon on the 20th forward.
Friday, January 16, 2009
THE BLITZ
Does anyone realize how odd it is that Hamas - which has had its ass military kicked - is refusing to agree to a ceasefire except on its own terms?
What Hamas is thinking is that they have won, not Israel; that they need to agree to nothing; that even if Israel kills them all, there will be more; and that every day the Israelis keep up their offensive turns more of the world away from Israel and toward Hamas.
They could be very wrong about all of that. But if they continue to echo the British during the Blitz, the chances are that what they are thinking is correct.
What Hamas is thinking is that they have won, not Israel; that they need to agree to nothing; that even if Israel kills them all, there will be more; and that every day the Israelis keep up their offensive turns more of the world away from Israel and toward Hamas.
They could be very wrong about all of that. But if they continue to echo the British during the Blitz, the chances are that what they are thinking is correct.
FOOLING OURSELVES
One final (I hope) word about George W. Bush:
I hated everything he did. But the question of whether he was our worst president, or our best, or somewhere in the middle will have to wait until events on the ground clarify the effects of what he did and didn't do. So let's stop projecting forward. We could be fooling ourselves.
I hated everything he did. But the question of whether he was our worst president, or our best, or somewhere in the middle will have to wait until events on the ground clarify the effects of what he did and didn't do. So let's stop projecting forward. We could be fooling ourselves.
SHUT UP
We are now going to hear the stories of every passenger on that plane. God willing Obama's inauguration will put a stop to this endless coverage. Take the Medal of Freedom away from George Tenet, give it to the pilot (who really deserves it) and then shut up, for God's sake. WE KNOW ALREADY!
FOXMAN
Bill Moyers did a piece critical of Israel in Gaza, and as usual the ADL's Abe Foxman called him an antisemite. By Foxman's Jews-can-do-no-wrong logic, if you're angry at Bernie Madoff, you're an antisemite. Even if you're Jewish.
Foxman's is the last standing bastion of neoconservatism. Hopefully it goes the way of the rest of them. Soon. So I don't have to be embarrassed to be a Jew.
Foxman's is the last standing bastion of neoconservatism. Hopefully it goes the way of the rest of them. Soon. So I don't have to be embarrassed to be a Jew.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
NO ON GEITHNER
I don't like Tim Geithner. I think he intentionally failed to regulate Citigroup. I think he's a star player in the financial collapse. I think his failure to pay taxes, despite now-reported repeated warnings from his employer that he had to, is indicative of the arrogance which still plagues the financial sector.
I hope he doesn't get confirmed.
I hope he doesn't get confirmed.
BIN LADEN'S LUCK
In how many ways was the 9/11 attack the most successful politico/military action in modern history?
In some ways, it was calculated to be. Bin Laden knew that the American reaction would be that of a bull in a china shop, driving more and more recruits to Islamic extremism. He knew that at a cost of $500,000 he would provoke the US to spend hundreds of billions in military actions. His assessment that America would be stupid about it was correct. But there were some things even he could not have anticipated.
I doubt he knew enough to anticipate Iraq. If he had, he would have tried to stop it, since it ultimately eliminated a Sunni brake on Iranian Shi'a ambitions. I doubt he was brilliant enough to understand that his attack would unleash an attempt to destroy constitutional democracy and a regime which encouraged robbery of the public treasury. I believe he expected the American economy to fail, but I don't think he quite understood that it would happen as it has. If he did, he's got to be the most prescient statesman ever.
But now stand back and look at what he sees: a wrecked American economy, weakened American international standing, an overstressed American military and the growth of internecine political hatred which only now may begin to recede. He wanted to wreck America and he did - because he had the great good luck of the Republicans being in power.
In some ways, it was calculated to be. Bin Laden knew that the American reaction would be that of a bull in a china shop, driving more and more recruits to Islamic extremism. He knew that at a cost of $500,000 he would provoke the US to spend hundreds of billions in military actions. His assessment that America would be stupid about it was correct. But there were some things even he could not have anticipated.
I doubt he knew enough to anticipate Iraq. If he had, he would have tried to stop it, since it ultimately eliminated a Sunni brake on Iranian Shi'a ambitions. I doubt he was brilliant enough to understand that his attack would unleash an attempt to destroy constitutional democracy and a regime which encouraged robbery of the public treasury. I believe he expected the American economy to fail, but I don't think he quite understood that it would happen as it has. If he did, he's got to be the most prescient statesman ever.
But now stand back and look at what he sees: a wrecked American economy, weakened American international standing, an overstressed American military and the growth of internecine political hatred which only now may begin to recede. He wanted to wreck America and he did - because he had the great good luck of the Republicans being in power.
NOT DEBATABLE
I've finally figured out Tom Friedman. He can be reasonably rational, and sometimes even right - except on the subject of Israel. On that topic, he's like Dershowitz - hard right and unthinking.
In today's column Friedman says that Israelis are of two minds - one that in order to obtain peace you have to give back conquered territory, and the second that Arab hatred of Israel is implacable and unchangeable. And then he says: "Since the mid-1990's, the first camp has dominated Israeli thikning. This led to the negotiated and unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza."
What the fuck is he talking about?
Israel is expanding in the West Bank, not withdrawing. It has never varied from this course. Israel had to invade Lebanon before it could withdraw from it. The only actual withdrawal has been from Gaza, and that's not a real withdrawal when Israel continues to control the territory absolutely.
It is valid to say that the Palestinians' problem is that they have never actually tried to build a functioning society in the territory they occupy. That's true of many Arab countries. Those with oil have never had to build a modern society. They didn't need one to do well economically. The Palestinians have no oil, so they need a functioning and forward-thinking economy. They may never get one. (The Palestinian answer might be that Israel never takes its foot off their economy. If goods can't get in to Gaza, what do you build a society with?)
But that's the Palestinians' problem. Israel's problem is that it can't stop seeing itself as persecuted. And can't stop trying to make US see it that way. And as long as that's the governing mindset in Israel - and in the world Jewish community as a whole - Israel can't move on.
As for Friedman, we really don't need to hear what he thinks about Israel, since he's just repeating the persecution propaganda. Who is actually persecuted in the Middle East is not a debatable question any more.
In today's column Friedman says that Israelis are of two minds - one that in order to obtain peace you have to give back conquered territory, and the second that Arab hatred of Israel is implacable and unchangeable. And then he says: "Since the mid-1990's, the first camp has dominated Israeli thikning. This led to the negotiated and unilateral withdrawals from the West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza."
What the fuck is he talking about?
Israel is expanding in the West Bank, not withdrawing. It has never varied from this course. Israel had to invade Lebanon before it could withdraw from it. The only actual withdrawal has been from Gaza, and that's not a real withdrawal when Israel continues to control the territory absolutely.
It is valid to say that the Palestinians' problem is that they have never actually tried to build a functioning society in the territory they occupy. That's true of many Arab countries. Those with oil have never had to build a modern society. They didn't need one to do well economically. The Palestinians have no oil, so they need a functioning and forward-thinking economy. They may never get one. (The Palestinian answer might be that Israel never takes its foot off their economy. If goods can't get in to Gaza, what do you build a society with?)
But that's the Palestinians' problem. Israel's problem is that it can't stop seeing itself as persecuted. And can't stop trying to make US see it that way. And as long as that's the governing mindset in Israel - and in the world Jewish community as a whole - Israel can't move on.
As for Friedman, we really don't need to hear what he thinks about Israel, since he's just repeating the persecution propaganda. Who is actually persecuted in the Middle East is not a debatable question any more.
THIS MESS
A couple of articles in the NYT have answered my last question. Obama wants the second half of the bailout funds for the same reason the first half was given out - to encourage bank lending.
Of course, they're not lending. What the bailout has done is put some of them in the position to be able to lend. And there are good reasons why they're not.
As the more ethical of the banks explain it, they don't want to make loans to companies which may not be able to repay - and more and more companies are in that position as consumer spending drops.
In times like these, you find out what consumer products and services are really necessary, and which are superfluous. The term "luxury" is defined downward to include everything you don't actually need. Unfortunately, a lot of our companies are providing these newly-defined luxury goods and services. I.e., much of the American economy has no real reason to exist.
If the banks continue current lending procedures, and the companies to which they will not lend fail, we wind up with a good chunk of America which has no way to earn money. What do we do with them? Short term, God only knows. Long term, nobody other than God much knows either.
I certainly don't know how to get out of this mess.
Of course, they're not lending. What the bailout has done is put some of them in the position to be able to lend. And there are good reasons why they're not.
As the more ethical of the banks explain it, they don't want to make loans to companies which may not be able to repay - and more and more companies are in that position as consumer spending drops.
In times like these, you find out what consumer products and services are really necessary, and which are superfluous. The term "luxury" is defined downward to include everything you don't actually need. Unfortunately, a lot of our companies are providing these newly-defined luxury goods and services. I.e., much of the American economy has no real reason to exist.
If the banks continue current lending procedures, and the companies to which they will not lend fail, we wind up with a good chunk of America which has no way to earn money. What do we do with them? Short term, God only knows. Long term, nobody other than God much knows either.
I certainly don't know how to get out of this mess.
NEED TO KNOW
Obama wants the second $350 billion of the bailout released. He says the timing is critical. Many in Congress are opposed. Obama says if they disapprove the release, he'll veto that bill, essentially forcing the release. And he asks Congress to trust that he'll do the right thing.
I'm generally willing to trust him, at this point - but after the utter abortion that was the first $350 billion release, I'm not keen on releasing the second half either. The problem with the first half was that it was half-baked and non-transparent. Before I could support the release of the second half, I'd have to know exactly what Obama planned to do with it and have a firm oversight structure in place. Unfortunately, so far I have no idea what Obama wants the money for, or why the timing is critical - and apparently the oversight structure is NOT in place.
Obama has been doing a good job of developing his administration so far. There are still plenty of mysteries surrounding his plans, but he isn't even in office yet. I assume those mysteries will be cleared up relatively quickly. And I don't know why he can't be specific about the bailout money. If he doesn't get specific, the public will not be with him unless out of desperate hope - which is not a good reason for anything.
I'm generally willing to trust him, at this point - but after the utter abortion that was the first $350 billion release, I'm not keen on releasing the second half either. The problem with the first half was that it was half-baked and non-transparent. Before I could support the release of the second half, I'd have to know exactly what Obama planned to do with it and have a firm oversight structure in place. Unfortunately, so far I have no idea what Obama wants the money for, or why the timing is critical - and apparently the oversight structure is NOT in place.
Obama has been doing a good job of developing his administration so far. There are still plenty of mysteries surrounding his plans, but he isn't even in office yet. I assume those mysteries will be cleared up relatively quickly. And I don't know why he can't be specific about the bailout money. If he doesn't get specific, the public will not be with him unless out of desperate hope - which is not a good reason for anything.
HOW COME?
How come all the crooks have a Florida connection? It's like we're the innocent epicenter here.
OUTSIDE THE BOX
In a post dated June 9th of last year, I wrote:
"Since 1998, the U.S. economy has floated from bubble to bubble - first the dot coms, then housing - and now oil. And this is the most vicious bubble - because participation in the others was voluntary. This one is not.
Some of the current pricing of oil and gasoline is due to increased world demand, some to diminished production. But a hefty chunk of it is due to speculation in oil, in futures and short trading, etc. Again, the finance industry is making out great - and again we hear nothing from our government to oppose it. This is what you get when finance is America's primary occupation, and when it owns the government.
Like all bubbles, this one will burst. But, as we have seen from the metastasizing which followed the housing bubble, this one's effects will run far beyond simply the financial industry. It has the potential to be the most devastating, and destabilizing, of all."
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes confirmed the above.
If I, who know nothing, can figure this out, why can't everyone? I want to attempt to provide a serious answer to this question that doesn't overly toot my own horn.
There are two reasons for real or professed ignorance on this. The first is that there are some whose own interests require that this not be generally known. Obviously, the speculators. But over the eight years of Bush, I have come to believe in conspiracy theory - or at least the theory that there are groupings which actually run the world. Others were in cahoots with these speculators. For example, if the Fed facilitated first the dot com and then the housing bubbles, why should I not assume that the Fed was in on this, too? And once you assume that, you have to question everyone who plays in the new Great Game, the one of which the mass of us have no clue.
The second reason is that too much knowledge can make you stupid, in the following way: some are so encumbered by alleged details that they can only think within the vertical structure which contains those facts. I.e., they can't see the forest for the trees. True perception most often comes from moving sideways out of a knowledge structure and taking a look at it from the outside. Someone wrote a book about this; I can't remember who, but I remember recognizing it as true years ago. I don't think there's anything too difficult about thinking this way, but obviously some people can't.
Now the horn tooting part - but to make a point. When I took the Graduate Records Exam I hadn't had a math course since high school. Yet there were all sorts of math related questions on the exam, and I couldn't remember a single theorem or theory. I remember I was shown a graph and asked to calculate the volume within the graph's parameters. I assumed there was a formula to do that, but I'd never heard of it. So I counted the graph squares inside those parameters and came up with an answer. I scored in the top 1% of test-takers that year.
Solving any problem requires that sort of horizontal perspective - what's now called thinking outside the box. But it seems that while it's widely praised, it isn't much utilized. That explains a lot of political writing, too. In order to get at the truth, particularly when you've been overwhelmed by data, you have to return to first principles of logic. If you do, there comes a moment when you know, beyond doubt, you've got it right, whatever it is. And you sit back and wait for the world to catch up.
"Since 1998, the U.S. economy has floated from bubble to bubble - first the dot coms, then housing - and now oil. And this is the most vicious bubble - because participation in the others was voluntary. This one is not.
Some of the current pricing of oil and gasoline is due to increased world demand, some to diminished production. But a hefty chunk of it is due to speculation in oil, in futures and short trading, etc. Again, the finance industry is making out great - and again we hear nothing from our government to oppose it. This is what you get when finance is America's primary occupation, and when it owns the government.
Like all bubbles, this one will burst. But, as we have seen from the metastasizing which followed the housing bubble, this one's effects will run far beyond simply the financial industry. It has the potential to be the most devastating, and destabilizing, of all."
Last Sunday, 60 Minutes confirmed the above.
If I, who know nothing, can figure this out, why can't everyone? I want to attempt to provide a serious answer to this question that doesn't overly toot my own horn.
There are two reasons for real or professed ignorance on this. The first is that there are some whose own interests require that this not be generally known. Obviously, the speculators. But over the eight years of Bush, I have come to believe in conspiracy theory - or at least the theory that there are groupings which actually run the world. Others were in cahoots with these speculators. For example, if the Fed facilitated first the dot com and then the housing bubbles, why should I not assume that the Fed was in on this, too? And once you assume that, you have to question everyone who plays in the new Great Game, the one of which the mass of us have no clue.
The second reason is that too much knowledge can make you stupid, in the following way: some are so encumbered by alleged details that they can only think within the vertical structure which contains those facts. I.e., they can't see the forest for the trees. True perception most often comes from moving sideways out of a knowledge structure and taking a look at it from the outside. Someone wrote a book about this; I can't remember who, but I remember recognizing it as true years ago. I don't think there's anything too difficult about thinking this way, but obviously some people can't.
Now the horn tooting part - but to make a point. When I took the Graduate Records Exam I hadn't had a math course since high school. Yet there were all sorts of math related questions on the exam, and I couldn't remember a single theorem or theory. I remember I was shown a graph and asked to calculate the volume within the graph's parameters. I assumed there was a formula to do that, but I'd never heard of it. So I counted the graph squares inside those parameters and came up with an answer. I scored in the top 1% of test-takers that year.
Solving any problem requires that sort of horizontal perspective - what's now called thinking outside the box. But it seems that while it's widely praised, it isn't much utilized. That explains a lot of political writing, too. In order to get at the truth, particularly when you've been overwhelmed by data, you have to return to first principles of logic. If you do, there comes a moment when you know, beyond doubt, you've got it right, whatever it is. And you sit back and wait for the world to catch up.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
WHY?
Monday, January 12, 2009
HE NEEDS TO GO
Burris is going to be sworn in, as I said seven days ago. Now we'll see how the rest of my January 5th predictions play out.
One thing is clear, though: Harry Reid is not very bright. He constantly has to back down from his positions, either because he has miscalculated the strength of those positions or he doesn't have the saichel to make them happen.
Really, people, he needs to go. Now.
One thing is clear, though: Harry Reid is not very bright. He constantly has to back down from his positions, either because he has miscalculated the strength of those positions or he doesn't have the saichel to make them happen.
Really, people, he needs to go. Now.
RACIST
On the one hand, Israelis think Palestinians are pathetic and weak. On the other hand, they claim to be terrified of the Palestinian threat. How do you reconcile these two?
It could be that the professed terror is propaganda meant to justify Israeli actions. But I'm more inclined to think that Israelis believe both propositions. Where have we seen that before?
In the antebellum South the white population thought of blacks as jokes and weaklings, while at the same time claiming to be terrified of a possible slave uprising. In Nazi Germany, Jews were considered annoyances and at the same time secretly all-powerful. In both cases, the "threat" was primarily fictional.
Israel is racist. Why not just come out and say so?
It could be that the professed terror is propaganda meant to justify Israeli actions. But I'm more inclined to think that Israelis believe both propositions. Where have we seen that before?
In the antebellum South the white population thought of blacks as jokes and weaklings, while at the same time claiming to be terrified of a possible slave uprising. In Nazi Germany, Jews were considered annoyances and at the same time secretly all-powerful. In both cases, the "threat" was primarily fictional.
Israel is racist. Why not just come out and say so?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
WHAT I EXPECT
This is one of the first things I expect from Obama:
He must tell Israel to cut out what they're doing in Gaza. He must back that up with the threat to cut off military aid.
You may not remember that in 1956 Eisenhower stopped an Israeli (and British and French) invasion of Egypt with just such a threat. But that was before AIPAC had a total lock on US MidEast policy.
If Obama settles the Palestinian affair, he won't need the Jewish vote in 2012. Either he's got balls or he hasn't, but the right thing to do is perfectly clear.
He must tell Israel to cut out what they're doing in Gaza. He must back that up with the threat to cut off military aid.
You may not remember that in 1956 Eisenhower stopped an Israeli (and British and French) invasion of Egypt with just such a threat. But that was before AIPAC had a total lock on US MidEast policy.
If Obama settles the Palestinian affair, he won't need the Jewish vote in 2012. Either he's got balls or he hasn't, but the right thing to do is perfectly clear.
THAT KIND OF SOCIALISM
Obama is proposing a $3,000 tax cut for each new American job companies create. This sounds like a bassackwards version of my proposal to forbid layoffs altogether, directly underwrite kept jobs when requested by the employer and get chargebacks, when things improve, from the companies which take the underwriting.
I haven't seen the specifics of the Obama proposal - but what's to stop companies from firing people just to rehire them, or someone else, for the same position so as to get the tax relief? In case you don't think that will be a widespread practice, just take a look at the bank bailout. Crooks are everywhere - and this trick would be legal!
I like my idea better. Of course I have no problem with that kind of socialism.
I haven't seen the specifics of the Obama proposal - but what's to stop companies from firing people just to rehire them, or someone else, for the same position so as to get the tax relief? In case you don't think that will be a widespread practice, just take a look at the bank bailout. Crooks are everywhere - and this trick would be legal!
I like my idea better. Of course I have no problem with that kind of socialism.
ONLY TEN DAYS
In only ten days we will finally get to find out whether Obama is going populist or establishmentarian.
I can't wait to start talking about this.
I can't wait to start talking about this.
TABLOID THINKING
Proposition: Israel can't negotiate with Hamas because Hamas wants to exterminate the Jews.
Response: This is bullshit.
1) Arab rhetoric is historically extreme. Whether they actually believe the things they say I don't know, but historically what they say has very little to do with what they do. You can find plenty of Jewish statements which, if taken seriously, would eliminate any possibility of Hamas negotiating with Israel.
2) They can't exterminate the Jews. They just can't. This "threat" is a fiction.
If politicians and media can't get beyond tabloid thinking, no one is ever going to know the truth.
Response: This is bullshit.
1) Arab rhetoric is historically extreme. Whether they actually believe the things they say I don't know, but historically what they say has very little to do with what they do. You can find plenty of Jewish statements which, if taken seriously, would eliminate any possibility of Hamas negotiating with Israel.
2) They can't exterminate the Jews. They just can't. This "threat" is a fiction.
If politicians and media can't get beyond tabloid thinking, no one is ever going to know the truth.
Friday, January 09, 2009
I'D PULL THE CABLE
If you have nothing better to do, go here and take a good look at what the three networks are offering in prime time.
The networks have surrendered - but to what? Programming on the other million cable channels is not significantly better. I can go for weeks at a time without finding ONE program that interests me.
It's no wonder then that, for the bright and engaged (and even for many who aren't) the internet is where they're spending their time. Television has become the resort of those with no interest in learning anything, or doing anything - the computer illiterate, the elderly, the tabloid besotted and the sports maniacs.
If it weren't for Fiona, I'd pull the cable. But she likes to watch that crap.
The networks have surrendered - but to what? Programming on the other million cable channels is not significantly better. I can go for weeks at a time without finding ONE program that interests me.
It's no wonder then that, for the bright and engaged (and even for many who aren't) the internet is where they're spending their time. Television has become the resort of those with no interest in learning anything, or doing anything - the computer illiterate, the elderly, the tabloid besotted and the sports maniacs.
If it weren't for Fiona, I'd pull the cable. But she likes to watch that crap.
LANDSCAPERS
Here's what I think the government should be doing now:
We need to invest in the development of new products and technologies which the rest of the world cannot now compete. A million iPods, so to speak.
In the short term, those products can be manufactured here, because they are not being made elsewhere and we do not have to compete with low-paid workforces. That leaves only one reason to outsource production: to maximize the corporate profit. Those profits are going to have to be limited if American employment is to be restored.
In the short term, say 3 years (depending on the product), companies receiving Federal seed money or support should be banned from outsourcing any aspect of product development or production or service. Companies should also be banned from transferring or licensing proprietary technology or trade secrets overseas. Ultimately, foreign companies will crack the technology. If it is patented, they should be barred from using it. If they develop some lateral changes, the ban on outsourcing will have to be lifted to keep the American company competitive. But by then the investment money will have moved on to the next wave of technology.
This is the kind of protectionism we sorely need.
The point is that we have to recognize that many Americans are not capable of joining the knowledge meritocracy - they can't earn a living developing, as opposed to making, products. Either those people are factored into the real economy, or we become a nation of those who own big houses and those who tend their landscaping - i.e., a banana republic. Which is where we're headed now.
So bail out who we have to to avoid collapse. Build infrastructure; we need it anyway. But the major impetus, as long as private capital won't lend, has to be on harnessing brains and getting brilliant and profitable new ideas off the ground.
We need to invest in the development of new products and technologies which the rest of the world cannot now compete. A million iPods, so to speak.
In the short term, those products can be manufactured here, because they are not being made elsewhere and we do not have to compete with low-paid workforces. That leaves only one reason to outsource production: to maximize the corporate profit. Those profits are going to have to be limited if American employment is to be restored.
In the short term, say 3 years (depending on the product), companies receiving Federal seed money or support should be banned from outsourcing any aspect of product development or production or service. Companies should also be banned from transferring or licensing proprietary technology or trade secrets overseas. Ultimately, foreign companies will crack the technology. If it is patented, they should be barred from using it. If they develop some lateral changes, the ban on outsourcing will have to be lifted to keep the American company competitive. But by then the investment money will have moved on to the next wave of technology.
This is the kind of protectionism we sorely need.
The point is that we have to recognize that many Americans are not capable of joining the knowledge meritocracy - they can't earn a living developing, as opposed to making, products. Either those people are factored into the real economy, or we become a nation of those who own big houses and those who tend their landscaping - i.e., a banana republic. Which is where we're headed now.
So bail out who we have to to avoid collapse. Build infrastructure; we need it anyway. But the major impetus, as long as private capital won't lend, has to be on harnessing brains and getting brilliant and profitable new ideas off the ground.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
JUST MIGHT
Blogojevich has filed a motion in federal court asking for the removal of Fitzgerald as prosecutor because of the prejudicial statements he made when announcing the charges against Blogojevich.
I'd grant it. The court just might.
I'd grant it. The court just might.
IN THE DUST
Some posts ago I wrote of my suspicion that Israel's approach to the Palestinians was to deprive them of all hope, since hopeless people do not rebel. In a new op ed piece in the Times, Rashid Khalidi confirms this, quoting former IDF chief Moshe Yaalon as follows, from 2002: "The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people."
That's what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews.
But this will not work, folks. Aside from the sympathy Palestinians get from the rest of the world when Israel smacks them down, the mere existence of Iran gives them hope. Iran poses the greatest threat to Israel - not through its nuclear program, but through Hezbollah and Hamas. Palestinians know that Iran will continue to support them. Maybe someday soon they will hope that Iran destroys Israel.
I said, years ago, that if the Israeli-Palestinian matter ever morphed from a land dispute to a religious war, Israel was screwed. Oddly enough, it was in Israel that the transformation first occurred. Israeli policy is almost entirely driven by fundamentalist religion. It is a fundamentalist creed that the opposition is dirt, does not have a right to exist. That's Israel's view of the Palestinians, and it's the Israeli religious right who have made it so.
On the other hand, the Palestinians have not quite made the leap. Those supporting the PA act from secular motives, and most of those supporting Hamas still think secularly. But as Iran seems more and more to them as the only source of hope, that situation is likely to change. And Israel will likely have lost its last chance of peace - short of the utter destruction of Iran. And the real opportunity which Israel keeps throwing away is to show the Palestinians the benefit, economic and otherwise, they would get from a collaboration with a truly democratic Israel. That democratic Israel is now a charade, much as the US has been over the last eight years. The US got smart about it - maybe. Israel has not, and is apparently on the way to electing that neo-Nazi, Netanyahu, the George W. Bush of the Middle East.
What does this suggest for Obama's Israel policy? And what should we learn from the fact that America has elected a black man while Israel still represses "sand niggers"? That Israel's goals are no longer in sync with ours; that Israel is no longer America's natural ally, and that America is likely to find more reasoned collaboration with Muslim countries, as bizarre as that may seem. There's a shortage of pragmatism all over the Middle East - but it is nowhere in quite as short a supply as in Israel.
If I were Obama, I would reach out to Iran and to the coming revolutions in Egypt and possibly Jordan. I would tie their aspirations to ours. I would deal with Hezbollah and Hamas as they deserve to be dealt with - as organizations democratically representing people. I would try to save Israel, if I could. But if Israel does not follow where the rest of the world goes, I would leave it in the dust.
That's what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews.
But this will not work, folks. Aside from the sympathy Palestinians get from the rest of the world when Israel smacks them down, the mere existence of Iran gives them hope. Iran poses the greatest threat to Israel - not through its nuclear program, but through Hezbollah and Hamas. Palestinians know that Iran will continue to support them. Maybe someday soon they will hope that Iran destroys Israel.
I said, years ago, that if the Israeli-Palestinian matter ever morphed from a land dispute to a religious war, Israel was screwed. Oddly enough, it was in Israel that the transformation first occurred. Israeli policy is almost entirely driven by fundamentalist religion. It is a fundamentalist creed that the opposition is dirt, does not have a right to exist. That's Israel's view of the Palestinians, and it's the Israeli religious right who have made it so.
On the other hand, the Palestinians have not quite made the leap. Those supporting the PA act from secular motives, and most of those supporting Hamas still think secularly. But as Iran seems more and more to them as the only source of hope, that situation is likely to change. And Israel will likely have lost its last chance of peace - short of the utter destruction of Iran. And the real opportunity which Israel keeps throwing away is to show the Palestinians the benefit, economic and otherwise, they would get from a collaboration with a truly democratic Israel. That democratic Israel is now a charade, much as the US has been over the last eight years. The US got smart about it - maybe. Israel has not, and is apparently on the way to electing that neo-Nazi, Netanyahu, the George W. Bush of the Middle East.
What does this suggest for Obama's Israel policy? And what should we learn from the fact that America has elected a black man while Israel still represses "sand niggers"? That Israel's goals are no longer in sync with ours; that Israel is no longer America's natural ally, and that America is likely to find more reasoned collaboration with Muslim countries, as bizarre as that may seem. There's a shortage of pragmatism all over the Middle East - but it is nowhere in quite as short a supply as in Israel.
If I were Obama, I would reach out to Iran and to the coming revolutions in Egypt and possibly Jordan. I would tie their aspirations to ours. I would deal with Hezbollah and Hamas as they deserve to be dealt with - as organizations democratically representing people. I would try to save Israel, if I could. But if Israel does not follow where the rest of the world goes, I would leave it in the dust.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
NOT THAT HE CARES
Tomorrow Obama will do a press conference to introduce Tim Kaine, the incoming chair of the DNC. The outgoing chair was not invited to attend. That would be Howard Dean, who paved the way not only for Obama's victory but for many of the new Democratic seats in Congress, new Democratic governorships, new Democratic state legislatures. As far as I'm concerned, Howard Dean is the most important Democrat since Roosevelt.
Why wasn't he invited? Try this on.
Back in 2004 when Dean introduced the 50 state strategy which produced the victories in 2006 and 2008, two prominent Democrats fought him tooth and nail. Who were they? Chuck Schumer and ... Rahm Emanuel.
They didn't believe the strategy would work. But more to the point, I think they recognized that if it DID work, it would divert Democratic power away from the party's old fundraising base, particularly in Wall Street and finance. In other words, Dean believed in Democratic populism. Schumer and Emanuel did not - and still do not.
I take this insult to Dean personally. For me, it is a very black mark against Obama and one I will never forgive him for. Not that he cares.
But he should care.
Why wasn't he invited? Try this on.
Back in 2004 when Dean introduced the 50 state strategy which produced the victories in 2006 and 2008, two prominent Democrats fought him tooth and nail. Who were they? Chuck Schumer and ... Rahm Emanuel.
They didn't believe the strategy would work. But more to the point, I think they recognized that if it DID work, it would divert Democratic power away from the party's old fundraising base, particularly in Wall Street and finance. In other words, Dean believed in Democratic populism. Schumer and Emanuel did not - and still do not.
I take this insult to Dean personally. For me, it is a very black mark against Obama and one I will never forgive him for. Not that he cares.
But he should care.
Monday, January 05, 2009
ENOUGH BULLSHIT YET?
Let 's make this clear. In spite of all the pundit yawping:
1. As of now, Blogojevich is guilty of nothing. He may never be convicted. He may never be tried. He may never be indicted. The only thing that tends to guarantee an indictment is that, if he isn't, Patrick Fitzgerald can kiss his career goodbye.
2. Blogojevich will probably not be impeached - by which I mean, convicted on impeachment. (An impeachment is like an indictment. There still has to be a conviction to remove a man from office. It's the same as the court process, except it's done in the legislature.) The real reason there's an impeachment process is that all the smaller Illinois dogs want to sit in the big chair, or engineer the success of whoever does. Wait until they start fighting amongst each other, and watch how many pro-impeachment votes go the other way. In addition, I have my doubts that Illinois actually has a constitutional impeachment law. It leaves it up to the legislature to decide, in each case, what constitutes an impeachable offense. That smacks of an ex post facto law, which the US Constitution does not allow. If I were Blogojevich and I was convicted and thrown out of office, I'd head straight for the federal court and refuse to get out of my chair.
3. Roland Burris is a U.S. senator. He was appointed by a governor with full power to appoint him. The Secretary of State has no power to stop the appointment; his is a ceremonial position, in this case, and a writ of mandamus will force him to certify. The Senate can not block Burris because the man who appointed him is alleged to have committed a crime. If they attempt to block him because they don't believe he can hold the seat in 2010, they're as despicable as people say Blogojevich is - the difference being that we will know what they did, whereas the charges against Blagojevich are, right now, just speculation.
The rest of it is all bullshit. Haven't had enough bullshit yet?
UPDATE: I guess not.
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that Secretary of State Jesse White's signature isn't required to validate Roland Burris' appointment to the U.S. Senate. But it has also ruled that the Secretary of State has no duty under Illinois law to sign and affix the state seal to the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor.
How it decided the latter puzzles me. I'll have to read the decision. The easy way out of this would have been to compel the Secretary of State to sign the certificate by mandamus. Although the court has said that the secretary's signature is not required, it has not said that Burris' appointment is valid. It has said nothing on that, leaving Harry Reid enough room to dick around with this until, perhaps, Blogojevich is convicted on impeachment. Like months from now.
Nobody wants to just deal with this. Shame on all of them.
1. As of now, Blogojevich is guilty of nothing. He may never be convicted. He may never be tried. He may never be indicted. The only thing that tends to guarantee an indictment is that, if he isn't, Patrick Fitzgerald can kiss his career goodbye.
2. Blogojevich will probably not be impeached - by which I mean, convicted on impeachment. (An impeachment is like an indictment. There still has to be a conviction to remove a man from office. It's the same as the court process, except it's done in the legislature.) The real reason there's an impeachment process is that all the smaller Illinois dogs want to sit in the big chair, or engineer the success of whoever does. Wait until they start fighting amongst each other, and watch how many pro-impeachment votes go the other way. In addition, I have my doubts that Illinois actually has a constitutional impeachment law. It leaves it up to the legislature to decide, in each case, what constitutes an impeachable offense. That smacks of an ex post facto law, which the US Constitution does not allow. If I were Blogojevich and I was convicted and thrown out of office, I'd head straight for the federal court and refuse to get out of my chair.
3. Roland Burris is a U.S. senator. He was appointed by a governor with full power to appoint him. The Secretary of State has no power to stop the appointment; his is a ceremonial position, in this case, and a writ of mandamus will force him to certify. The Senate can not block Burris because the man who appointed him is alleged to have committed a crime. If they attempt to block him because they don't believe he can hold the seat in 2010, they're as despicable as people say Blogojevich is - the difference being that we will know what they did, whereas the charges against Blagojevich are, right now, just speculation.
The rest of it is all bullshit. Haven't had enough bullshit yet?
UPDATE: I guess not.
The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that Secretary of State Jesse White's signature isn't required to validate Roland Burris' appointment to the U.S. Senate. But it has also ruled that the Secretary of State has no duty under Illinois law to sign and affix the state seal to the certificate of appointment issued by the Governor.
How it decided the latter puzzles me. I'll have to read the decision. The easy way out of this would have been to compel the Secretary of State to sign the certificate by mandamus. Although the court has said that the secretary's signature is not required, it has not said that Burris' appointment is valid. It has said nothing on that, leaving Harry Reid enough room to dick around with this until, perhaps, Blogojevich is convicted on impeachment. Like months from now.
Nobody wants to just deal with this. Shame on all of them.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
SELF-FULFILLING
After Gaza, does anyone seriously expect that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons? And be able to justify them as a self-defense expediency?
I think Israel has created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some kind of war with Iran will be next.
It may be that only mutually assured destruction will quiet down the Middle East. But probably not, since neither side recognizes its own limitations. I think both Israel and the Muslims would be willing to take the risk of nuclear war, under present circumstances. They both believe they can wipe the other out. I suspect Israel would be willing to take one nuclear hit if the result was the complete obliteration of Middle East Islam - which they expect is possible since, if they don't have enough nukes themselves (and maybe they do), the American commitment takes care of that. But I also expect they will not wait until they are hit.
I think that even if Obama withdraws unconditional American support, Israel will do what it wants to do. At least, though, America would not be drawn into it - unless Muslims hold us responsible for the consequences, which will have developed as a result, not only of what we do now, but of what we have done for the last forty years.
I think Israel has created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Some kind of war with Iran will be next.
It may be that only mutually assured destruction will quiet down the Middle East. But probably not, since neither side recognizes its own limitations. I think both Israel and the Muslims would be willing to take the risk of nuclear war, under present circumstances. They both believe they can wipe the other out. I suspect Israel would be willing to take one nuclear hit if the result was the complete obliteration of Middle East Islam - which they expect is possible since, if they don't have enough nukes themselves (and maybe they do), the American commitment takes care of that. But I also expect they will not wait until they are hit.
I think that even if Obama withdraws unconditional American support, Israel will do what it wants to do. At least, though, America would not be drawn into it - unless Muslims hold us responsible for the consequences, which will have developed as a result, not only of what we do now, but of what we have done for the last forty years.
DINNER IN SOHO
Jews believe themselves to be superbright and highly creative. And they are. So how come all those Nobel Prize winners haven't figured out how to bring peace to Israel? How come peace initiatives come from the goyim - Carter, Clinton, maybe Obama?
I don't believe peace (or tranquility) is a high priority for Jews - or at least those who primarily identify themselves as Jews. What is their high priority? I don't know - but here are my thoughts.
Jews were trained by their sad history to struggle for survival. As they attained power, the same impetus shifted to conquest. So whether it's in finance or the Best Seller pages of the New York Times, Jews most definitely want to WIN. They don't expect peace; they've never had it, and it wouldn't fit into their world view. They don't want peace. They want struggle. Even interpersonally. Ever tried to steer a shopping cart through an Upper East Side market?
I wonder sometimes what would have happened if, after WWII, all the displaced Jews had moved, instead of Israel, to Brooklyn or Manhattan - where even New Jersey does not want to drive them into the sea. Enough of them did make that move to make it possible to predict that we might have seen an even greater explosion of creativity that would have significantly changed the world. Of course the religious Jews can fight in Williamsburg or Crown Heights - no Uzis, but otherwise the mood is like Israel's. But can you imagine what would have happened if Israeli secular Jews were free of stress and fear enough to devote their lives entirely to creation? That was what Israel was supposed to be for, remember?
Oh, well. They'd just have brought more stress and fear to New York, wouldn't they. But at least after a day of war they could have had a good dinner in Soho.
I don't believe peace (or tranquility) is a high priority for Jews - or at least those who primarily identify themselves as Jews. What is their high priority? I don't know - but here are my thoughts.
Jews were trained by their sad history to struggle for survival. As they attained power, the same impetus shifted to conquest. So whether it's in finance or the Best Seller pages of the New York Times, Jews most definitely want to WIN. They don't expect peace; they've never had it, and it wouldn't fit into their world view. They don't want peace. They want struggle. Even interpersonally. Ever tried to steer a shopping cart through an Upper East Side market?
I wonder sometimes what would have happened if, after WWII, all the displaced Jews had moved, instead of Israel, to Brooklyn or Manhattan - where even New Jersey does not want to drive them into the sea. Enough of them did make that move to make it possible to predict that we might have seen an even greater explosion of creativity that would have significantly changed the world. Of course the religious Jews can fight in Williamsburg or Crown Heights - no Uzis, but otherwise the mood is like Israel's. But can you imagine what would have happened if Israeli secular Jews were free of stress and fear enough to devote their lives entirely to creation? That was what Israel was supposed to be for, remember?
Oh, well. They'd just have brought more stress and fear to New York, wouldn't they. But at least after a day of war they could have had a good dinner in Soho.
DISHEARTENING
There is a really odd article by Mark Landler in the N Y Times.
In it, Landler says that, though Hillary Clinton has proved herself a friend of Israel, she will now have to reassure Palestinians that she can broker a peace and put pressure on the Israeli government. He quotes a public policy analyst: "She is going to have to demonstrate her independence from Israel." Etc. Etc. Etc.
Was Hillary elected President when I wasn't looking? Or is she, as the website I pulled Landler's article from suggests, still running?
The Secretary of State is the mouthpiece and tool of the President. That would be Obama. If she isn't, she'll need to be fired. What she thinks, what she promised American Jews and her personal history are completely, utterly irrelevant now outside of internal administration discussions. It is not her business to tell Israel or the Palestinians what she thinks.
It's really disheartening that people who make their living writing for America's premier newspaper or as a professor at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars don't quite get how our system works. Perhaps the problem is that their memory, and their expertise, runs less than eight years, so they don't know that normally the Secretary of State takes orders from the President, and not the other way around.
Scary.
In it, Landler says that, though Hillary Clinton has proved herself a friend of Israel, she will now have to reassure Palestinians that she can broker a peace and put pressure on the Israeli government. He quotes a public policy analyst: "She is going to have to demonstrate her independence from Israel." Etc. Etc. Etc.
Was Hillary elected President when I wasn't looking? Or is she, as the website I pulled Landler's article from suggests, still running?
The Secretary of State is the mouthpiece and tool of the President. That would be Obama. If she isn't, she'll need to be fired. What she thinks, what she promised American Jews and her personal history are completely, utterly irrelevant now outside of internal administration discussions. It is not her business to tell Israel or the Palestinians what she thinks.
It's really disheartening that people who make their living writing for America's premier newspaper or as a professor at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars don't quite get how our system works. Perhaps the problem is that their memory, and their expertise, runs less than eight years, so they don't know that normally the Secretary of State takes orders from the President, and not the other way around.
Scary.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
1968
Well - either these are the usual lies of the right wing, or something interesting is happening. Shades of 1968 ...
NOT A NEW STORY
The NY Times say Israel has invaded Gaza - jeez, I was going to say Iraq - to topple Hamas. They're right.
Israel's initial excuse was that it intended to destroy the rocket launching pads. But that's ridiculous - if, as Israel says, it does not intend to reoccupy Gaza, Hamas will just build new ones.
Israel now says they have a lot of targets and this will be a long operation. A lot of targets means all Hamas personnel. I think Israel intends regime change by destroying every person associated with Hamas. And they won't leave until they've accomplished it. When people said all Muslims hate the west and want to kill us, the return question was: so are we supposed to kill them all? Israel has answered that question in the affirmative.
Get rid of Hamas? How do they do that, with Iran and Syria backing Hamas? Neocons, apparently, never learn. For every Hamas leader they kill, another will appear - and in the meantime the likelihood that Palestinians will choose the PA over Hamas disappears day by day, and new terrorists are created, not only in Gaza but everywhere. And Israel claims it is acting in self defense. This is not a new story. It's an old, contemptible one.
It is, in fact, not just neocon but Neanderthal. Israel was initially settled and won by intelligent, sophisticated European Jews. Whether it's the influx of Sephardic Jews from third world countries, or Russian Jews who have no attachment to democracy, it seems to me that Israel has gone tribal, just in the way many Arabs do. Their techniques may be sophisticated, but their motivations are not, Whether it's religion or tribal identity, Israel has become more traditionally MidEastern - and in that condition, what does it have in common with American Jews? If Israel is not civilized, why should I care about it? Am I supposed to respect Jews just because they're Jews? Then I respect Bernie Madoff. Okay?
And they will get away with it. Why? Because George Bush is of the tribe of neocons and fundamentalists who, for varied reasons, worship at Israel's feet. Because Arabs are tribal, and Sunni nations want to crush a group identified with Shi'ite Iran. But also because both America and those Sunni nations are run by elites which want to protect their own. Hamas claims to be a populist Islamic movement. Jordan's king, and Egypt's king Mubarrak, and the Saudi king, don't want any of that messing up their rule.
Either it is possible to permanently repress a population, or it is not. Israel adheres to the theory that it is easier to keep Palestinians down if you offer them no hope, and that it is hope that causes insurrection. Maybe that's still true, and maybe not. It's probably no accident that the Obama insurrection played endlessly on the word "hope." Can Israel keep hope out of the hearts of Palestinians? I guess we'll find out, sooner or later.
Israel's initial excuse was that it intended to destroy the rocket launching pads. But that's ridiculous - if, as Israel says, it does not intend to reoccupy Gaza, Hamas will just build new ones.
Israel now says they have a lot of targets and this will be a long operation. A lot of targets means all Hamas personnel. I think Israel intends regime change by destroying every person associated with Hamas. And they won't leave until they've accomplished it. When people said all Muslims hate the west and want to kill us, the return question was: so are we supposed to kill them all? Israel has answered that question in the affirmative.
Get rid of Hamas? How do they do that, with Iran and Syria backing Hamas? Neocons, apparently, never learn. For every Hamas leader they kill, another will appear - and in the meantime the likelihood that Palestinians will choose the PA over Hamas disappears day by day, and new terrorists are created, not only in Gaza but everywhere. And Israel claims it is acting in self defense. This is not a new story. It's an old, contemptible one.
It is, in fact, not just neocon but Neanderthal. Israel was initially settled and won by intelligent, sophisticated European Jews. Whether it's the influx of Sephardic Jews from third world countries, or Russian Jews who have no attachment to democracy, it seems to me that Israel has gone tribal, just in the way many Arabs do. Their techniques may be sophisticated, but their motivations are not, Whether it's religion or tribal identity, Israel has become more traditionally MidEastern - and in that condition, what does it have in common with American Jews? If Israel is not civilized, why should I care about it? Am I supposed to respect Jews just because they're Jews? Then I respect Bernie Madoff. Okay?
And they will get away with it. Why? Because George Bush is of the tribe of neocons and fundamentalists who, for varied reasons, worship at Israel's feet. Because Arabs are tribal, and Sunni nations want to crush a group identified with Shi'ite Iran. But also because both America and those Sunni nations are run by elites which want to protect their own. Hamas claims to be a populist Islamic movement. Jordan's king, and Egypt's king Mubarrak, and the Saudi king, don't want any of that messing up their rule.
Either it is possible to permanently repress a population, or it is not. Israel adheres to the theory that it is easier to keep Palestinians down if you offer them no hope, and that it is hope that causes insurrection. Maybe that's still true, and maybe not. It's probably no accident that the Obama insurrection played endlessly on the word "hope." Can Israel keep hope out of the hearts of Palestinians? I guess we'll find out, sooner or later.
THE ANSWER
Tonight CBS Evening News announced the following story for next week: "Unnecessary surgery: are doctors putting profit above patients' health?"
If the question was: Will Paris Hilton break up Brad Pitt's marriage, we understand that the answer could be yes or could be no. But when a news station asks a question like the one above, we assume the answer is yes - because otherwise why would the station be wasting our time with the question? If doctors aren't putting profit above patients' health, that isn't news, is it?
Well, both questions are raised for the same reason: to pull ratings, not to give an answer. If they wanted you to know what the story is about, they could have said "Doctors are putting profit above patients' health" - or "doctors are NOT ... etc. In both of the examples above, they want you to be titillated by the question - and in the case of CBS Evening News, they want you to tune in to be shocked. Although why anyone would be shocked by either answer to the question is beyond me.
What if the story turns out to be that doctors DON'T put profits ahead of patients? Then we ought to be pissed at having our chain jerked. But we ought to be pissed that they asked the question in the first place. Tell the truth, anyway - how many people are going to sit eagerly by their TVs, like a line in front of Walmart on the day after Thanksgiving, to find out the answer to this question?
Absurd.
If the question was: Will Paris Hilton break up Brad Pitt's marriage, we understand that the answer could be yes or could be no. But when a news station asks a question like the one above, we assume the answer is yes - because otherwise why would the station be wasting our time with the question? If doctors aren't putting profit above patients' health, that isn't news, is it?
Well, both questions are raised for the same reason: to pull ratings, not to give an answer. If they wanted you to know what the story is about, they could have said "Doctors are putting profit above patients' health" - or "doctors are NOT ... etc. In both of the examples above, they want you to be titillated by the question - and in the case of CBS Evening News, they want you to tune in to be shocked. Although why anyone would be shocked by either answer to the question is beyond me.
What if the story turns out to be that doctors DON'T put profits ahead of patients? Then we ought to be pissed at having our chain jerked. But we ought to be pissed that they asked the question in the first place. Tell the truth, anyway - how many people are going to sit eagerly by their TVs, like a line in front of Walmart on the day after Thanksgiving, to find out the answer to this question?
Absurd.
Friday, January 02, 2009
REASON TO HOPE
What does it mean that Obama won't comment on what's going on in Gaza? Here's a reason to hope.
If he supported Bush's policy of letting Israel do what it wants to do, Obama could endorse that policy. He hasn't, quite. So can we conclude that he will change that policy when the problem is dropped into his lap?
Like I said, there's reason to hope.
If he supported Bush's policy of letting Israel do what it wants to do, Obama could endorse that policy. He hasn't, quite. So can we conclude that he will change that policy when the problem is dropped into his lap?
Like I said, there's reason to hope.
2009 CONTEMPTIBLES
Today we start a new series. This being a new year, I'm curious whether there will be more or less contemptible human beings in 2009 than in 2008. So I'll keep a list up. Keep an eye on it.
A THREAT TO BIG MONEY
Why all the fuss about Caroline Kennedy? She'll be progressive. If George Bush can learn to be president, she can learn to be a senator. People like her.
The press says the Democrats are afraid she won't be electable two years from now. A Kennedy unelectable in New York? Give me a break. Who's got a better chance of holding the seat?
The whole Caroline issue is a fake - it has nothing to do with her qualifications. It may have to do with the Clintons, since the latest gossip I've heard is that Patterson is considering appointing Bill. But I think it has to do with Wall Street. She doesn't seem to be in their pocket, as Hillary was. She could turn out to be a genuine populist. Her cousin Robert Jr. certainly did. I think she's a threat to big money. As if anyone cared these days.
The press says the Democrats are afraid she won't be electable two years from now. A Kennedy unelectable in New York? Give me a break. Who's got a better chance of holding the seat?
The whole Caroline issue is a fake - it has nothing to do with her qualifications. It may have to do with the Clintons, since the latest gossip I've heard is that Patterson is considering appointing Bill. But I think it has to do with Wall Street. She doesn't seem to be in their pocket, as Hillary was. She could turn out to be a genuine populist. Her cousin Robert Jr. certainly did. I think she's a threat to big money. As if anyone cared these days.
MAYBE NOT
Is this the first incident in a coming wave of crazy Iraq vet anti-social actions, or was this guy nuts in the first place?
A picture tells a lot, and he looks like a criminal. He spent only five months in Iraq, and the story does not explain why he was, I assume, discharged early. So it could be this guy has always been dangerous.
But this story says otherwise.
A picture tells a lot, and he looks like a criminal. He spent only five months in Iraq, and the story does not explain why he was, I assume, discharged early. So it could be this guy has always been dangerous.
But this story says otherwise.
WHAT'S WRONG?
Madoff. Gaza. Neocons. Goldman Sachs. This about says it all. When did we lose our essence, landsmen? When did we become little people?
FELLOWS
Since I've noticed that no one takes your opinion seriously unless you're a celebrity or a fellow at an "institute", I have today founded the Wellington Institute for Opinion Development and declared myself a Senior Fellow therein. I intend to run this institute like the typical online diploma mill, except that there will be no charge for its services. If you wish to become a fellow at the Institute, simply log a comment to that effect on this post, providing your name and the field of expertise you wish to be accredited in. Once we have enough fellows, we will create a letterhead and, undoubtedly, a website that will look very neat. Having been credentialed, you will be able to present your opinion on any subject under the sun with the assurance that it will be taken extremely seriously. Join up, fellows, and Happy Syndication!
Thursday, January 01, 2009
THE BALL GAME
Ever wonder why the Iranians released their American hostages as soon as Reagan took over? This one has always bothered me. Considering what we've learned (or should have learned) in recent years, try this on for size:
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. We now know that at the beginning of George Bush's administration it had already been planned to take out Iraq. It is just as possible that at the beginning of the Reagan administration in 1980 it had already been planned to engineer a Soviet defeat in Afghanistan which would function as their Vietnam - hoping that such a defeat would contribute, if not to bringing down the Soviet regime (I don't believe Reaganites really expected that), then at least to causing the Soviets a lot of pain.
Naturally an Islamic Iran would cooperate in that. Getting rid of the hostages cleared the decks for that cooperation. I'm quite sure Iran never saw Jimmy Carter as either intending to or capable of messing up the Soviets. The deal with Reagan was a natural.
It is also possible that the Republicans - knowing that to maintain their power they needed an outside enemy (with tentacles inside the US as well) - figured Iran was an alternative permanent enemy. (It has certainly turned out that way, hasn't it.) And the Iranian clergy - knowing that to maintain their power they needed an outside enemy - realized that a relationship of mutual expressed hatred with the Republicans would be very helpful to them.
So they attack each other verbally, each using the other's attacks to broaden its base and consolidate power. It's a perfect symbiotic relationship. Why do we have to assume it was an accident?
You could say the same about Bush and Bin Laden. They needed each other. Bin Laden was never caught. Bin Laden was never even actively sought. And Bin Laden did not, so far as we know, target the White House. Bin Laden's driver allegedly told an FBI agent that he had overheard a conversation between Bin Laden and Zawahiri after the 9/11 attacks, in which one of the two said that if the plane had not been shot down in Pennsylvania, it would have hit "the dome." The driver didn't know if that meant the Capitol or the White House - but the White House has no dome. On the other hand, US officials insisted it was heading for the White House - something they could not possibly know.
If, after all we've been through, you still don't believe that that's the way the world works, I suggest you need a couple days of meditation and contemplation.
Obama changes the ball game - possibly. I wonder how the Iranian clergy would deal with an American government which did not routinely damn them to hell.
The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. We now know that at the beginning of George Bush's administration it had already been planned to take out Iraq. It is just as possible that at the beginning of the Reagan administration in 1980 it had already been planned to engineer a Soviet defeat in Afghanistan which would function as their Vietnam - hoping that such a defeat would contribute, if not to bringing down the Soviet regime (I don't believe Reaganites really expected that), then at least to causing the Soviets a lot of pain.
Naturally an Islamic Iran would cooperate in that. Getting rid of the hostages cleared the decks for that cooperation. I'm quite sure Iran never saw Jimmy Carter as either intending to or capable of messing up the Soviets. The deal with Reagan was a natural.
It is also possible that the Republicans - knowing that to maintain their power they needed an outside enemy (with tentacles inside the US as well) - figured Iran was an alternative permanent enemy. (It has certainly turned out that way, hasn't it.) And the Iranian clergy - knowing that to maintain their power they needed an outside enemy - realized that a relationship of mutual expressed hatred with the Republicans would be very helpful to them.
So they attack each other verbally, each using the other's attacks to broaden its base and consolidate power. It's a perfect symbiotic relationship. Why do we have to assume it was an accident?
You could say the same about Bush and Bin Laden. They needed each other. Bin Laden was never caught. Bin Laden was never even actively sought. And Bin Laden did not, so far as we know, target the White House. Bin Laden's driver allegedly told an FBI agent that he had overheard a conversation between Bin Laden and Zawahiri after the 9/11 attacks, in which one of the two said that if the plane had not been shot down in Pennsylvania, it would have hit "the dome." The driver didn't know if that meant the Capitol or the White House - but the White House has no dome. On the other hand, US officials insisted it was heading for the White House - something they could not possibly know.
If, after all we've been through, you still don't believe that that's the way the world works, I suggest you need a couple days of meditation and contemplation.
Obama changes the ball game - possibly. I wonder how the Iranian clergy would deal with an American government which did not routinely damn them to hell.
HAD
Mortgage rates are at record lows and mortgage applications are soaring.
Huh?
I haven't seen any statistics as to how many of those applications find loans - which is the key here. But assuming many of them do, what happened to the alleged credit crunch?
What the fuck is going on?
Here are the possibilities I can see:
1) The banks are loaning their own money - which means they never needed a bailout. Any credit crunch resulted simply from unwillingness to lend.
2) The banks are loaning their own money, but they have been cajoled (by whom?) into lending again.
3) The banks are loaning the government's money - meaning the bailout worked.
4) There never was any credit crunch. The bailout was the Bush administration's last distribution of public capital into private hands.
I have not heard that anyone is writing subprime mortgages. That problem may have self-corrected. If many of these new applications are for refinancing, much of the potential future mortgage problem may be disappearing. Since loans are now not being extended to people already in default, all that is left to do to stem the housing disaster is to rework those defaulting mortgages. If, then, somehow developers are prevented from overbuilding - and right now they're hardly building at all - housing overstock may be significantly reduced, and prices may resume their gradual rise.
And so much for that problem - if it was ever real.
But banks still have many ways of ripping us off. Attention must next be paid to usurious credit card interest rates, and the overissue of credit cards themselves.
Whatever the truth is, and whatever the future holds, I still can't shake the feeling that we have been, and are being, had.
Huh?
I haven't seen any statistics as to how many of those applications find loans - which is the key here. But assuming many of them do, what happened to the alleged credit crunch?
What the fuck is going on?
Here are the possibilities I can see:
1) The banks are loaning their own money - which means they never needed a bailout. Any credit crunch resulted simply from unwillingness to lend.
2) The banks are loaning their own money, but they have been cajoled (by whom?) into lending again.
3) The banks are loaning the government's money - meaning the bailout worked.
4) There never was any credit crunch. The bailout was the Bush administration's last distribution of public capital into private hands.
I have not heard that anyone is writing subprime mortgages. That problem may have self-corrected. If many of these new applications are for refinancing, much of the potential future mortgage problem may be disappearing. Since loans are now not being extended to people already in default, all that is left to do to stem the housing disaster is to rework those defaulting mortgages. If, then, somehow developers are prevented from overbuilding - and right now they're hardly building at all - housing overstock may be significantly reduced, and prices may resume their gradual rise.
And so much for that problem - if it was ever real.
But banks still have many ways of ripping us off. Attention must next be paid to usurious credit card interest rates, and the overissue of credit cards themselves.
Whatever the truth is, and whatever the future holds, I still can't shake the feeling that we have been, and are being, had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
