Watched "U.S.A. vs. John Lennon" tonight. Lot of memories.
Remembering what young people accomplished in those days, I've wondered why for the past eight years no real movement developed against Bush. No one was in the streets. No one was getting together.
Yes, there was internet aggregation. But how easy is that? Don't have to give up an hour at home, don't have to leave work. Don't have to show yourself. Don't have to deal with people.
Well - I think we're going to see a street movement again. But it won't be from the left this time. And it won't be innocent.
BLOG POSTS
Saturday, February 28, 2009
A VERY LONG TIME
It would appear that we are headed for extended warfare over Obama's program. Which means that the American psyche will not be sufficiently settled to begin the process of recovery before a few months prior to the 2010 elections. And since I believe the Republicans are going to escalate this warfare to some level we have not seen since the early 20th century, I see no chance for the calm needed to restore confidence.
Things are going to be bad for a very long time.
Things are going to be bad for a very long time.
RESPECTABLE
This is the kind of conservative argument I can respect. It even, at least on first blush, looks correct to me.
Why aren't the Republicans just making this kind of simple, thoughtful argument instead of jerking the chains of people who are scared of things they don't understand?
Why aren't the Republicans just making this kind of simple, thoughtful argument instead of jerking the chains of people who are scared of things they don't understand?
THE BOTTOMING EVENT
It doesn't help that hundreds of times a day some talking head is asking some pundit when the market is going to bottom. This is the among the stupidest questions ever asked. Not only is it impossible to give an answer; it's impossible even to give an informed opinion.
But this is not harmless stupidity. Each time an answer fails to satisfy or is proved wrong, more panic sets in. And panic is driving not only the market but the entire economy.
However, I am convinced that one event will declare the bottom. I don't know what it will be, but it could be a statement by someone. I remember very clearly that the dot com bust began with the statement of a woman - I don't remember who - acknowledged to be an expert, who said the boom was out of hand. The next day the tanking began. The consequence of her comment was so dramatic and so immediate that, if you were a conspiracy theorist, you'd think that in some secret room a decision had been made and she'd been designated to announce it.
I think the same thing happened with the end of the housing boom, although I don't remember what the event was. But I think that at some point a single thing will occur and things will move up from there.
The problem is, that thing is not the kind of thing you'd expect to produce that result. You might think that Obama's stimulus plan could have been such an event, but it wasn't and in fact it couldn't have been - because we are not ready for a bottom, and because it raised too many questions. The actual bottoming event will be far more innocuous. I hope I recognize it when I see it.
But this is not harmless stupidity. Each time an answer fails to satisfy or is proved wrong, more panic sets in. And panic is driving not only the market but the entire economy.
However, I am convinced that one event will declare the bottom. I don't know what it will be, but it could be a statement by someone. I remember very clearly that the dot com bust began with the statement of a woman - I don't remember who - acknowledged to be an expert, who said the boom was out of hand. The next day the tanking began. The consequence of her comment was so dramatic and so immediate that, if you were a conspiracy theorist, you'd think that in some secret room a decision had been made and she'd been designated to announce it.
I think the same thing happened with the end of the housing boom, although I don't remember what the event was. But I think that at some point a single thing will occur and things will move up from there.
The problem is, that thing is not the kind of thing you'd expect to produce that result. You might think that Obama's stimulus plan could have been such an event, but it wasn't and in fact it couldn't have been - because we are not ready for a bottom, and because it raised too many questions. The actual bottoming event will be far more innocuous. I hope I recognize it when I see it.
YIN TO YANG
Someone with my point of view looks at CPAC - the conservative action group now meeting in Washington - and sees a bunch of lunatics. This is certainly not to say that conservatism is insane, but only that these particular people do not seem to be making any connection to facts or rationality.
What scares the hell out of me is this: what Obama is doing may fail, or it may not succeed by 2012. In fact, it looks like it's going to take a lot longer to correct the current disaster. By 2012, the public may very well have decided that Obama doesn't have the answers, and want to try something else. And if it's the CPAC people who are providing the only alternative, through control of the Republican Party, I'm afraid we may have a government totally disconnected from any reality other than distributing largesse and power to them and theirs.
So I guess I understand where these people are coming from. They're the mirror image of me, the yin to my yang, and they want to replace their terror with mine.
It's just that I think I'm thinking about these things, and trying to come to a solution through the facts. As far as I can see, they are fixed on the solution and trying to manipulate the facts to fit it. We should be used to that - we have just come through eight or more years of it. But it still doesn't strike me as healthy.
What scares the hell out of me is this: what Obama is doing may fail, or it may not succeed by 2012. In fact, it looks like it's going to take a lot longer to correct the current disaster. By 2012, the public may very well have decided that Obama doesn't have the answers, and want to try something else. And if it's the CPAC people who are providing the only alternative, through control of the Republican Party, I'm afraid we may have a government totally disconnected from any reality other than distributing largesse and power to them and theirs.
So I guess I understand where these people are coming from. They're the mirror image of me, the yin to my yang, and they want to replace their terror with mine.
It's just that I think I'm thinking about these things, and trying to come to a solution through the facts. As far as I can see, they are fixed on the solution and trying to manipulate the facts to fit it. We should be used to that - we have just come through eight or more years of it. But it still doesn't strike me as healthy.
IN REVERSE
The speed of the economic collapse is due to current technology. The faster information moves, the faster people act on it - correctly or incorrectly. And the wider it disseminates. What I suspect is that the speed eliminates the possibility, in many cases, of serious analysis - or worse, it's computers not programmed to stop and question that are making the "decisions." The idea that quick short-term decisions might not be in the long-term best interests either of the deciding entity or society as a whole has not seemed to sink in.
Since speed seems to often be the key to short-term financial success or failure, the only way this problem can be corrected is to shift to long-term thinking - which, theoretically, is what distinguishes humans from other animals.
Maybe the anti-Darwinists are right. Evolution does seem to be hurtling in reverse.
Since speed seems to often be the key to short-term financial success or failure, the only way this problem can be corrected is to shift to long-term thinking - which, theoretically, is what distinguishes humans from other animals.
Maybe the anti-Darwinists are right. Evolution does seem to be hurtling in reverse.
CORRELATION?
Have you noticed that there has been an airplane disaster or near-disaster every few days lately? Here's the latest.
This is way beyond normal. Is there some cosmic correlation between what's happening in air travel and what's happening generally?
This is way beyond normal. Is there some cosmic correlation between what's happening in air travel and what's happening generally?
Friday, February 27, 2009
NO. 2
Here's the long term problem:
Worker productivity is up, so we need less workers to do a fixed amount of work. The economy is down, so there's no market for a larger amount of work. So there's no need to employ more people. And as productivity continues to increase, we'll need even less.
What do we do about this long term? It seems to me there are only three answers:
1) Reduce the population.
2) Create new businesses to sell new products (assuming the products are made here). But these need to be products that people actually want or, more to the point, actually need. Cell phones are the best example. We need more improvements like that.
3) Increase the markets for what we already produce, so we have to produce more of it (and this assumes more workers will be needed if more is produced). The keys to this are worldwide recovery and opening up of new markets. For example, Africa. But to make Africa a generalized market, we would have to do something to enable Africans to afford to buy things - which means creating competition for ourselves.
Seems to me No. 2 is the only real way to go. Who will succeed in the long term? Guys who take the technology revolution to higher planes, or guys who invent the next production revolution. Whatever that is, if it's designed and made in America, we'll get another 20-30 years of economic comfort. If it comes from somewhere else, we're up shit's creek.
Worker productivity is up, so we need less workers to do a fixed amount of work. The economy is down, so there's no market for a larger amount of work. So there's no need to employ more people. And as productivity continues to increase, we'll need even less.
What do we do about this long term? It seems to me there are only three answers:
1) Reduce the population.
2) Create new businesses to sell new products (assuming the products are made here). But these need to be products that people actually want or, more to the point, actually need. Cell phones are the best example. We need more improvements like that.
3) Increase the markets for what we already produce, so we have to produce more of it (and this assumes more workers will be needed if more is produced). The keys to this are worldwide recovery and opening up of new markets. For example, Africa. But to make Africa a generalized market, we would have to do something to enable Africans to afford to buy things - which means creating competition for ourselves.
Seems to me No. 2 is the only real way to go. Who will succeed in the long term? Guys who take the technology revolution to higher planes, or guys who invent the next production revolution. Whatever that is, if it's designed and made in America, we'll get another 20-30 years of economic comfort. If it comes from somewhere else, we're up shit's creek.
SECEDE
From the New York Times:
"The stimulus bill recently passed by Congress includes incentives to states to expand benefits to many more jobless people, including part-time workers and those who have cycled in and out of the work force, who are not covered in many states.
The Republican governors of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, along with Alaska and Idaho, have raised protests, saying that expansion could eventually require them to raise taxes."
I've said over and over that the current political wars are between the old Confederacy and the old North (Union). All the talk of the New South over recent decades has not convinced me - those states may be more prosperous, the result of luring industry with favorable tax treatment and hostility to unions, but their attitudes haven't changed in two hundred years.
Note the absence of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. Virginia and North Carolina attitudes have shifted substantially. Florida was always half a northern state, and presently has a governor who reflects at least some of that northern input (as opposed to Jeb Bush - so Florida could flip back into the Confederacy with any election.) Most of the states cited in the first paragraph are still poor and benighted. Supposedly Atlanta is a civilized modern city - but either it has little impact on the state or its changes are more surface than substance. And Texas, with all its money, is still the capital of bizarre.
Texas is instructive, because as opposed, for example, to Alabama, there is a strong streak of "go-it-alone" libertarianism which is generally shared by the populace. Loyalty, at bottom, is to self and family alone. The same is true in Alaska and probably Idaho. The other states cited are simply oligarchies supported by an ancient and generally accepted code.
They are North Korea to our South Korea. I have no problem with these states doing whatever they want to do - short of coming across their borders with tanks. But there is no reason I can think of to give them a voice up here. I noted recently that Sean Hannity on his website Hannity's America put up a poll in which he asked whether his readers would prefer a coup d'etat against Obama, armed revolution or secession. The question proves that Hannity sees these states, and his supporters generally, exactly as I do.
I hope they vote for secession. And I hope these states secede.
"The stimulus bill recently passed by Congress includes incentives to states to expand benefits to many more jobless people, including part-time workers and those who have cycled in and out of the work force, who are not covered in many states.
The Republican governors of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, along with Alaska and Idaho, have raised protests, saying that expansion could eventually require them to raise taxes."
I've said over and over that the current political wars are between the old Confederacy and the old North (Union). All the talk of the New South over recent decades has not convinced me - those states may be more prosperous, the result of luring industry with favorable tax treatment and hostility to unions, but their attitudes haven't changed in two hundred years.
Note the absence of Virginia, North Carolina and Florida. Virginia and North Carolina attitudes have shifted substantially. Florida was always half a northern state, and presently has a governor who reflects at least some of that northern input (as opposed to Jeb Bush - so Florida could flip back into the Confederacy with any election.) Most of the states cited in the first paragraph are still poor and benighted. Supposedly Atlanta is a civilized modern city - but either it has little impact on the state or its changes are more surface than substance. And Texas, with all its money, is still the capital of bizarre.
Texas is instructive, because as opposed, for example, to Alabama, there is a strong streak of "go-it-alone" libertarianism which is generally shared by the populace. Loyalty, at bottom, is to self and family alone. The same is true in Alaska and probably Idaho. The other states cited are simply oligarchies supported by an ancient and generally accepted code.
They are North Korea to our South Korea. I have no problem with these states doing whatever they want to do - short of coming across their borders with tanks. But there is no reason I can think of to give them a voice up here. I noted recently that Sean Hannity on his website Hannity's America put up a poll in which he asked whether his readers would prefer a coup d'etat against Obama, armed revolution or secession. The question proves that Hannity sees these states, and his supporters generally, exactly as I do.
I hope they vote for secession. And I hope these states secede.
SIGN ME UP
Washington Post:
"Desiree Rogers, 49, is the White House's glamorous new social secretary, a title that belies the magnitude of the job. She is responsible for arranging all the high-profile ceremonies and dinners for the first couple, and she has the power to summon the world's top cultural icons on short notice.
No detail escapes her eye. She says she is planning for the first time to ask the public to sign up on the Internet for the annual White House Easter Egg Roll instead of forcing 36,000 people to wait in line and she wants to have a regular online lottery to get ordinary Americans to state dinners."
Sign me up, baby. (Not for the egg roll.)
"Desiree Rogers, 49, is the White House's glamorous new social secretary, a title that belies the magnitude of the job. She is responsible for arranging all the high-profile ceremonies and dinners for the first couple, and she has the power to summon the world's top cultural icons on short notice.
No detail escapes her eye. She says she is planning for the first time to ask the public to sign up on the Internet for the annual White House Easter Egg Roll instead of forcing 36,000 people to wait in line and she wants to have a regular online lottery to get ordinary Americans to state dinners."
Sign me up, baby. (Not for the egg roll.)
Thursday, February 26, 2009
THEY JUST MIGHT
If this is what conservatives are really thinking about these days, we had better get used to the idea of a permanent and literal lunatic fringe. Oh, hell, we're already used to that, aren't we? But still capable of being astounded by it.
According to Olbermann, somewhere on this site is a discussion of the appropriate method for violent revolution against the Obama government. As I've said, this is a real threat from people a decent percentage of whom would actually do just that.
But I don't feel honest taking umbrage, remembering as I do the conversations I had in the '60's when the left was plotting revolution. I thought of it as a non-violent sort of persuasive street movement - but the Weather Underground had bombs in mind, the Black Panthers had guns. So this isn't a new thing, and it hasn't been confined to the right. The difference, it seems to me, is that nobody except Republicans believed Cleaver would actually do anything much. I believe, however, that the current people just might.
According to Olbermann, somewhere on this site is a discussion of the appropriate method for violent revolution against the Obama government. As I've said, this is a real threat from people a decent percentage of whom would actually do just that.
But I don't feel honest taking umbrage, remembering as I do the conversations I had in the '60's when the left was plotting revolution. I thought of it as a non-violent sort of persuasive street movement - but the Weather Underground had bombs in mind, the Black Panthers had guns. So this isn't a new thing, and it hasn't been confined to the right. The difference, it seems to me, is that nobody except Republicans believed Cleaver would actually do anything much. I believe, however, that the current people just might.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
CONTROL FREAKS
NBC Nightly News reports that the Mexican drug wars are fueled by weapons bought in the U.S., where gun laws are weaker.
So if you're in favor of guns but anti-drugs, you're a walking contradiction. Because you haven't thought for a second about the consequences of what you want. Admittedly, that's not easy - you have to have an open and wide-ranging mind, and those are not qualities frequently come by.
I wonder, though, if the people who want guns and the people who don't want drugs are the same people. I've always understood the gun people to be libertarian, and libertarians, as far as I know, don't want to be told what drugs they can't use. It may be, though, that the anti-drug people have moved to pro-gun, rather than the other way around. I.e., they're not libertarians, they're control freaks who want the weapons just in case.
Anybody know?
So if you're in favor of guns but anti-drugs, you're a walking contradiction. Because you haven't thought for a second about the consequences of what you want. Admittedly, that's not easy - you have to have an open and wide-ranging mind, and those are not qualities frequently come by.
I wonder, though, if the people who want guns and the people who don't want drugs are the same people. I've always understood the gun people to be libertarian, and libertarians, as far as I know, don't want to be told what drugs they can't use. It may be, though, that the anti-drug people have moved to pro-gun, rather than the other way around. I.e., they're not libertarians, they're control freaks who want the weapons just in case.
Anybody know?
PHRASING
In an interview with Katie Couric on last night's CBS Evening News, John Boener said: "We are not going to be the Party of No."
That is the first time I have ever ever EVER heard a Republican use a Democrat-crafted phrase. Is it possible that after years of the Republicans dominating debate through phrase-making which defined issues in their favor - i.e., "tort reform" or "tax and spend liberals" - and which Democrats and the media eagerly adopted, Democrats have learned how to play this game, and may be actually winning it?
That's more than I can believe in, right now. But I'm watching.
That is the first time I have ever ever EVER heard a Republican use a Democrat-crafted phrase. Is it possible that after years of the Republicans dominating debate through phrase-making which defined issues in their favor - i.e., "tort reform" or "tax and spend liberals" - and which Democrats and the media eagerly adopted, Democrats have learned how to play this game, and may be actually winning it?
That's more than I can believe in, right now. But I'm watching.
THE CYCLE
Democrats need to assume that they will be in control for a maximum of eight years. Here's why:
If they fail in their programs, they will be tossed out - perhaps in four years.
If they succeed, they will still be tossed out. Americans will be tired of the sturm und drang and all the government activity. They will be looking for less supervision, or, as they'll put it, more freedom. They will gladly accept what the Democrats have done and bring in the opposition, just as the Brits did with Churchill after the war. If, by then, the Republicans have gotten their act together, they may get longer than eight years, because they will challenge no one and ask no one to do anything. They'll just run the show until they screw up again. And then the cycle begins once more.
If they fail in their programs, they will be tossed out - perhaps in four years.
If they succeed, they will still be tossed out. Americans will be tired of the sturm und drang and all the government activity. They will be looking for less supervision, or, as they'll put it, more freedom. They will gladly accept what the Democrats have done and bring in the opposition, just as the Brits did with Churchill after the war. If, by then, the Republicans have gotten their act together, they may get longer than eight years, because they will challenge no one and ask no one to do anything. They'll just run the show until they screw up again. And then the cycle begins once more.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
SOLIS
Today Hilda Solis was confirmed as Secretary of Labor.
This may be the most important thing done in this time of many important things.
This may be the most important thing done in this time of many important things.
GEESE
In Congressional hearings related to the recent bird-stricken plane which landed in the Hudson, John E. Ostrom, chairman of the Bird Strike Committee-USA and a manager at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, testified that since 1990, the number of Canada geese that live year-round in the country rather than migrating has grown from 1 million to 3.9 million and the population of 24 of the 36 largest bird species has increased.
Does that mean that global warming has increased the dangers of air travel?
And when are we invading Canada, by the way?
Does that mean that global warming has increased the dangers of air travel?
And when are we invading Canada, by the way?
Monday, February 23, 2009
INTO THE STREETS
So it's the NAACP that's first into the streets in the face of continuing conservative craziness (in this case, the Post cartoon). More power to them, but they've done their service in this capacity before. Isn't it time for others to pick up the banner?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
I GET IT
Trita Parsi's book "Treacherous Alliance" has helped me to understand something which should have been obvious but apparently was not.
I have been wondering whether Israel adopted American neocon policy or the other way round. Parsi points out that from the beginning Menachem Begin was a follower of Jabotinsky who believed that an inevitable blood feud existed between Arabs and Jews. Begin sought rule over all of Eretz Yisroel (the Biblical Jewish kingdom), which necessarily included the West Bank and Gaza, as well as land held by other nations. To do otherwise, he believed, was to compromise Zionism.
When Likud took over Israel in the late '70's, this conception became Israel's ruling doctrine. Begin sought to make Israel completely dominant in the region by adopting an offensive posture with no room for accommodation. He was joined in this essentially nationalist aspiration by the religious parties which had Apocalyptic reasons for seeking control over "Judea and Samaria." That combination rules Israel to this day.
In the '90's the doctrine was imported into the US, most likely by those neocons most concerned for Israeli interests - Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz. It was hidden and incubated inside the Republican party, America's Likud. With Bush's election and 9/11 it was brought out of the think tanks and joined in by the American religious right which has essentially the same point of view as the Israeli religious right (although the ultimate outcomes of this policy are seen to be different by them). Others who were not tied to Israel or religious - Cheney, Rumsfeld - adopted it because of its nationalist and preemptive elements.
So I have the answer. America has been busy converting itself into an Israel. Israel may or may not have assisted in this - it is certainly in Israel's interest - but, whether or not it did, its conceptions have been triumphant. We have looked at the rest of the world pretty much as Israel looks at the Arabs. And the American religious right has been busily declaring the US a Christian nation, again in imitation of Israel. We are surrounded by people who hate us for our freedoms (the nationalist view) or our religion. These hatreds are, as Jabotinsky said, inevitable and implacable.
One other point: the American right looks at the American left the way the Israeli right looks at its left - as traitors determined to destroy the state itself. So inevitable and implacable hatred extends not just to the conflict of Arab vs. Jew, or America vs. everybody, but also to Jew vs. Jew, and American vs. American. The language used by the right in both contexts makes this clear. This is not hyperbole.
Now - include in this analysis the fact that Jabotinsky and Begin were terrorists, and you begin to understand who we're dealing with. One has to assume that the Israeli right's perfect solution would be the killing of all Palestinians, but they have not done so because 1) it's impossible, 2) they would lose world tolerance, 3) they might be biting off more enemies than they can chew, or 4) they haven't gotten around to it yet.
I don't doubt that the American right has the same wish for the American left, and the reason they haven't done it is because Americans killing Americans for political reasons is not a conceivable concept. Yet. But one other point: much of the core of right wing intolerance comes out of the American South. And the concept of Americans killing Americans is not foreign to them. The Civil War lives in these southern hearts; their hatreds and doctrines are not all that much different than they were ante-bellum, and you can add to that an unslaked desire for revenge.
So don't get all complacent. This goes very deep.
I have been wondering whether Israel adopted American neocon policy or the other way round. Parsi points out that from the beginning Menachem Begin was a follower of Jabotinsky who believed that an inevitable blood feud existed between Arabs and Jews. Begin sought rule over all of Eretz Yisroel (the Biblical Jewish kingdom), which necessarily included the West Bank and Gaza, as well as land held by other nations. To do otherwise, he believed, was to compromise Zionism.
When Likud took over Israel in the late '70's, this conception became Israel's ruling doctrine. Begin sought to make Israel completely dominant in the region by adopting an offensive posture with no room for accommodation. He was joined in this essentially nationalist aspiration by the religious parties which had Apocalyptic reasons for seeking control over "Judea and Samaria." That combination rules Israel to this day.
In the '90's the doctrine was imported into the US, most likely by those neocons most concerned for Israeli interests - Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz. It was hidden and incubated inside the Republican party, America's Likud. With Bush's election and 9/11 it was brought out of the think tanks and joined in by the American religious right which has essentially the same point of view as the Israeli religious right (although the ultimate outcomes of this policy are seen to be different by them). Others who were not tied to Israel or religious - Cheney, Rumsfeld - adopted it because of its nationalist and preemptive elements.
So I have the answer. America has been busy converting itself into an Israel. Israel may or may not have assisted in this - it is certainly in Israel's interest - but, whether or not it did, its conceptions have been triumphant. We have looked at the rest of the world pretty much as Israel looks at the Arabs. And the American religious right has been busily declaring the US a Christian nation, again in imitation of Israel. We are surrounded by people who hate us for our freedoms (the nationalist view) or our religion. These hatreds are, as Jabotinsky said, inevitable and implacable.
One other point: the American right looks at the American left the way the Israeli right looks at its left - as traitors determined to destroy the state itself. So inevitable and implacable hatred extends not just to the conflict of Arab vs. Jew, or America vs. everybody, but also to Jew vs. Jew, and American vs. American. The language used by the right in both contexts makes this clear. This is not hyperbole.
Now - include in this analysis the fact that Jabotinsky and Begin were terrorists, and you begin to understand who we're dealing with. One has to assume that the Israeli right's perfect solution would be the killing of all Palestinians, but they have not done so because 1) it's impossible, 2) they would lose world tolerance, 3) they might be biting off more enemies than they can chew, or 4) they haven't gotten around to it yet.
I don't doubt that the American right has the same wish for the American left, and the reason they haven't done it is because Americans killing Americans for political reasons is not a conceivable concept. Yet. But one other point: much of the core of right wing intolerance comes out of the American South. And the concept of Americans killing Americans is not foreign to them. The Civil War lives in these southern hearts; their hatreds and doctrines are not all that much different than they were ante-bellum, and you can add to that an unslaked desire for revenge.
So don't get all complacent. This goes very deep.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
ART
The current economy has smacked down the contemporary art market. That's both good and bad. First, why it's good:
There is a lot of good art being made these days - which I define as art which reaches you both because of the thinking and of the technique which produces it. There's also plenty of bad art - which I define as Warhol progeny.
Warhol's art is pathetic, in my view. Warhol's genius was in self-promotion, and he was undeniably brilliant at that. It seems to me that since looking at a Warhol work produces no emotional or intellectual response, it became necessary to explain it in magazines and catalogs through the use of insider language which had no real meaning - like the language of sociologists and economists - but which would give you a justification to buy something you already wanted desperately because its possession made you hip. All of the pseudo-intellectual constructs built on Warhol and the installers, including, for example, a lot of the currently hot contemporary Chinese work, is nothing but a sales gimmick, actually - and if you immerse yourself in that language, you might as well go the whole hog and enter the usual religious debates, which art debates resemble primarily because there's no saying who's right and who's not.
Much of the current art driven up in value in the recent boom - I am thinking a lot of Damien Hirst - is just nonsense which was bought by the husband as an investment; it was left to the wife to explain the piece to the people who came to visit through using art doublespeak and insider jargon. In the middle of some cathartic night is the couple going to traipse down to the living room and immerse themselves in the power of the meaning of the work? That will drive them crazy. But what will drive them crazier is the likelihood of their being unable to unload the piece.
I'm glad that market has - temporarily - disappeared. I don't think it will much help real artists, who are being devalued no less than (I hope) Hirst is. But there's always the hope that when money is hard to come by, people might begin to appreciate intrinsically valuable work.
So that's the good thing. The bad thing is that so many artists are going to have to find another way to make a living. Maybe Obama should bail them out and fill the White House with bad stuff. Or put it in the basement where it belongs.
There is a lot of good art being made these days - which I define as art which reaches you both because of the thinking and of the technique which produces it. There's also plenty of bad art - which I define as Warhol progeny.
Warhol's art is pathetic, in my view. Warhol's genius was in self-promotion, and he was undeniably brilliant at that. It seems to me that since looking at a Warhol work produces no emotional or intellectual response, it became necessary to explain it in magazines and catalogs through the use of insider language which had no real meaning - like the language of sociologists and economists - but which would give you a justification to buy something you already wanted desperately because its possession made you hip. All of the pseudo-intellectual constructs built on Warhol and the installers, including, for example, a lot of the currently hot contemporary Chinese work, is nothing but a sales gimmick, actually - and if you immerse yourself in that language, you might as well go the whole hog and enter the usual religious debates, which art debates resemble primarily because there's no saying who's right and who's not.
Much of the current art driven up in value in the recent boom - I am thinking a lot of Damien Hirst - is just nonsense which was bought by the husband as an investment; it was left to the wife to explain the piece to the people who came to visit through using art doublespeak and insider jargon. In the middle of some cathartic night is the couple going to traipse down to the living room and immerse themselves in the power of the meaning of the work? That will drive them crazy. But what will drive them crazier is the likelihood of their being unable to unload the piece.
I'm glad that market has - temporarily - disappeared. I don't think it will much help real artists, who are being devalued no less than (I hope) Hirst is. But there's always the hope that when money is hard to come by, people might begin to appreciate intrinsically valuable work.
So that's the good thing. The bad thing is that so many artists are going to have to find another way to make a living. Maybe Obama should bail them out and fill the White House with bad stuff. Or put it in the basement where it belongs.
LET 'EM GO
Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis said he doesn't need any more federal assistance and can "make it through this downturn on our own." That is a challenge Obama should accept - as soon as BOA gives back the $45 billion in bailout cash it has already received.
If the bank can survive, so much the better. If it fails, bankruptcy will serve the same purpose as nationalization - or the government can step in and redistribute its obligations and assets either to itself or to other banks.
If on the other hand the bank does not return what it has already gotten, it should be nationalized immediately just to protect the government's investment.
Personally I'd love to see this bank go down - but I'm a little nervous about what will replace it. I don't mean the government, which certainly has no intention of holding it for long. I mean where are they going to find anyone in the financial industry who gives a shit about anyone but his own?
If the bank can survive, so much the better. If it fails, bankruptcy will serve the same purpose as nationalization - or the government can step in and redistribute its obligations and assets either to itself or to other banks.
If on the other hand the bank does not return what it has already gotten, it should be nationalized immediately just to protect the government's investment.
Personally I'd love to see this bank go down - but I'm a little nervous about what will replace it. I don't mean the government, which certainly has no intention of holding it for long. I mean where are they going to find anyone in the financial industry who gives a shit about anyone but his own?
WHAT WE NEED
In a New York Times story about people switching from cell phone plans to prepaid phones, the reporter quoted Joy Miller, a piano teacher in Texas, as follows: "Frugal is the new chic. In today's economy, it's not cool to pay $120 a month for a phone."
Good God.
People are not switching to prepaid phones because contracts are "not cool." They're switching to save money. Cool has nothing to do with it.
This is the same kind of non-thinking that resulted in corporations marketing their products as "green" even where greenness was a less than minimal aspect of the product. People who buy things because they're cool - as opposed to because they make sense - have been the underpinning of the consumer-driven economy which is now collapsing around our ears.
I'm not going to condemn buyers of coolness - as long as they can be directed toward projects and products whose use benefits the rest of us. But that kind of shallowness is not what you'd think we need now. What you'd think we need now are people who understand what's going on beyond what's going to make them look and feel good.
But, if they're hopeless, I'd rather they felt good than as miserable as realists are feeling these days. And maybe these people will buy us out of the depression. As long as we don't change our economic base to something besides consumption, I'm afraid these cool cats are exactly what we need.
Good God.
People are not switching to prepaid phones because contracts are "not cool." They're switching to save money. Cool has nothing to do with it.
This is the same kind of non-thinking that resulted in corporations marketing their products as "green" even where greenness was a less than minimal aspect of the product. People who buy things because they're cool - as opposed to because they make sense - have been the underpinning of the consumer-driven economy which is now collapsing around our ears.
I'm not going to condemn buyers of coolness - as long as they can be directed toward projects and products whose use benefits the rest of us. But that kind of shallowness is not what you'd think we need now. What you'd think we need now are people who understand what's going on beyond what's going to make them look and feel good.
But, if they're hopeless, I'd rather they felt good than as miserable as realists are feeling these days. And maybe these people will buy us out of the depression. As long as we don't change our economic base to something besides consumption, I'm afraid these cool cats are exactly what we need.
PERSONAL NOTE
On a personal note, two never before released D.C. Larue cuts that we did in the '80's are now available on iTunes, Amazon and other download outlets. The titles are "Love Is An Emotion" and "Good Morning My Love." The latter is one of the most beautiful and moving songs I've ever been involved with.
I expect more of the D.C. Larue catalog will go up online soon.
I expect more of the D.C. Larue catalog will go up online soon.
APATHETIC
If you listen to the right these days, their level of rage is 10/10. Yet the rest of the country has yet to reach any real level of anger, even in the face of Madoff, Stanford and bank bad behavior. They're pissed, maybe, but angry? Not really. Yet real anger is what we need.
The right exists in a perpetual state of rage, and has for thirty years. The rest of the country has been apathetic since Nixon. It amazes me that only Al Sharpton's people are in the streets. There should be huge demonstrations of fury at what has been done to us. And I don't know what it is going to take to make it happen, if we can absorb our present awful state with equanimity.
The right exists in a perpetual state of rage, and has for thirty years. The rest of the country has been apathetic since Nixon. It amazes me that only Al Sharpton's people are in the streets. There should be huge demonstrations of fury at what has been done to us. And I don't know what it is going to take to make it happen, if we can absorb our present awful state with equanimity.
SHUT STUPID PEOPLE UP
Everyone knows that psychology drives recessions and booms. If people believe good things are happening, then they do. I am no fan of "happy news", but it's critical in these circumstances to point up any smidgen of progress which hints of turning recession around. Consumer confidence means everything now.
So if the country continues to slide into economic catatonia, you can blame the media for it. They are so eager for conflict and give so much time to people whose goal is to obstruct progress that the continuing negativism is constantly being fed.
I rather doubt there are more than two or three in the media who even understand this. And maybe right now there are no happy stories to tell. But, as long as it's kept truthful, a positive slant on the situation and what's being done about it would go a long way toward stopping the slide. Nobody knows what the effect of, for example, the stimulus will be, but Roosevelt understood he had to buck up the national mood. So, when Clinton tells Obama he needs to stop warning people of disaster and start presenting a hopeful mood, he's absolutely right. (The media doesn't get that either; I've heard comments that Clinton's comment is a result of sour grapes over Hillary. And that was on the left. So maybe the smart thing would be to shut stupid people up. Like, put Alan Keyes in Guantanamo until it's safe to let him out.)
So if the country continues to slide into economic catatonia, you can blame the media for it. They are so eager for conflict and give so much time to people whose goal is to obstruct progress that the continuing negativism is constantly being fed.
I rather doubt there are more than two or three in the media who even understand this. And maybe right now there are no happy stories to tell. But, as long as it's kept truthful, a positive slant on the situation and what's being done about it would go a long way toward stopping the slide. Nobody knows what the effect of, for example, the stimulus will be, but Roosevelt understood he had to buck up the national mood. So, when Clinton tells Obama he needs to stop warning people of disaster and start presenting a hopeful mood, he's absolutely right. (The media doesn't get that either; I've heard comments that Clinton's comment is a result of sour grapes over Hillary. And that was on the left. So maybe the smart thing would be to shut stupid people up. Like, put Alan Keyes in Guantanamo until it's safe to let him out.)
BLOWN AWAY
Rachel Maddow says Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has turned down that part of the stimulus package which would have provided extended unemployment benefits to citizens of his state. I am simply blown away.
If this doesn't matter to Louisianans (or whatever they call themselves) it can only be because there are apparently about 25,000 people who would have collected those benefits and the rest of the state doesn't care about those people. If Jindal gets away with this, it will be a clear sign to Obama that he should stop courting the right, because the disconnect between the right and the center-left is a chasm of antagonistic views of the responsibilities of man to man which can never be bridged.
Which I suspect is true.
And nobody will say of Jindal, as Alan Keyes said of Obama, that he must be stopped or the U.S. will cease to exist. Although the clear implication of Jindal's move is that the U.S. should cease to exist, and that the fundamental political element is the individual to whom nothing is owed by anyone else and who stands alone. Complete anomie.
If this doesn't matter to Louisianans (or whatever they call themselves) it can only be because there are apparently about 25,000 people who would have collected those benefits and the rest of the state doesn't care about those people. If Jindal gets away with this, it will be a clear sign to Obama that he should stop courting the right, because the disconnect between the right and the center-left is a chasm of antagonistic views of the responsibilities of man to man which can never be bridged.
Which I suspect is true.
And nobody will say of Jindal, as Alan Keyes said of Obama, that he must be stopped or the U.S. will cease to exist. Although the clear implication of Jindal's move is that the U.S. should cease to exist, and that the fundamental political element is the individual to whom nothing is owed by anyone else and who stands alone. Complete anomie.
Friday, February 20, 2009
WARNING
George Soros says we are nowhere near the bottom of the financial crisis and said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union.
Paul Volcker said: "I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world."
The difference between then and now is the speed of information, and the enhanced impact even a negative statement can have worldwide. Things move faster and deeper, for the same reason that the Dow will now routinely drop or rise 300 points in a day. We are about to see whether technology can destroy us. I must say that the drop of the Dow below 8000 removed any possible floor to the markets. They can go down to nothing now. And things being what they are, they very well might.
These are more dangerous times than even the 30's were. That's why when, on top of the New York Post cartoon, Alan Keyes makes the following statement, I think we may be on the edge of armed insurrection:
"Obama is a radical communist and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it is coming true. He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
It gets far worse.
If you think I'm overstating the danger, read these comments.
And Obama thought bipartisanship was possible? Some of these people are creating a situation where the only solution will be the utter destruction of one side or the other. This beats Father Coughlin by a mile. This is political hell. Al Qaeda on the Potomac. Somebody's going to get shot.
This is what Ronald Reagan wrought.
Paul Volcker said: "I don't remember any time, maybe even in the Great Depression, when things went down quite so fast, quite so uniformly around the world."
The difference between then and now is the speed of information, and the enhanced impact even a negative statement can have worldwide. Things move faster and deeper, for the same reason that the Dow will now routinely drop or rise 300 points in a day. We are about to see whether technology can destroy us. I must say that the drop of the Dow below 8000 removed any possible floor to the markets. They can go down to nothing now. And things being what they are, they very well might.
These are more dangerous times than even the 30's were. That's why when, on top of the New York Post cartoon, Alan Keyes makes the following statement, I think we may be on the edge of armed insurrection:
"Obama is a radical communist and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it is coming true. He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist."
It gets far worse.
If you think I'm overstating the danger, read these comments.
And Obama thought bipartisanship was possible? Some of these people are creating a situation where the only solution will be the utter destruction of one side or the other. This beats Father Coughlin by a mile. This is political hell. Al Qaeda on the Potomac. Somebody's going to get shot.
This is what Ronald Reagan wrought.
ALREADY?
Check it out.
This is not a political maneuver. These people really believe this stuff. And will to the day they die.
This is not a political maneuver. These people really believe this stuff. And will to the day they die.
SOCIOPATHOLOGY
With its phalanx of politicians, think tanks and media, the Republican party has now assembled the greatest collection of sociopaths since the Nazis - or maybe the Stalinists. (I define sociopath as one who has contempt verging on hatred for anyone who is not like him.) See this. Sociopaths don't often aggregate - their views tend to keep them separated from others. Which makes the current collection even more remarkable.
Actually, as a percentage of population, Israel's sociopathic aggregation is greater, but not in numbers.
This makes the alliance between Republicans and Israel comprehensible. I have often wondered which leads which, but I don't think there's an answer; it's really a symbiotic alliance of types and outlook in which each part feeds the other.
Actually, as a percentage of population, Israel's sociopathic aggregation is greater, but not in numbers.
This makes the alliance between Republicans and Israel comprehensible. I have often wondered which leads which, but I don't think there's an answer; it's really a symbiotic alliance of types and outlook in which each part feeds the other.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
WHO WE ARE
California's Republican legislators have signed a pledge not to support any tax increase. Period. Since profits have dropped so sharply, tax revenues at current rates are way off. Assuming what California gets from Obama does not cover the shortfall, California is looking at substantial service cuts.
This Republican stance on taxes is certainly nothing new. But now with the economy in such trouble state cuts in services are likely to have a much wider impact than ever before.
The public has instinctively opposed tax increases without real comprehension of what that means. They know they don't want to give up any more of their money - and as far as they're concerned what the government pays out goes to welfare queens, fags, lesbos and Shakespeare theaters. They have little or no understanding of what a government does, or why one is needed - except that when they get in trouble they head straight for a government office for help. In other words, they don't want the government to spend their money helping anyone but them.
If the current situations lead to cuts in things that such people really need, perhaps - although I doubt it - the public discussion will finally get down to basics: do we want a government, and what should it do. If the discussion is no longer in the abstract, perhaps there'll be some changes in knee-jerk attitudes. But at least, in all fairness, we all have a right to know why we're governed, or not governed, the way we are. And so, despite constant statements from pundits and Obamaite hopes that we are past the liberal vs. conservative paradigm, we are headed toward times where that paradigm rules, because it dictates perceptions of government.
I.e., we are now headed toward ideological warfare - in which the majority may actually overcome the entrenched interests and get its way. And won't it be fascinating to find out who we are.
This Republican stance on taxes is certainly nothing new. But now with the economy in such trouble state cuts in services are likely to have a much wider impact than ever before.
The public has instinctively opposed tax increases without real comprehension of what that means. They know they don't want to give up any more of their money - and as far as they're concerned what the government pays out goes to welfare queens, fags, lesbos and Shakespeare theaters. They have little or no understanding of what a government does, or why one is needed - except that when they get in trouble they head straight for a government office for help. In other words, they don't want the government to spend their money helping anyone but them.
If the current situations lead to cuts in things that such people really need, perhaps - although I doubt it - the public discussion will finally get down to basics: do we want a government, and what should it do. If the discussion is no longer in the abstract, perhaps there'll be some changes in knee-jerk attitudes. But at least, in all fairness, we all have a right to know why we're governed, or not governed, the way we are. And so, despite constant statements from pundits and Obamaite hopes that we are past the liberal vs. conservative paradigm, we are headed toward times where that paradigm rules, because it dictates perceptions of government.
I.e., we are now headed toward ideological warfare - in which the majority may actually overcome the entrenched interests and get its way. And won't it be fascinating to find out who we are.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
FRONTLINE'S "ISRAEL'S NEXT WAR" BEARS OUT THE TENTH COW
Click here to see the Frontline series "Israel's Next War", which proves out the thesis behind The Tenth Cow - with none of the humanism that's the focus of the book. I'm grateful that Frontline had the courage to put together this series - because so far The Tenth Cow is not believed, and that's a serious error.
Tags:Frontline,tenth cow, red heifer, mishnah, book of numbers, chapter 19, evangelical, end of days, messiah, second coming, jesus, antichrist, kabbala, kabbalah, polo, aram, schefrin, novel, fiction, israel, jerusalem, bush, aipac, mount moriah, dome of the rock, tsfat, safed, second temple, golan heights, shekhina, jezreel valley, har megiddo, christian friends of israel, christian zionism, numbers 19:2, ANTICHRIST, revelation, rapture, tribulation, foundation stone, ein sof, sitra achra, neturei karta,iran, rod dreher, gershom gorenberg
Tags:Frontline,tenth cow, red heifer, mishnah, book of numbers, chapter 19, evangelical, end of days, messiah, second coming, jesus, antichrist, kabbala, kabbalah, polo, aram, schefrin, novel, fiction, israel, jerusalem, bush, aipac, mount moriah, dome of the rock, tsfat, safed, second temple, golan heights, shekhina, jezreel valley, har megiddo, christian friends of israel, christian zionism, numbers 19:2, ANTICHRIST, revelation, rapture, tribulation, foundation stone, ein sof, sitra achra, neturei karta,iran, rod dreher, gershom gorenberg
Thursday, February 12, 2009
WHO AND WHY?
The Washington Post is reporting that the proposed caps on executive pay for banks which receive Federal money, which were in the stimulus bill, have not survived the inter-house negotiations. But the article does not say on whose insistence they were removed. That is grossly deficient reporting.
Public sentiment is so strongly in favor of these caps that Democrats have surrendered a great opportunity to sign more of the public onto the stimulus. There is absolutely no good reason such caps should not be in the bill.
Public sentiment is so strongly in favor of these caps that Democrats have surrendered a great opportunity to sign more of the public onto the stimulus. There is absolutely no good reason such caps should not be in the bill.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
DECOY?
The way things are going today at least raises the question: did Obama play the "bipartisanship" game to decoy Republicans into hanging themselves on the stimulus?
You have to wonder whether the guy is incredibly lucky or three moves ahead of the rest of us. Either way, we win.
I keep thinking: what would have happened if Hillary had won? And I am betting: none of what we're seeing.
So we're either lucky or very smart, too.
You have to wonder whether the guy is incredibly lucky or three moves ahead of the rest of us. Either way, we win.
I keep thinking: what would have happened if Hillary had won? And I am betting: none of what we're seeing.
So we're either lucky or very smart, too.
WORLD-CHANGING
Who's the smartest politician in the world?
The guy who either engineered this, or simply announced it, while the House and Senate were negotiating the stimulus bill:
Machinery giant Caterpillar Inc. plans to rescind some of the 22,000 layoffs the firm recently announced _ once the stimulus is signed into law.
What better evidence could there be that the stimulus could work? What worse evidence for Republicans could there be?
I wouldn't have thought of this. Obama or his people did. We are deep into world-changing politics.
The guy who either engineered this, or simply announced it, while the House and Senate were negotiating the stimulus bill:
Machinery giant Caterpillar Inc. plans to rescind some of the 22,000 layoffs the firm recently announced _ once the stimulus is signed into law.
What better evidence could there be that the stimulus could work? What worse evidence for Republicans could there be?
I wouldn't have thought of this. Obama or his people did. We are deep into world-changing politics.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
TIPPING HIS FRIENDS
Well, I sure don't understand economics. The thing is, I'm not sure people who understand economics understand economics.
Take the Geithner plan. Please. (Pace Henny Youngman.)
Geithner says "American people have lost faith in the leaders of our financial institutions and are skeptical that their government has - to this point - used taxpayers' money in ways that will benefit them." Right. So what's he going to do about it?
1) Create a bad bank under the Treasury and the Fed to buy up toxic assets. Much of the money is to come from private investors. What investors are that crazy? Geithner says "there's a lot of private capital out there that wants to come in. It just can't get the financing." Excuse me? If it needs financing, how is it private capital? It either has money or it doesn't. If you have to borrow money, you don't have capital; the guy who loaned it does.
2) A trillion dollar fund to make direct government student loans, car loans, cover credit card debt and maybe mortgages. That's the part I really like.
3) Money to help homeowners renegotiate mortgages.
And then there's the part about giving $350 billion to the banks. So let's see if I get this, and let's assume all the above items actually work:
We offload the toxic paper from the banks. We make direct government loans so the banks don't have to, since they really don't want to.
So why are we giving money to the banks? What's it for, and what do they need it for?
I haven't a clue. Or rather, I have a lot of clues:
Geithner's not imposing an executive pay restriction except on very senior execs. So the CEO of Citibank can only get $500,000 but the guys below him can get billion dollar bonuses. This is, I assume, because the CEO's already have more money than the entire world can spend. Or maybe we're going to have round-robin CEO's with 3 month terms so everybody gets a shot.
Bank shareholders are protected from taking a hit.
Geithner is not demanding replacement of bad management.
And most important, Geithner is not going to tell the banks what they have to do with the money.
David Brooks likes this plan very much (a very good reason to be very suspicious of it). He says Geithner is not blaming the banks but the "broader economic climate" for the situation. Geithner won't nationalize the banks because, Geithner says, "there's no good history of governments doing that well."
If the rest of the program works, nationalization of the banks is unnecessary. As are the banks. Why give them money? Why not let the incompetents fail and wait for the formation of new ones, hopefully by people who understand what they're doing and what they shouldn't do.
Geithner is tipping his friends. That's why I didn't want him. And Obama is making a huge mistake by not harnessing public anger against the banks for the rest of his agenda. Or maybe these people are more important than I think they are? If so, could someone please tell me why?
Take the Geithner plan. Please. (Pace Henny Youngman.)
Geithner says "American people have lost faith in the leaders of our financial institutions and are skeptical that their government has - to this point - used taxpayers' money in ways that will benefit them." Right. So what's he going to do about it?
1) Create a bad bank under the Treasury and the Fed to buy up toxic assets. Much of the money is to come from private investors. What investors are that crazy? Geithner says "there's a lot of private capital out there that wants to come in. It just can't get the financing." Excuse me? If it needs financing, how is it private capital? It either has money or it doesn't. If you have to borrow money, you don't have capital; the guy who loaned it does.
2) A trillion dollar fund to make direct government student loans, car loans, cover credit card debt and maybe mortgages. That's the part I really like.
3) Money to help homeowners renegotiate mortgages.
And then there's the part about giving $350 billion to the banks. So let's see if I get this, and let's assume all the above items actually work:
We offload the toxic paper from the banks. We make direct government loans so the banks don't have to, since they really don't want to.
So why are we giving money to the banks? What's it for, and what do they need it for?
I haven't a clue. Or rather, I have a lot of clues:
Geithner's not imposing an executive pay restriction except on very senior execs. So the CEO of Citibank can only get $500,000 but the guys below him can get billion dollar bonuses. This is, I assume, because the CEO's already have more money than the entire world can spend. Or maybe we're going to have round-robin CEO's with 3 month terms so everybody gets a shot.
Bank shareholders are protected from taking a hit.
Geithner is not demanding replacement of bad management.
And most important, Geithner is not going to tell the banks what they have to do with the money.
David Brooks likes this plan very much (a very good reason to be very suspicious of it). He says Geithner is not blaming the banks but the "broader economic climate" for the situation. Geithner won't nationalize the banks because, Geithner says, "there's no good history of governments doing that well."
If the rest of the program works, nationalization of the banks is unnecessary. As are the banks. Why give them money? Why not let the incompetents fail and wait for the formation of new ones, hopefully by people who understand what they're doing and what they shouldn't do.
Geithner is tipping his friends. That's why I didn't want him. And Obama is making a huge mistake by not harnessing public anger against the banks for the rest of his agenda. Or maybe these people are more important than I think they are? If so, could someone please tell me why?
GOOD RIDDANCE
A-Rod admits taking steroids, and says he's sorry and regretful.
I don't care if baseball players take steroids. If mall rats can get breast implants, why shouldn't players take steroids? We want the best looking and best performing environment, don't we? We want hype, not truth.
But this "sorry and regretful" stuff is a cultural habit that has developed over the last ten or so years and has been seriously overused by celebrities. The consensus has been that if you admit your misdeed and apologize, everything is ok. God the Public forgives if you confess to Priest the Media. Say three Hail Mary's and go sin again.
Somehow, though, I think that phenomenon is about over - for a while, anyway. With the public increasingly infuriated over Bush misdeeds and banker misdeeds and quite unwilling to forgive - in fact about to demand the pound of flesh - it just doesn't seem to be a good time to try that tactic now. A-Rod should have confessed a year ago. Maybe he'll get away with it, on the assumption that at the moment the public doesn't give a shit what baseball players do, having a few more significant matters requiring attention. On the other hand, A-Rod is the guy who broke open the path to multimillion dollar pay for athletes. There really is no difference between him and the bankers - fraud pays off big in both cases. If that's how the public sees it, he's just fucked.
And good riddance.
I don't care if baseball players take steroids. If mall rats can get breast implants, why shouldn't players take steroids? We want the best looking and best performing environment, don't we? We want hype, not truth.
But this "sorry and regretful" stuff is a cultural habit that has developed over the last ten or so years and has been seriously overused by celebrities. The consensus has been that if you admit your misdeed and apologize, everything is ok. God the Public forgives if you confess to Priest the Media. Say three Hail Mary's and go sin again.
Somehow, though, I think that phenomenon is about over - for a while, anyway. With the public increasingly infuriated over Bush misdeeds and banker misdeeds and quite unwilling to forgive - in fact about to demand the pound of flesh - it just doesn't seem to be a good time to try that tactic now. A-Rod should have confessed a year ago. Maybe he'll get away with it, on the assumption that at the moment the public doesn't give a shit what baseball players do, having a few more significant matters requiring attention. On the other hand, A-Rod is the guy who broke open the path to multimillion dollar pay for athletes. There really is no difference between him and the bankers - fraud pays off big in both cases. If that's how the public sees it, he's just fucked.
And good riddance.
Monday, February 09, 2009
NEVER WRONG
I have never known Drew Weston to be wrong. He is certainly not wrong here. Why is Obama not listening to him?
Saturday, February 07, 2009
WHY NOT?
I'm not a fan of assassinations. But, considering the mid-level Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives we're taking out with missiles off Predator drones, couldn't we aim one of them at A. Q. Khan? That would be an accomplishment worth taking the risk for.
Friday, February 06, 2009
THE MEDIA AGE
Why did Nadye Suleman get implanted with eight embryos so she could have eight kids on top of the six she already had with no way to support any of them?
She'll support them very well on the profits from the book deal.
Smart cookie. Very media savvy. She knows how dumb we are.
I heard her NBC interview, and she has her argument down pat. It plays to all the American maudlin sensibilities, it's very well phrased - in fact, so well phrased that either she should doing Obama's PR or someone who should be doing Obama's PR is doing hers - and if it doesn't get her sympathy, it will certainly get attention - paid attention - for the next twenty years as she continues to tell us what it's like to have fourteen now very financially comfortable kids.
This is America in the media age. The YouTube culture, which for many is the National Enquirer created by amateurs. This is the skill you'll need to make it big if you're smart but completely untalented. In fact, it's very much like Wall Street - manipulative. Creates no value, but gets paid big. In other words, a scam - but not really a scam. A scam is when you get sold something you don't want. People want this crap. So good for her.
She'll support them very well on the profits from the book deal.
Smart cookie. Very media savvy. She knows how dumb we are.
I heard her NBC interview, and she has her argument down pat. It plays to all the American maudlin sensibilities, it's very well phrased - in fact, so well phrased that either she should doing Obama's PR or someone who should be doing Obama's PR is doing hers - and if it doesn't get her sympathy, it will certainly get attention - paid attention - for the next twenty years as she continues to tell us what it's like to have fourteen now very financially comfortable kids.
This is America in the media age. The YouTube culture, which for many is the National Enquirer created by amateurs. This is the skill you'll need to make it big if you're smart but completely untalented. In fact, it's very much like Wall Street - manipulative. Creates no value, but gets paid big. In other words, a scam - but not really a scam. A scam is when you get sold something you don't want. People want this crap. So good for her.
ENOUGH
The right and its acolyte media have given no ground, nor changed their tactics, since the November election. Nor will they. Nor should they. If they believe in the things they say - and they do - they should express them, and they should use every tactic that moves them and their agenda forward. And they will. It's only Democrats that cringe.
Whether or not Obama was justified in attempting to govern across the aisle, as he said he would, that time is over. He has been told over and over that it would not work. The sole benefit of what he's done in the last 17 days is that he can now go to the country and say: "I tried." And then attack as hard as he possibly can. And insist that everyone in his administration do the same.
Obama needs to get out there and tell the public why the elements of his stimulus bill are necessary. And if things are cut from the bill to get Republican votes in the Senate, he needs to put the blame where it belongs. The fact that we are in crisis is nothing but an opportunity for both sides to struggle for power. The Republicans are doing it. Obama better do the same.
If there's going to be compromise, it has to be behind closed doors. That's how Republicans do it, on the few occasions they compromise. It won't take long for the public to lose faith in Obama if he lets his opposition push him around.
Today Leon Panetta told Kit Bond in a hearing that he was retracting his previous statement that the Bush administration rendered people for the specific purpose of having them tortured. Bush people have admitted it. Why did Panetta back off? It's perfectly okay to say we're not going to prosecute people who did it, but to be afraid to say that it was done is disgraceful.
Republicans never back off anything they say. People respect them for it, even though it's stupid. The Republican rule: never admit you're wrong. Democrats should follow it as a matter of policy, particularly when it can't be proved they're wrong. When it IS proved they're wrong, they should admit it and move on - as Obama did over the Daschle nomination.
And speaking of stupid - Harry Reid needs to go. Announcing yesterday that there was a deal on the stimulus bill when there wasn't - and if there had been, it probably would not have held - is just plain stupid. And looks plain stupid. We can't afford to look stupid these days. Reid is not the man to stand before the cameras for the Democrats. And for so long as the Democrats fail to recognize that, or recognize it but bow to some conception of civility, they will not have grown up enough to govern effectively.
Whether or not Obama was justified in attempting to govern across the aisle, as he said he would, that time is over. He has been told over and over that it would not work. The sole benefit of what he's done in the last 17 days is that he can now go to the country and say: "I tried." And then attack as hard as he possibly can. And insist that everyone in his administration do the same.
Obama needs to get out there and tell the public why the elements of his stimulus bill are necessary. And if things are cut from the bill to get Republican votes in the Senate, he needs to put the blame where it belongs. The fact that we are in crisis is nothing but an opportunity for both sides to struggle for power. The Republicans are doing it. Obama better do the same.
If there's going to be compromise, it has to be behind closed doors. That's how Republicans do it, on the few occasions they compromise. It won't take long for the public to lose faith in Obama if he lets his opposition push him around.
Today Leon Panetta told Kit Bond in a hearing that he was retracting his previous statement that the Bush administration rendered people for the specific purpose of having them tortured. Bush people have admitted it. Why did Panetta back off? It's perfectly okay to say we're not going to prosecute people who did it, but to be afraid to say that it was done is disgraceful.
Republicans never back off anything they say. People respect them for it, even though it's stupid. The Republican rule: never admit you're wrong. Democrats should follow it as a matter of policy, particularly when it can't be proved they're wrong. When it IS proved they're wrong, they should admit it and move on - as Obama did over the Daschle nomination.
And speaking of stupid - Harry Reid needs to go. Announcing yesterday that there was a deal on the stimulus bill when there wasn't - and if there had been, it probably would not have held - is just plain stupid. And looks plain stupid. We can't afford to look stupid these days. Reid is not the man to stand before the cameras for the Democrats. And for so long as the Democrats fail to recognize that, or recognize it but bow to some conception of civility, they will not have grown up enough to govern effectively.
THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
Has anybody pointed out that if you can win seven gold medals and smoke dope, dope smoking doesn't hurt you and might even be good for you?
We're such a bunch of predictable purveyors of conventional wisdom.
PASSIVITY
I don't know whether Obama really believed in the possibility of bipartisanship, or felt he had to carry out his campaign promises. It seems now he's either realized it's impossible, or has done as much as he thinks he needs to to carry out those promises.
There were moments during his campaign when bloggers were telling him he had too much confidence in Republican good faith. Each time he ended up doing the necessary - whether he was prodded there or reached conclusions himself. You have to assume he has seen enough to know that war never ends. I'm sure he believes he's played the game well. But one of these days his passivity - or what looks like passivity from the outside - is going to lose him time that can't be recaptured.
There were moments during his campaign when bloggers were telling him he had too much confidence in Republican good faith. Each time he ended up doing the necessary - whether he was prodded there or reached conclusions himself. You have to assume he has seen enough to know that war never ends. I'm sure he believes he's played the game well. But one of these days his passivity - or what looks like passivity from the outside - is going to lose him time that can't be recaptured.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
ENOUGH OF THAT
Lindsay Graham today said that Obama has been absent on the stimulus bill. Here's what he meant:
Obama has been focused on bipartisan support for the bill. The Republicans have played him. They have said that they want to be bipartisan and they want to cooperate with Obama - if he will take the design of the stimulus bill away from Congressional liberal Democrats and do it himself. The implied assumption being that Obama is really a conservative. I.e., Republicans once again have defined bipartisanship as doing things their way. Period. That should have been enough to get Obama to drop the calls for bipartisanship. And maybe it has.
The stimulus bill is not just the product of Congressional liberals. It is also Obama's product, and he has to say so unequivocally. He has to tell the country what he believes and why what the Republicans are saying is baloney. Apparently, and belatedly, he has now begun to do that.
Republicans know that if the stimulus bill succeeds they are not going to get credit for it - and if it fails Obama will catch the blame. For those whose primary interest is not the country but political power, there is no percentage at all in voting for this bill. But it seems there may be a few Republicans who are looking beyond party advantage - although maybe, since they come from relatively progressive states, they are looking at their own survival. Obama has begun to focus on them, as he needs to do. The bipartisan thing has been played, and played out. Enough of that.
Obama has been focused on bipartisan support for the bill. The Republicans have played him. They have said that they want to be bipartisan and they want to cooperate with Obama - if he will take the design of the stimulus bill away from Congressional liberal Democrats and do it himself. The implied assumption being that Obama is really a conservative. I.e., Republicans once again have defined bipartisanship as doing things their way. Period. That should have been enough to get Obama to drop the calls for bipartisanship. And maybe it has.
The stimulus bill is not just the product of Congressional liberals. It is also Obama's product, and he has to say so unequivocally. He has to tell the country what he believes and why what the Republicans are saying is baloney. Apparently, and belatedly, he has now begun to do that.
Republicans know that if the stimulus bill succeeds they are not going to get credit for it - and if it fails Obama will catch the blame. For those whose primary interest is not the country but political power, there is no percentage at all in voting for this bill. But it seems there may be a few Republicans who are looking beyond party advantage - although maybe, since they come from relatively progressive states, they are looking at their own survival. Obama has begun to focus on them, as he needs to do. The bipartisan thing has been played, and played out. Enough of that.
NO CLUE
In a N Y Times article, economist Adam Posen raises doubts about the tax credits for houses and cars in the stimulus bill on the grounds that they are "reinforcing the attempts of industries that are too large - housing construction, automobile production - to survive based on government distortions."
I don't know about cars, but there are certainly too many developers and therefore too many houses for the economy to absorb. And they're going to build more houses to stimulate the economy?
This one sentence points up the big economic problem which is not even being otherwise discussed: too much of the economy is devoted to, and too many people are employed in, making and selling things people don't need. If the logic of the stimulus bill is to put things back the way they were, we're going to have more houses and no one to buy the ones we already have.
Central planning (Communist) was supposed to rectify this sort of problem. It did that, but it did much worse things, too. Nobody yet has solved the problem of how to stop overproducing and yet provide meaningful incomes to people who are involved in that overproduction. I sure wish this was part of the public discussion - but most of the media hasn't got a clue.
I don't know about cars, but there are certainly too many developers and therefore too many houses for the economy to absorb. And they're going to build more houses to stimulate the economy?
This one sentence points up the big economic problem which is not even being otherwise discussed: too much of the economy is devoted to, and too many people are employed in, making and selling things people don't need. If the logic of the stimulus bill is to put things back the way they were, we're going to have more houses and no one to buy the ones we already have.
Central planning (Communist) was supposed to rectify this sort of problem. It did that, but it did much worse things, too. Nobody yet has solved the problem of how to stop overproducing and yet provide meaningful incomes to people who are involved in that overproduction. I sure wish this was part of the public discussion - but most of the media hasn't got a clue.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
MARKETING
Here's what bothers me:
When Democrats talk about creating new jobs, it's always in green industries. Why does everything have to be green?
For example, one of the great sales success stories of recent years is the iPod, or the iPhone. Are they green? If so, how?
Democrats automatically think green for the reasons that 1) they're ideologically stuck on that topic, and 2) it's easy to explain - to themselves - and to propagandize.
But what we need is to produce things people want - or better, that they just can't live without. Producing things they need is OK if they know they need them. Producing things you then have to convince people they need is not a very good idea, unless you are very very good at convincing.
Sell the American people on global warming to the point that they know they need green. Don't count on them, or gas prices. Someone surely must know how to do this. Steve Jobs did. There were - and are - plenty of other mp3 players out there. But people think iPod like they think Kleenex. This is a marketing problem. As a matter of fact, everything Obama wants to do is a marketing problem. How come there's no cabinet marketing secretary?
When Democrats talk about creating new jobs, it's always in green industries. Why does everything have to be green?
For example, one of the great sales success stories of recent years is the iPod, or the iPhone. Are they green? If so, how?
Democrats automatically think green for the reasons that 1) they're ideologically stuck on that topic, and 2) it's easy to explain - to themselves - and to propagandize.
But what we need is to produce things people want - or better, that they just can't live without. Producing things they need is OK if they know they need them. Producing things you then have to convince people they need is not a very good idea, unless you are very very good at convincing.
Sell the American people on global warming to the point that they know they need green. Don't count on them, or gas prices. Someone surely must know how to do this. Steve Jobs did. There were - and are - plenty of other mp3 players out there. But people think iPod like they think Kleenex. This is a marketing problem. As a matter of fact, everything Obama wants to do is a marketing problem. How come there's no cabinet marketing secretary?
10,000? REALLY?
Edward Jones, a financial services business, is running a TV ad boasting that they have over 10,000 offices.
Am I supposed to believe that they have over 10,000 people whose advice is actually worth taking? I don't think there are 10,000 people in this country who can give good investment advice - unless they're those who are teaching people how to get over, to scam.
What's the advice they're giving in their ad? In this market, we should look at your portfolio and make sure you're positioned for your goals. That great idea comes from an inspirational poster you can buy for five bucks from an airline on-board catalog. Tell me how you're going to do that, and then we'll see.
Am I supposed to believe that they have over 10,000 people whose advice is actually worth taking? I don't think there are 10,000 people in this country who can give good investment advice - unless they're those who are teaching people how to get over, to scam.
What's the advice they're giving in their ad? In this market, we should look at your portfolio and make sure you're positioned for your goals. That great idea comes from an inspirational poster you can buy for five bucks from an airline on-board catalog. Tell me how you're going to do that, and then we'll see.
KRUGMAN REX
Over years of reading the N Y Times, I came to believe that Paul Krugman was their most important columnist - because he was smart and he spoke the truth. He wasn't cute like Maureen Dowd; he wasn't as emotional as Frank Rich. He just had his finger on the essence.
Now that the economy is the big one, of course he rises to the top on the basis of his other career. But plenty of economists have problems thinking things through. Krugman doesn't. I don't think there's a more powerful voice in the media (meaning the power of his logic, not the power of his position - he can't compete with Limbaugh on that.)
I hope somebody's listening.
Now that the economy is the big one, of course he rises to the top on the basis of his other career. But plenty of economists have problems thinking things through. Krugman doesn't. I don't think there's a more powerful voice in the media (meaning the power of his logic, not the power of his position - he can't compete with Limbaugh on that.)
I hope somebody's listening.
THEY DON'T NEED A NEW MESSAGE
Liberals keep saying the Republicans need a new message to remain relevant. As the current stimulus package situation proves, they don't.
I don't know why Democrats are so convinced the Republicans have been repudiated long-term. They lost an election because they had bad candidates and the public recognized they were not capable of dealing with a potentially disastrous situation. But Republicans have not abandoned tactics which have worked very well since Reagan. I see no reason to believe they will not work now (unless Obama handles them much better than any prior Democrat.) The Republicans are relevant because they are unified, solid on message (and courted by the press) and in a position to block legislation. The truth of the matters debated doesn't matter a damn.
Democrats have to be better at this game than Republicans. It's pure power politics, and Republicans have honed their skills in that game since the '60's. I see no reason not to believe that in two, four or eight years they will be very competitive.
I don't know why Democrats are so convinced the Republicans have been repudiated long-term. They lost an election because they had bad candidates and the public recognized they were not capable of dealing with a potentially disastrous situation. But Republicans have not abandoned tactics which have worked very well since Reagan. I see no reason to believe they will not work now (unless Obama handles them much better than any prior Democrat.) The Republicans are relevant because they are unified, solid on message (and courted by the press) and in a position to block legislation. The truth of the matters debated doesn't matter a damn.
Democrats have to be better at this game than Republicans. It's pure power politics, and Republicans have honed their skills in that game since the '60's. I see no reason not to believe that in two, four or eight years they will be very competitive.
THE CUDGEL
Why is the media giving so much attention to Republican opposition to the stimulus bill. I don't mean commenting on it, I mean giving air time to Republicans to trash the bill.
he
Obviously, the conflict they create - which may or may not be real, depending on how the Senate votes - is like all the other conflicts they create. They're easy stories, and they sell.
But they're not telling their audiences - on their own - how critical a stimulus is, and why. They are letting Republicans shout Obama down. Which means 1) the public is losing belief in the stimulus before it is even tried, and 2) if no bill is passed, they may be as much on the hook for disaster, if it comes, as the Republicans themselves.
If the stimulus bill does not pass, Obama needs to call them all out on it. He needs to put the blame where it lies, and call the Republicans out on their fake stimulus proposals - if they are fake - and with the support of economists. So far he is the only one to take up the cudgel. He needs to fan economists, not politicians, all over the media to explain what's needed and why. People need to listen to experts. And that's a sad thing, since I've always thought economists had no idea what they were talking about.
he
Obviously, the conflict they create - which may or may not be real, depending on how the Senate votes - is like all the other conflicts they create. They're easy stories, and they sell.
But they're not telling their audiences - on their own - how critical a stimulus is, and why. They are letting Republicans shout Obama down. Which means 1) the public is losing belief in the stimulus before it is even tried, and 2) if no bill is passed, they may be as much on the hook for disaster, if it comes, as the Republicans themselves.
If the stimulus bill does not pass, Obama needs to call them all out on it. He needs to put the blame where it lies, and call the Republicans out on their fake stimulus proposals - if they are fake - and with the support of economists. So far he is the only one to take up the cudgel. He needs to fan economists, not politicians, all over the media to explain what's needed and why. People need to listen to experts. And that's a sad thing, since I've always thought economists had no idea what they were talking about.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Two points
1) Today's Republicans, the children of Reagan, are typical of descendants after two or three generations of dilution of the gene pool. They still claim the mantle but don't know what to do with it.
2) Obama is missing his great chance to sell the American people on the need for common action and a sense of community, rather than debating the stimulus on the small-focus Republican arguments. Republicans do not believe in commonality - it sounds too much like communism and is anti free market. Bit I think America gets it. They just need to be excited about it.
2) Obama is missing his great chance to sell the American people on the need for common action and a sense of community, rather than debating the stimulus on the small-focus Republican arguments. Republicans do not believe in commonality - it sounds too much like communism and is anti free market. Bit I think America gets it. They just need to be excited about it.
Monday, February 02, 2009
IT'S TRUMAN TIME
From the Huffington Post:
Petraeus and Gates are attempting to change Obama's mind about an Iraq withdrawal within 16 months. A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision. The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives". There is a network of active and retired four-star Army generals which will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops. That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno.
Now we know what happens when you give the military too much public influence. Both parties have been guilty of this for eight years. But what's suggested here sounds like an attempted coup.
When Macarthur challenged Truman on Korea, Truman kicked him out. That is clearly called for now. Active duty officers have every right to try to convince the President privately that he's making a mistake, but they have no right to take an independent public position. Any of them who do should be gone.
But if Obama does that, he's going to take a pounding from the right which will make Monica Lewinsky look like a game of spin the bottle. So we'll see what happens next.
Petraeus and Gates are attempting to change Obama's mind about an Iraq withdrawal within 16 months. A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision. The first clear indication of the intention of Petraeus, Odierno and their allies to try to get Obama to amend his decision came on Jan. 29 when the New York Times published an interview with Odierno, ostensibly based on the premise that Obama had indicated that he was "open to alternatives". There is a network of active and retired four-star Army generals which will begin making the argument to journalists covering the Pentagon that Obama's withdrawal policy risks an eventual collapse in Iraq. That would raise the political cost to Obama of sticking to his withdrawal policy. If Obama does not change the policy, according to the source, they hope to have planted the seeds of a future political narrative blaming his withdrawal policy for the "collapse" they expect in an Iraq without U.S. troops. That line seems likely to appeal to reporters covering the Iraq troop withdrawal issue. Ever since Obama's inauguration, media coverage of the issue has treated Obama' s 16-month withdrawal proposal as a concession to anti-war sentiment which will have to be adjusted to the "realities" as defined by the advice to Obama from Gates, Petreaus and Odierno.
Now we know what happens when you give the military too much public influence. Both parties have been guilty of this for eight years. But what's suggested here sounds like an attempted coup.
When Macarthur challenged Truman on Korea, Truman kicked him out. That is clearly called for now. Active duty officers have every right to try to convince the President privately that he's making a mistake, but they have no right to take an independent public position. Any of them who do should be gone.
But if Obama does that, he's going to take a pounding from the right which will make Monica Lewinsky look like a game of spin the bottle. So we'll see what happens next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
