YouTube, MySpace, Facebook Twittet -all were founded on the idea that people were desperate to have their value acknowledged worldwide. And thought that their most mundane thoughts and actions should have widespread social consequences.
If social networks had remained at that level they'd be nothing more than annoyance. But some people have seized on the constructs and found what's meaningful in them. Some use the networks for career advancement, some to further social and political goals, some to put out important information. Those who have made the most of these systems are those who are focused on more than themselves. The non-narcissistic justify social networking. They also show that some people will find the higher value in just about any new technology.
It was like that with tv too. But narcissism has won out there - game shows, reality shows etc. Hope the Internet avoids that fate. Probably will because, unlike tv, input is not controlled by a limited few. Good minds don't need permission to work online. That's why tv remains relevant only to the lazy.
BLOG POSTS
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Federal Government Job Fair in New York Is a Hot Ticket - washingtonpost.com
Federal Government Job Fair in New York Is a Hot Ticket - washingtonpost.com
This is really hysterical. All these free market acolytes ...
This is really hysterical. All these free market acolytes ...
Friday, April 24, 2009
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WILL INDUCE US TO TRY REPUBLICANS FOR TREASON?
1. The economy - None of what has been done to date has addressed the central problem. Unless and until the financial industry is no longer 40% of our GDP, and consumption is not the source of 70% of our economy, we will sink into oblivion at a rapid clip. Are we adult enough? I don't think so. Blame our governments since Reagan, particularly including Clinton.
2. Pakistan - Afghanistan is now essentially irrelevant. After the Soviets were driven out, Bush I committed to rebuilding Afghanistan. He did nothing. Clinton did nothing either. After the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, Bush II committed to rebuilding Afghanistan. He did less than nothing. If America had found a way to hold onto the affections of the Afghans, had kept our eye on the ball instead of wandering off into Iraq, had finished off the Taliban and al Qaeda and then helped to develop an Afghanistan people wanted to live in ... If America had not driven the Taliban into Pakistan, where it was unable to follow them, and where, when it did (and does) follow them, the result is hatred for America ... If America had had and used any possibility of stabilizing Pakistan, or at least recognized the problem Pakistan was going to become and tried to contain it ... but we didn't. Blame our governments since Bush I.
3. Global warming - Scientists are now saying it is now too late to stop global warming and efforts must now be directed at minimizing its effects. A relatively cheap effort to cap carbon output must now be replaced by massively expensive efforts to stick fingers in dikes of myriad places and problems. Yet we're still debating carbon caps. Blame Republicans.
These are three incipient disasters. The last two, at least, have passed the point of no return.
The debate on torture is a distraction, I'm sorry to say. It plays into Republican hands in many ways, but the largest of them is that it takes attention away from the coming disasters. When they hit, no one is going to care who tortures whom.
America is incapable of dealing with what is coming. So is everyone else. The dinosaurs didn't know what hit them. We know what's going to hit us, but we're helpless. Evolution has not progressed fast enough.
2. Pakistan - Afghanistan is now essentially irrelevant. After the Soviets were driven out, Bush I committed to rebuilding Afghanistan. He did nothing. Clinton did nothing either. After the post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan, Bush II committed to rebuilding Afghanistan. He did less than nothing. If America had found a way to hold onto the affections of the Afghans, had kept our eye on the ball instead of wandering off into Iraq, had finished off the Taliban and al Qaeda and then helped to develop an Afghanistan people wanted to live in ... If America had not driven the Taliban into Pakistan, where it was unable to follow them, and where, when it did (and does) follow them, the result is hatred for America ... If America had had and used any possibility of stabilizing Pakistan, or at least recognized the problem Pakistan was going to become and tried to contain it ... but we didn't. Blame our governments since Bush I.
3. Global warming - Scientists are now saying it is now too late to stop global warming and efforts must now be directed at minimizing its effects. A relatively cheap effort to cap carbon output must now be replaced by massively expensive efforts to stick fingers in dikes of myriad places and problems. Yet we're still debating carbon caps. Blame Republicans.
These are three incipient disasters. The last two, at least, have passed the point of no return.
The debate on torture is a distraction, I'm sorry to say. It plays into Republican hands in many ways, but the largest of them is that it takes attention away from the coming disasters. When they hit, no one is going to care who tortures whom.
America is incapable of dealing with what is coming. So is everyone else. The dinosaurs didn't know what hit them. We know what's going to hit us, but we're helpless. Evolution has not progressed fast enough.
THE PRICE
If you want to know what's going to happen in Pakistan, look at Afghanistan. There, the Taliban took over province after province, and it wasn't long before they took the capital. That's what's happening in Pakistan now.
The big question is: what is Pakistan's army going to do, because there is no other force capable of stopping the Taliban. The Taliban were the creation of Pakistani army intelligence, which suggests some significant sympathy. On the other hand, the Taliban were created to operate in Afghanistan, not Pakistan, just as other insurgent groups were created to operate in Kashmir. The Pakistani army likes to think it controls Pakistan. It has two options now, if in fact it remains a political power: one is to make an alliance with the Taliban (something like the Saudi alliance with the Wahhabi), let the Taliban run religion and stay out of politics. That is not something the Taliban can be trusted to do. The other option is to take the Taliban out. I have no idea what the army is thinking these days. But I think it could be sufficiently internally conflicted to be paralyzed when the Taliban advance on Islamabad. We'll see.
If the army does nothing, there will have to be international intervention in force to keep the Taliban away from the nukes. Intense diplomatic efforts should already be under way for the cooperation of Iran, Europe, Russia, China in a combined military effort. I'm afraid there isn't much time - this is going to shake out no later than a year from now.
And soon we'll know the price we will pay for Bush diverting attention from Afghanistan to Iraq.
And watch for an Indian invasion of Pakistan, because no one has more fear of nukes in the hands of the Taliban than India. This could quickly escalate to nuclear war.
This is a very complicated situation, with a lot of games being played on both sides, as usual. I hope the CIA has the capability at least to understand what is going on.
The big question is: what is Pakistan's army going to do, because there is no other force capable of stopping the Taliban. The Taliban were the creation of Pakistani army intelligence, which suggests some significant sympathy. On the other hand, the Taliban were created to operate in Afghanistan, not Pakistan, just as other insurgent groups were created to operate in Kashmir. The Pakistani army likes to think it controls Pakistan. It has two options now, if in fact it remains a political power: one is to make an alliance with the Taliban (something like the Saudi alliance with the Wahhabi), let the Taliban run religion and stay out of politics. That is not something the Taliban can be trusted to do. The other option is to take the Taliban out. I have no idea what the army is thinking these days. But I think it could be sufficiently internally conflicted to be paralyzed when the Taliban advance on Islamabad. We'll see.
If the army does nothing, there will have to be international intervention in force to keep the Taliban away from the nukes. Intense diplomatic efforts should already be under way for the cooperation of Iran, Europe, Russia, China in a combined military effort. I'm afraid there isn't much time - this is going to shake out no later than a year from now.
And soon we'll know the price we will pay for Bush diverting attention from Afghanistan to Iraq.
And watch for an Indian invasion of Pakistan, because no one has more fear of nukes in the hands of the Taliban than India. This could quickly escalate to nuclear war.
This is a very complicated situation, with a lot of games being played on both sides, as usual. I hope the CIA has the capability at least to understand what is going on.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
THE POINT
The latest Republican argument is that Obama is weak for being cordial to Chavez and admitting that the US made some mistakes.
Aside from the fact that during his campaign Obama promised to do exactly these things (and the Republicans attacked him for being prospectively weak with no discernible effect), there comes a time when people no longer believe you when you say things that are not true. That point came for Republicans a long time ago. And everyone knows it but them.
Aside from the fact that during his campaign Obama promised to do exactly these things (and the Republicans attacked him for being prospectively weak with no discernible effect), there comes a time when people no longer believe you when you say things that are not true. That point came for Republicans a long time ago. And everyone knows it but them.
OBVIOUS
The reason Obama does not want to prosecute current CIA operatives who tortured is obvious. Prosecution would destroy the CIA. And put a major dent in our national security capabilities.
It's true the "just following orders " defense is bogus. But the reason in realpolitikal terms that Nuremberg doesn't apply here is that the Nazis in the dock were out of work and these guys aren't. If Truman had decided in 1945 that we needed these Nazis to work our national defense, Nurrmberg, and the concept that following orders illegal under international law is no defense, would never have happened.
But Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Yoo, Bybee are out of the defense business. There is no downside to prosecuting them - other than a possible public backlash, which at the moment doesn't seem likely.
So it could happen.
It's true the "just following orders " defense is bogus. But the reason in realpolitikal terms that Nuremberg doesn't apply here is that the Nazis in the dock were out of work and these guys aren't. If Truman had decided in 1945 that we needed these Nazis to work our national defense, Nurrmberg, and the concept that following orders illegal under international law is no defense, would never have happened.
But Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Yoo, Bybee are out of the defense business. There is no downside to prosecuting them - other than a possible public backlash, which at the moment doesn't seem likely.
So it could happen.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Texas Secession Poll: 75% Of Texans Say No
Texas Secession Poll: 75% Of Texans Say No
If you click on the Quick Poll - which asks us not-Texans what we think - 55.04% are saying let them go.
If you click on the Quick Poll - which asks us not-Texans what we think - 55.04% are saying let them go.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
TOLD YOU
What's a sovereignty resolution?
It's a law passed by a state legislature which says that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government reside in the states - and essentially that the states can determine, therefore, what Federal laws they will and will not obey.
If you stop to think about it, and if I remember right, the issue of implied Federal powers was primarily decided in Supreme Court cases during the New Deal period. Those decisions are responsible for, among other things, the Federal government's ability to pass civil rights laws, without which we would be back in the 1950's - when, incidentally, states' rights arguments were the primary justification for maintaining segregation. The Civil War was fought over states' rights. It looks like we're going back over that territory.
Texas, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and Oklahoma have passed these resolutions. There are sovereignty resolutions pending in North Carolina, Minnesota, Georgia, Ohio, West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, New Mexico, Kansas, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania. These are all Republican bills, Arkansas and New Hampshire rejected a sovereignty resolution on a party line vote.
I suspect when these resolutions shake out, you will be seeing a de facto resurrection of the Confederacy, with the addition of states which were territories back in the 1860's but share the Southern perspective. (And maybe Minnesota and Ohio, which are both weird.) You will, as a consequence, know exactly the dimensions and limits of the United States when all this is over. These states have established the prequel for the physical division of this nation. How far they go with it will depend on how pissed they get - and it seems pretty clear that how pissed they get does not depend on what's actually happening but on what they perceive is happening. Judging from their recent rhetoric, right now they seem to be heading for really steaming themselves up.
The last time the Republicans lost a presidential election, they devoted themselves to an attempted coup d'etat against Clinton. This time it looks like they're ready to go further. They really don't want to have to live with Democrats. And I, for one, don't want to have to live with them.
I told you (see, for example, my post of 9/8/08). All of this has happened before.
And I think the progressive media's failure to even notice what's going on shows misjudgment of epic proportions.
It's a law passed by a state legislature which says that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government reside in the states - and essentially that the states can determine, therefore, what Federal laws they will and will not obey.
If you stop to think about it, and if I remember right, the issue of implied Federal powers was primarily decided in Supreme Court cases during the New Deal period. Those decisions are responsible for, among other things, the Federal government's ability to pass civil rights laws, without which we would be back in the 1950's - when, incidentally, states' rights arguments were the primary justification for maintaining segregation. The Civil War was fought over states' rights. It looks like we're going back over that territory.
Texas, South Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Idaho and Oklahoma have passed these resolutions. There are sovereignty resolutions pending in North Carolina, Minnesota, Georgia, Ohio, West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, New Mexico, Kansas, Iowa, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania. These are all Republican bills, Arkansas and New Hampshire rejected a sovereignty resolution on a party line vote.
I suspect when these resolutions shake out, you will be seeing a de facto resurrection of the Confederacy, with the addition of states which were territories back in the 1860's but share the Southern perspective. (And maybe Minnesota and Ohio, which are both weird.) You will, as a consequence, know exactly the dimensions and limits of the United States when all this is over. These states have established the prequel for the physical division of this nation. How far they go with it will depend on how pissed they get - and it seems pretty clear that how pissed they get does not depend on what's actually happening but on what they perceive is happening. Judging from their recent rhetoric, right now they seem to be heading for really steaming themselves up.
The last time the Republicans lost a presidential election, they devoted themselves to an attempted coup d'etat against Clinton. This time it looks like they're ready to go further. They really don't want to have to live with Democrats. And I, for one, don't want to have to live with them.
I told you (see, for example, my post of 9/8/08). All of this has happened before.
And I think the progressive media's failure to even notice what's going on shows misjudgment of epic proportions.
CAN'T HANDLE IT
Obama announced today he wants to create high-speed rail. And I understood what his problem is.
There are many Americans who are terrified of change. You can bring them along if you go nice and slow. But there is so much uncontrolled change going on right now, and Obama is adding so much controlled change to it, that people are being shaken to the tips of their toes. They are going to lash out. Out of terror.
When Republicans said that Obama was doing too much, they thought they meant that he couldn't handle all that. But what they really meant - consistent with their usual projection - was that THEY couldn't handle it. If there's anything left of traditional conservatism, it means - as it always has - resistance to change.
Obama would probably be wise to softpedal it a while. I'm sure he believes - and he is no doubt correct - that he only has a short window to accomplish things, until he finally becomes mired in all the hostility thrown at him. I just wonder if he shouldn't prioritize to make certain he gets the important things done.
There are many Americans who are terrified of change. You can bring them along if you go nice and slow. But there is so much uncontrolled change going on right now, and Obama is adding so much controlled change to it, that people are being shaken to the tips of their toes. They are going to lash out. Out of terror.
When Republicans said that Obama was doing too much, they thought they meant that he couldn't handle all that. But what they really meant - consistent with their usual projection - was that THEY couldn't handle it. If there's anything left of traditional conservatism, it means - as it always has - resistance to change.
Obama would probably be wise to softpedal it a while. I'm sure he believes - and he is no doubt correct - that he only has a short window to accomplish things, until he finally becomes mired in all the hostility thrown at him. I just wonder if he shouldn't prioritize to make certain he gets the important things done.
DISSOLVED
Pat Buchanan said on Hardball tonight that the American union is dissolved. What he meant was that there is no longer any commonality joining all Americans. I would have to agree with him.
TWO THOUGHTS
We can't have a civil war. There are nukes all over the country and, if the Southern mentality is now what it was in 1860-5, I have no doubt that they will use them. So we'll have no choice but to let them go if they want to.
Most people think the Civil War was about slavery. I've always thought it was about economics. But, extrapolating back from what I see now, I'm beginning to think it was about how life is to be lived, or even what it means to be a human being.
Most people think the Civil War was about slavery. I've always thought it was about economics. But, extrapolating back from what I see now, I'm beginning to think it was about how life is to be lived, or even what it means to be a human being.
Mallika Chopra: 1,500 Farmers in India Commit Suicide: A Wake-Up Call for Humanity
Mallika Chopra: 1,500 Farmers in India Commit Suicide: A Wake-Up Call for Humanity
Will it happen here? I doubt it. As a genre, Americans are not able to experience desperation of this depth, or even to have as clear an understanding of their situation.
Will it happen here? I doubt it. As a genre, Americans are not able to experience desperation of this depth, or even to have as clear an understanding of their situation.
SUSAN BOYLE
Susan Boyle is an adequate singer - no more, no less. She can line out a fairly simple tune without going out of pitch. The emotional content is minimal. The stage presence doesn't exist. There are probably millions of women out there who can do what she did, on top of the millions who can, and regularly do, do better.
So why is she an overnight YouTube sensation? Because nobody expects a fat, ugly, awkward 47 year old virgin to be able to do anything adequately.
Which says a lot more about us than it does about her.
And here's the sadder part: she's only got 15 minutes of fame. Because outside of opera, no one wants to watch a fat, ugly, awkward 47 year old virgin sing more than once, if that. And Susan can't sing opera. Too bad.
UPDATE: I've rethought this - remembering Kate Smith. There are a lot of fat, ugly, awkward mid-forties women out there. Susan could make a career for herself singing patriotic songs. She could sing Christian songs. She could become the voice of the American secessionists. She could sing butch anthems. She could do well on Broadway with the bridge-and-tunnel crowd.
I forgot my credo: never overestimate American taste.
So why is she an overnight YouTube sensation? Because nobody expects a fat, ugly, awkward 47 year old virgin to be able to do anything adequately.
Which says a lot more about us than it does about her.
And here's the sadder part: she's only got 15 minutes of fame. Because outside of opera, no one wants to watch a fat, ugly, awkward 47 year old virgin sing more than once, if that. And Susan can't sing opera. Too bad.
UPDATE: I've rethought this - remembering Kate Smith. There are a lot of fat, ugly, awkward mid-forties women out there. Susan could make a career for herself singing patriotic songs. She could sing Christian songs. She could become the voice of the American secessionists. She could sing butch anthems. She could do well on Broadway with the bridge-and-tunnel crowd.
I forgot my credo: never overestimate American taste.
Glenn Beck: Secession Or Suicide (VIDEO)
For some time now I have been arguing that we are in the early stages of a new Civil War. What Glenn Beck says in the article below is precisely what the South was saying to justify its secession. So we are back to 1861, in more ways than one. A direction we have been headed in for almost thirty years - just as the grounding conditions for the Civil War took that long to form. And Beck is exactly the same sort of firebrand who talked the South into leaving us. If you go back and read the speeches being made in 1860, you will find little difference in tone or substance or intensity of commitment to sectarian hate from what you are hearing from both sides today.
It is probably not a coincidence that Obama has been busy morphing into Lincoln during his campaign, and since. And, if you recall, the South gave Lincoln no "honeymoon"; immediately on his election the South began to leave. So again it is probably no coincidence that only three months into the Obama administration the right (South) is increasingly talking about secession. (Not based on the facts of the current situation, but on unwillingness to live together with anyone but their own.)
Or revolution, which is the more to be dreaded. In 1861, the South just wanted to go; it did not have any interest in attempting to take over the entire United States by force. Now, though, some on the right are talking exactly that. So for me, secession is the best solution. I know Obama doesn't want to be the president who presided over the breakup of the United States. But if push comes to shove, I hope he lets them go. The alternative, I'm afraid, is another internal bloodbath, and worse, if the North loses, fanatical dictatorship.
Glenn Beck: Secession Or Suicide (VIDEO)
Frankly, I have no interest in living in the same nation as Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck. It's too exhausting.
It is probably not a coincidence that Obama has been busy morphing into Lincoln during his campaign, and since. And, if you recall, the South gave Lincoln no "honeymoon"; immediately on his election the South began to leave. So again it is probably no coincidence that only three months into the Obama administration the right (South) is increasingly talking about secession. (Not based on the facts of the current situation, but on unwillingness to live together with anyone but their own.)
Or revolution, which is the more to be dreaded. In 1861, the South just wanted to go; it did not have any interest in attempting to take over the entire United States by force. Now, though, some on the right are talking exactly that. So for me, secession is the best solution. I know Obama doesn't want to be the president who presided over the breakup of the United States. But if push comes to shove, I hope he lets them go. The alternative, I'm afraid, is another internal bloodbath, and worse, if the North loses, fanatical dictatorship.
Glenn Beck: Secession Or Suicide (VIDEO)
Frankly, I have no interest in living in the same nation as Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck. It's too exhausting.
WHAT'S COOL
There are a lot of beautiful women out there these days - genuine and otherwise - so many that everyone can have one. So if you want to be cool, you're going to have to find something else to desire besides looks.
This is very good for bright women - whose idol, Michelle Obama, is in the ascendency right now. You can still earn points for coolness if you can attract a really smart girl - that is, until some docs develop a brain surgery which increases the natural intelligence, sophistication and taste the way a boob job increases boob size. Then there'll be a new hunt for another kind of cool.
This is very good for bright women - whose idol, Michelle Obama, is in the ascendency right now. You can still earn points for coolness if you can attract a really smart girl - that is, until some docs develop a brain surgery which increases the natural intelligence, sophistication and taste the way a boob job increases boob size. Then there'll be a new hunt for another kind of cool.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
TEXAS
In case anyone out there thinks my view that Texas is Patient Zero in a spreading political virus of insanity is misguided ranting, please note:
On March 3rd, Glenn Beck stated on air that if America slid towards a "totalitarian" government, some parts of America would rise up. Asked where the rebellion would start, he said: "Texas."
On March 3rd, Glenn Beck stated on air that if America slid towards a "totalitarian" government, some parts of America would rise up. Asked where the rebellion would start, he said: "Texas."
Friday, April 10, 2009
The "Tea Bag" Revolution's Unfortunate Name Choice (VIDEO)
The "Tea Bag" Revolution's Unfortunate Name Choice (VIDEO)
Actally, I think this tea bag thing is a great idea. We are going to know, from the size of these rallies, exactly how much support the movement has.
Actally, I think this tea bag thing is a great idea. We are going to know, from the size of these rallies, exactly how much support the movement has.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
COMMON SENSE
Ed Schultz's new "The Ed Show" on MSNBC is bad news.
He asks the same stupid questions they ask on Fox, CNN, etc. He brings on guests from "both sides" to answer them, and we get the same noisy propaganda we get on Fox, CNN etc. Aside from Schultz's alleged progressive leanings, there is absolutely no difference between this show and anything else on talk radio. It's boring and assaults the senses.
The genius of Maddow (and Olbermann, before he became obsessed with Fox)is that you don't have to listen to propaganda points launched in phony debates. Maddow doesn't pit guests against each other, so they have a chance to talk and you get to think about what you're told. Admittedly Maddow does ask questions which suggest progressive answers (she's not as bad as Olbermann on that), so the negative doesn't get much attention. But if you're watching Maddow, you're already on the left. What you want are ideas, not nabobism. Since there are no Republicans or conservatives out there giving thoughtful answers to questions, there is no reason to have to listen to them. At least Maddow is quiet (although she's tending to get a bit cute). It's like watching baseball instead of football. It isn't intended to get your kishkes in an uproar.
By the way, it looks like we are headed for a heavy spate of McCarthyism. The right is now alleging Communist plots inside the country, the unions, the government, controlled by China and Russia. As if nothing had changed since 1952 - except their access to the media is a hundred times what it was in McCarthy's day. That's why it could have an effect even when Republicans are out of power. You don't need a committee chairmanship to make a point - you just go to Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.
Talk on the right, as I said, has lost most all contact with reality. It is so insane, as a matter of fact, that it makes you want to do exactly what they say you want to do - shut them up, throw them into jail and throw out the key. They're presenting a real test of democracy: how much shit can they throw at you before you smack them down? How much respect for free speech do you have? How much danger do they present of maniacs attacking people with guns? I did not think I'd ever have to go through the '50's again. Or the 30's, which is a more accurate comparison.
Pray for the good common sense of the American people. We need it more than ever now.
He asks the same stupid questions they ask on Fox, CNN, etc. He brings on guests from "both sides" to answer them, and we get the same noisy propaganda we get on Fox, CNN etc. Aside from Schultz's alleged progressive leanings, there is absolutely no difference between this show and anything else on talk radio. It's boring and assaults the senses.
The genius of Maddow (and Olbermann, before he became obsessed with Fox)is that you don't have to listen to propaganda points launched in phony debates. Maddow doesn't pit guests against each other, so they have a chance to talk and you get to think about what you're told. Admittedly Maddow does ask questions which suggest progressive answers (she's not as bad as Olbermann on that), so the negative doesn't get much attention. But if you're watching Maddow, you're already on the left. What you want are ideas, not nabobism. Since there are no Republicans or conservatives out there giving thoughtful answers to questions, there is no reason to have to listen to them. At least Maddow is quiet (although she's tending to get a bit cute). It's like watching baseball instead of football. It isn't intended to get your kishkes in an uproar.
By the way, it looks like we are headed for a heavy spate of McCarthyism. The right is now alleging Communist plots inside the country, the unions, the government, controlled by China and Russia. As if nothing had changed since 1952 - except their access to the media is a hundred times what it was in McCarthy's day. That's why it could have an effect even when Republicans are out of power. You don't need a committee chairmanship to make a point - you just go to Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.
Talk on the right, as I said, has lost most all contact with reality. It is so insane, as a matter of fact, that it makes you want to do exactly what they say you want to do - shut them up, throw them into jail and throw out the key. They're presenting a real test of democracy: how much shit can they throw at you before you smack them down? How much respect for free speech do you have? How much danger do they present of maniacs attacking people with guns? I did not think I'd ever have to go through the '50's again. Or the 30's, which is a more accurate comparison.
Pray for the good common sense of the American people. We need it more than ever now.
CNN Says 84-Year-Old Woman Fortunate To Be Waiting Tables
CNN Says 84-Year-Old Woman Fortunate To Be Waiting Tables
What annoys me even more than assholes getting paid for this kind of yap is having to be told about it when I'm looking at a news source I actually trust. Has it occurred to anyone that the best way to treat bullshit is to ignore it - except if it poses a threat to you, and this doesn't?
What annoys me even more than assholes getting paid for this kind of yap is having to be told about it when I'm looking at a news source I actually trust. Has it occurred to anyone that the best way to treat bullshit is to ignore it - except if it poses a threat to you, and this doesn't?
Republican Rep. Bachus Makes List Of 'Socialists' In House Of Representatives
Republican Rep. Bachus Makes List Of 'Socialists' In House Of Representatives
Oh, God, not McCarthy again. How long is this going to go on?
Oh, God, not McCarthy again. How long is this going to go on?
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
‘I Want You,’ Uncle Sam Says to Unemployed Wall Street Analysts - Bloomberg.com
‘I Want You,’ Uncle Sam Says to Unemployed Wall Street Analysts - Bloomberg.com
Well, there's an example of the stimulus working. But please, government, vet these people's mindsets before you hire them. We don't want a series of Wall Street moles to undercut efforts at re-regulating. Some people might take a few bucks off the cuff from Secret Santas underwriting Goldman spies. That's how the Bushies worked it, no?
Well, there's an example of the stimulus working. But please, government, vet these people's mindsets before you hire them. We don't want a series of Wall Street moles to undercut efforts at re-regulating. Some people might take a few bucks off the cuff from Secret Santas underwriting Goldman spies. That's how the Bushies worked it, no?
Monday, April 06, 2009
Palin Popularity High Despite Latest News - CBS News
Palin Popularity High Despite Latest News - CBS News
You sort of get a picture of Alaska from this. Since they love her, it's probably accurate.
You sort of get a picture of Alaska from this. Since they love her, it's probably accurate.
Medical Officers Violated Ethics While Overseeing Interrogations, Red Cross Says - washingtonpost.com
Medical Officers Violated Ethics While Overseeing Interrogations, Red Cross Says - washingtonpost.com
This reminds me of something. Can you think of what?
This reminds me of something. Can you think of what?
David Bromwich: Economic Adviser to the Aristocracy
David Bromwich: Economic Adviser to the Aristocracy
Look, the culture has been exposed. It's a thieves' culture, but of course it doesn't see it that way. It sees itself as the culture of what is. And has always been. The remarkable thing about it, though, is that unlike the best of the actual aristocracy, these people have never heard of noblesse oblige. They concede nothing, no prerogative.
And it's very likely they will never have to. This is the court of the Russian czar - except we don't know who the czar is, exactly. Time will tell if Obama fits that bill.
Look, the culture has been exposed. It's a thieves' culture, but of course it doesn't see it that way. It sees itself as the culture of what is. And has always been. The remarkable thing about it, though, is that unlike the best of the actual aristocracy, these people have never heard of noblesse oblige. They concede nothing, no prerogative.
And it's very likely they will never have to. This is the court of the Russian czar - except we don't know who the czar is, exactly. Time will tell if Obama fits that bill.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
KIA?
Obviously the people in the administration who are willing to see GM and Chrysler go into bankruptcy don't follow NASCAR. If these companies don't come back out, what are these guys going to drive?
Considering how huge NASCAR is, how is it possible that these companies are in trouble? Are the race parking lots full of Mercedes(es)?
I don't get it.
Considering how huge NASCAR is, how is it possible that these companies are in trouble? Are the race parking lots full of Mercedes(es)?
I don't get it.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
PLANS
As I have been saying, although most economic indicators are improving, we continue to lose more and more jobs. This, I extrapolate, will be a recovery which leaves a substantial number of people out of work. They are no longer needed for what they used to do,when America was willing to consume everything in sight.
Obama wants to create new jobs in new industries which can compete globally. These are primarily intellectudl jobs, by which I mean they require thinking at a higher than rudimentary level. To prepare Americans for these jobs, Obama wants everyone to go to college.
Even in our halcyon days, everyone couldn't handle college. Plenty of people who WERE in college shouldn't have been. We all knew back then which schools were full of students with no capacity to perform at what was then understood to be college level. The fact that these people were in college has a lot to do with the devaluation of a college education to the production of a certificate which you had to have to apply for even the dumbest of white collar jobs. Getting a diploma was proof, not of intellectual prowess, but of a willingness to sit on your ass for two or four years and to pay a university for the privilege of becoming employable.
This college thing ain't gonna work. Some people will be unemployable in the information age. There are only so many jobs like Hoda Kotb's.
What to do?
You could create corps of workers who are available to do what the rest of us do but really don't have time to do. The employer would be the government, much like the CCC. For example, you could create a Sandbagger Corps which would be available anywhere there was a flood.
Or you could require every American to adopt an unemployed person. They wouldn't have any work, but at least they would eat.
But here's my favorite: on the Chinese one child per family model, allow only one adult per family to work, with the only exception being, on the immigration model, where an employer certifies that it can't fill a job without employing a second worker in a family.
Not only would this cut the workforce in half, but it would, because of competition for workers, require employers to pay decent wages. So, as in the old days, a family could do well on one person's income instead of the income of two, each being paid half of what a decent income used to be - I mean, factoring in inflation and all.
Did you realize that it was the massive entry of women into the workforce, therby essentially doubling it, which created the need for the junk jobs - like retail in fifty stores where all we needed was one - and enabled employers to pay people shit?
This is nothing against women workers. In many cases it would be the man who stays home. But whichever it is, clearly someone has to do it.
Obama wants to create new jobs in new industries which can compete globally. These are primarily intellectudl jobs, by which I mean they require thinking at a higher than rudimentary level. To prepare Americans for these jobs, Obama wants everyone to go to college.
Even in our halcyon days, everyone couldn't handle college. Plenty of people who WERE in college shouldn't have been. We all knew back then which schools were full of students with no capacity to perform at what was then understood to be college level. The fact that these people were in college has a lot to do with the devaluation of a college education to the production of a certificate which you had to have to apply for even the dumbest of white collar jobs. Getting a diploma was proof, not of intellectual prowess, but of a willingness to sit on your ass for two or four years and to pay a university for the privilege of becoming employable.
This college thing ain't gonna work. Some people will be unemployable in the information age. There are only so many jobs like Hoda Kotb's.
What to do?
You could create corps of workers who are available to do what the rest of us do but really don't have time to do. The employer would be the government, much like the CCC. For example, you could create a Sandbagger Corps which would be available anywhere there was a flood.
Or you could require every American to adopt an unemployed person. They wouldn't have any work, but at least they would eat.
But here's my favorite: on the Chinese one child per family model, allow only one adult per family to work, with the only exception being, on the immigration model, where an employer certifies that it can't fill a job without employing a second worker in a family.
Not only would this cut the workforce in half, but it would, because of competition for workers, require employers to pay decent wages. So, as in the old days, a family could do well on one person's income instead of the income of two, each being paid half of what a decent income used to be - I mean, factoring in inflation and all.
Did you realize that it was the massive entry of women into the workforce, therby essentially doubling it, which created the need for the junk jobs - like retail in fifty stores where all we needed was one - and enabled employers to pay people shit?
This is nothing against women workers. In many cases it would be the man who stays home. But whichever it is, clearly someone has to do it.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Thursday, April 02, 2009
DIANA/MICHELLE
After having lionized Diana, an essentially empty headed fictional creation, I wonder what the Brits will learn from Michelle Obsma?
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
CHANGES
Up until a few days ago, I argued that the US should leave the Taliban alone and focus on al Qaeda. That was before the Taliban announced their intention to attack inside the US.
How did we get to this? Through a series of policy failures.
After 9/11 it was not necessary to go after the Taliban, except when they stood in the way of getting al Qaeda. So far as I know the Taliban never defended al Qaeda militarily. Each of them defended themselves. A focus on al Qaeda might or might not have left Afghanistan to the Taliban. It's likely we would have been in a situation very similar to what we have now. Not good for Afghanistan - but if we had persisted against al Qaeda I don't believe the Taliban, without the Arabs, would have presented a threat to us.
Assuming the decision to go after the Taliban, we should have finished the job. But we didn't. And our course from then to now seems to have encouraged the Taliban to come after the US, not just our troops.
What to do now? Fight a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan? That's suicide, not least economically.
Build up the Afghan central government and army to do the fighting for us? We did that in Vietnam and again in Iraq. It didn't work and it can't work except through luck, because we can't control or even fully understand the interplay of internal rivalries. How many Republicans understood what would ultimately happen if they armed the mujahidin?
We can't do much against the Taliban in Pakistan. How can we depend on the Pakistani government when they know that if they go after the Taliban they're likely to get killed?
I don't think Obama understands this. I can't see how putting more troops there is wise.
Before the Taliban made their announcement, my solution was to focus on intelligence on al Qaeda so we could stop any incipient attacks. Now that effort has to include the Taliban. That means intelligence on the ground, used as it has historically been used. Another helpful element might be some visible investment in infrastructure, aimed at creating positive attitudes towards us.
The military option has the least chance of success. It fascinates me that Obama shows sophisticated and morally grounded understanding of so many issues, yet on this one and on the economy he seems blind.
How did we get to this? Through a series of policy failures.
After 9/11 it was not necessary to go after the Taliban, except when they stood in the way of getting al Qaeda. So far as I know the Taliban never defended al Qaeda militarily. Each of them defended themselves. A focus on al Qaeda might or might not have left Afghanistan to the Taliban. It's likely we would have been in a situation very similar to what we have now. Not good for Afghanistan - but if we had persisted against al Qaeda I don't believe the Taliban, without the Arabs, would have presented a threat to us.
Assuming the decision to go after the Taliban, we should have finished the job. But we didn't. And our course from then to now seems to have encouraged the Taliban to come after the US, not just our troops.
What to do now? Fight a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan? That's suicide, not least economically.
Build up the Afghan central government and army to do the fighting for us? We did that in Vietnam and again in Iraq. It didn't work and it can't work except through luck, because we can't control or even fully understand the interplay of internal rivalries. How many Republicans understood what would ultimately happen if they armed the mujahidin?
We can't do much against the Taliban in Pakistan. How can we depend on the Pakistani government when they know that if they go after the Taliban they're likely to get killed?
I don't think Obama understands this. I can't see how putting more troops there is wise.
Before the Taliban made their announcement, my solution was to focus on intelligence on al Qaeda so we could stop any incipient attacks. Now that effort has to include the Taliban. That means intelligence on the ground, used as it has historically been used. Another helpful element might be some visible investment in infrastructure, aimed at creating positive attitudes towards us.
The military option has the least chance of success. It fascinates me that Obama shows sophisticated and morally grounded understanding of so many issues, yet on this one and on the economy he seems blind.
NO ENTRY
I went to Olbermann's website - which is here - to tell him I'm sick of hearing from him about Fox, I don't care about Fox, Fox means nothing and if he doesn't stop spending so much time talking about Fox I'm going to quit watching him.
Unfortunately, there is no place on the website for comments or emailing in. So I guess he won't know how I feel.
Unfortunately, there is no place on the website for comments or emailing in. So I guess he won't know how I feel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
