What explains Obama's success (so far)? Making eminent sense. What he says sounds reasonable, rational, respectful of the public intellect - unlike the current cartoonish, juvenile Republican idiom. Even if you don't like what he says, you honor the way he says it. If he's running a con, you figure, he'll let you see it. It's just such a relief to have nutjobs finally out of power.
What will put an end to this age of reasonableness? Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Israel. In other words, fear. When it comes again.
But it's at least conceivable that Obama will have enough time to ingrain that rationality before the next attack. So we respond to it with intelligence, not panic. And if he can do that, I'd be willing to overturn Amendment 22.
BLOG POSTS
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
FIVE
I didn't realize there are five Catholics on the Supreme Court - Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy and Thomas. And none of them are lapsed. No wonder they rule as they do. They all think like Pope Benedict.
Friday, May 29, 2009
AMAZING
Karl Rove said on Fox News that Sam Alito had served on the same circuit court as Sonia Sotomayor and told Rove that she was too combative and opinionated to assist the court in coming to consensus on a case.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no consensus with Alito unless it's on his terms, the fact is that Alito was on the 3rd Circuit, Sotomayor was on the 2nd, and so they never served together.
Rove's statement could not possibly be a mistake. It has to be a flat out lie. What's remarkable to me is 1) that his mind led him to concoct this particular lie, and 2) that he didn't make a routine check to find out if it would stand up.
What we have here is more of what I've been talking about lately: the end is predetermined, and all means are justified. As is the contempt with which they view the rest of us, that they don't even care if they're caught out in flat lies. That means that all they want from those who are not in their elite is obedience.
I hope America is finally beyond that.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no consensus with Alito unless it's on his terms, the fact is that Alito was on the 3rd Circuit, Sotomayor was on the 2nd, and so they never served together.
Rove's statement could not possibly be a mistake. It has to be a flat out lie. What's remarkable to me is 1) that his mind led him to concoct this particular lie, and 2) that he didn't make a routine check to find out if it would stand up.
What we have here is more of what I've been talking about lately: the end is predetermined, and all means are justified. As is the contempt with which they view the rest of us, that they don't even care if they're caught out in flat lies. That means that all they want from those who are not in their elite is obedience.
I hope America is finally beyond that.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
REALLY PISSED
I hadn't thought of this before, but Bill Clinton must be really unhappy. Not only has Obama knocked him out of , the news and from his status as the leading Democrat, but he's been diminished both as a person and a president. He just doesnt look as good as he used to, because Obama is outdoing him on all fronts.
I wonder whether Clinton foresaw this, and this - and not his wife's candidacy -was the reason he fought so hard to keep Obama out of office. Which did he care more about - his wife or his legacy?
I wonder whether Clinton foresaw this, and this - and not his wife's candidacy -was the reason he fought so hard to keep Obama out of office. Which did he care more about - his wife or his legacy?
EXORCISM
I wrote previously that Republicans could not be expected to change their positions, because they are true believers in what they profess. What they have been changing is their message, looking for one which will bring in those voters they've lost to the Democrats. You might think this an admission that voters don't like their positions, but Republicans are convinced that voters will like their positions once they've been fed the propaganda hook which will lead them either to understand those positions or to accept them on faith.
What's interesting is that these consecutive messages are all negative. Rather than pointing up the virtues of their own positions, they attempt to tear down the opposition on a personal level. Most of the resulting attacks are dumb beyond belief - but Republicans have never been known to have much faith in the intellectual facilities of the voting public, and they know (unless they are themselves the base) that their base has swallowed the grossest form of propaganda; and they expect the rest of the public to come around to swallowing it, once Obama has been exorcised - that is, once the seductive celebrity succubus now inhabiting their souls is exposed, condemned and driven out. This may sound like liberal metaphor, but I believe it is literally true. The language they are using is in effect a rite of exorcism, a condemnation of devils, by which they hope to restore the voters to righteousness and sanity. The same sort of stuff by which they attempted to exorcise Bill Clinton.
As religion, this is sick enough. As politics, it's insane. But this isn't politics, it IS religion. However, the religion is not Christianity, although it is heavily influenced by essentially old-line Catholic theology. The religion is Conservatism, and it is adhered to as a matter of faith and ferociously defended as a matter of outrage that disbelief (the work of the devil and an expression of contempt of the messenger) is even possible. That's where the anger comes from; the same place from which came Hitler's rage.
And in those who profess it, it will never end. The only defense civilization has against it is the taking of care to make certain that another generation of suchlike does not succeed this one.
Then again, maybe they can be exorcised.
What's interesting is that these consecutive messages are all negative. Rather than pointing up the virtues of their own positions, they attempt to tear down the opposition on a personal level. Most of the resulting attacks are dumb beyond belief - but Republicans have never been known to have much faith in the intellectual facilities of the voting public, and they know (unless they are themselves the base) that their base has swallowed the grossest form of propaganda; and they expect the rest of the public to come around to swallowing it, once Obama has been exorcised - that is, once the seductive celebrity succubus now inhabiting their souls is exposed, condemned and driven out. This may sound like liberal metaphor, but I believe it is literally true. The language they are using is in effect a rite of exorcism, a condemnation of devils, by which they hope to restore the voters to righteousness and sanity. The same sort of stuff by which they attempted to exorcise Bill Clinton.
As religion, this is sick enough. As politics, it's insane. But this isn't politics, it IS religion. However, the religion is not Christianity, although it is heavily influenced by essentially old-line Catholic theology. The religion is Conservatism, and it is adhered to as a matter of faith and ferociously defended as a matter of outrage that disbelief (the work of the devil and an expression of contempt of the messenger) is even possible. That's where the anger comes from; the same place from which came Hitler's rage.
And in those who profess it, it will never end. The only defense civilization has against it is the taking of care to make certain that another generation of suchlike does not succeed this one.
Then again, maybe they can be exorcised.
NEVERLAND
Anybody besides me figure out that Kim Jong Il is Michael Jackson and North Korea is Neverland?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Consumer Confidence Soars In May
Consumer Confidence Soars In May
What this is, in my opinion, is the result of brilliant tactics by the people running the stock markets. They knew that, since very many Americans have some stake in those markets, that they could make the average guy feel richer again by pushing the market up, and thereby avoid any systemic changes. They're smart, the consumers are not. But what's new about that?
What this is, in my opinion, is the result of brilliant tactics by the people running the stock markets. They knew that, since very many Americans have some stake in those markets, that they could make the average guy feel richer again by pushing the market up, and thereby avoid any systemic changes. They're smart, the consumers are not. But what's new about that?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
LOGIC
In his national security speech today, Cheney made the interesting argument that if Guantanamo detainees were transferred to US prisons, taxpayers would be paying for their support.
So from where cometh the money to support them at Guantanamo?
Truth is, I suspect, it would cost a lot less to put them in prisons which did not have to be constructed simply to house THEM, or staffed simply to guard THEM.
Why is there always a point at which Republican arguments run into logic and crash? Because the arguments don't need to make sense. They are propaganda. They simply need to work.
So from where cometh the money to support them at Guantanamo?
Truth is, I suspect, it would cost a lot less to put them in prisons which did not have to be constructed simply to house THEM, or staffed simply to guard THEM.
Why is there always a point at which Republican arguments run into logic and crash? Because the arguments don't need to make sense. They are propaganda. They simply need to work.
SURVIVAL
Want to know how newspapers are going to survive? The iphone app is the key.
Right now the NYTimes is free through its app. But many apps are not free, and the new iPhone software is going not only to allow developers more freedom with their pricing but also to re-up subscriptions from within the app. And voilà, the Times is a paid subscription. I think people will be willing to pay.
The iphone app approach will inevitably be adopted by other successful mobile platforms. The Kindle already supplies the Times through a paid monthly subscription. You can get the Times in audio, paid, at audible.com. The processes are far simpler than going to the Times website. You can also get some of the Times on an RSS feed. That's free for now, but it doesnt have to be.
So whether or not you'd want to own any newspaper should depend on two things - how badly would it be missed if it were gone, and how tech savvy is its management. Newspapers will survive -just not all of them.
Although I must say that in a time when major stories are breaking in GQ, Esquire, Vamity Fair, the New Yorker and Rolling Stone, not to mention the blogs, it's clear newspapers are not as essential as they used to be - and if they give up looking for the scoop on major stories they won't be around for long. Newspapers need to remember that the reporter makes the paper. Lose them or overconfrol them and a paper is done.
Right now the NYTimes is free through its app. But many apps are not free, and the new iPhone software is going not only to allow developers more freedom with their pricing but also to re-up subscriptions from within the app. And voilà, the Times is a paid subscription. I think people will be willing to pay.
The iphone app approach will inevitably be adopted by other successful mobile platforms. The Kindle already supplies the Times through a paid monthly subscription. You can get the Times in audio, paid, at audible.com. The processes are far simpler than going to the Times website. You can also get some of the Times on an RSS feed. That's free for now, but it doesnt have to be.
So whether or not you'd want to own any newspaper should depend on two things - how badly would it be missed if it were gone, and how tech savvy is its management. Newspapers will survive -just not all of them.
Although I must say that in a time when major stories are breaking in GQ, Esquire, Vamity Fair, the New Yorker and Rolling Stone, not to mention the blogs, it's clear newspapers are not as essential as they used to be - and if they give up looking for the scoop on major stories they won't be around for long. Newspapers need to remember that the reporter makes the paper. Lose them or overconfrol them and a paper is done.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
HYPOCRISY
Does anyone besides me find it a little odd that BP, the oil company selling the good American argument that we need to be self-sufficient in energy (and therefore to drill offshore), used to be known as British Petroleum?
Netanyahu Clashed With Obama, Congress On Trip
Netanyahu Clashed With Obama, Congress On Trip
This I foresaw, and I like, from Obama's end. Obama has two choices here, because talking with Israel is likely to go nowhere: 1) threaten to cut off aid to Israel, which will have zero effect on Netanyahu; or 2) come down hard on the Palestinian side, essentially establishing a de facto state in the West Bank and Gaza, protected by US and/or UN forces. That will take more balls than any US president since Kennedy.
This I foresaw, and I like, from Obama's end. Obama has two choices here, because talking with Israel is likely to go nowhere: 1) threaten to cut off aid to Israel, which will have zero effect on Netanyahu; or 2) come down hard on the Palestinian side, essentially establishing a de facto state in the West Bank and Gaza, protected by US and/or UN forces. That will take more balls than any US president since Kennedy.
Congress Passes Landmark Credit Card Reform
Congress Passes Landmark Credit Card Reform
Without limits on credit card interest, or at least limits on the rate of climb of interest rates, this bill is pure bullshit.
Without limits on credit card interest, or at least limits on the rate of climb of interest rates, this bill is pure bullshit.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
MESSAGES
Republicans have been quite candid that they are not looking for new policies but for a new message. People are laughing about it, but I think they're being honest. For years, at least since Reagan, Republicans have enacted policies favoring the rich (or friends they want to make rich) while delivering messages that seduce the rest of us into supporting those policies, even though we get no benefit from them. The gamut has included trickle down economics, morning in America, the axis of evil, tax and spend, etc. When one stopped working, they came up with another one - none of which had any connection with reality. So when that famous Republican said they were not concerned with reality but were busy creating an alternate reality, what he was talking about was not (as the liberal press said) his own delusions but the effectiveness of Republican propaganda.
Well, the last message stopped working, so they've been trying a new one almost every day, waiting to see which of them sticks. The fact that you'd have to be a moron to be seduced by their current message attempts is no obstacle; their messages have been moronic before, and yet extremely effective. And I don't doubt that sooner or later they'll find one that catches fire. Because it is just not possible that the kind of thinking that Obama displayed at Notre Dame is going to light its own fire among the multitudes. Advertising rules never allow requiring a customer to think.
Well, the last message stopped working, so they've been trying a new one almost every day, waiting to see which of them sticks. The fact that you'd have to be a moron to be seduced by their current message attempts is no obstacle; their messages have been moronic before, and yet extremely effective. And I don't doubt that sooner or later they'll find one that catches fire. Because it is just not possible that the kind of thinking that Obama displayed at Notre Dame is going to light its own fire among the multitudes. Advertising rules never allow requiring a customer to think.
BACK TO A PET PEEVE
This morning Ellen DeGeneris had women crawling around her stage on hands and knees to win a trip to Hawaii, while the crowd of women shrieked, howled and jumped up and down. And I asked myself: when did it become okay for women to publicly abandon all pretense of grace and dignity?
I can trace it back through the Beatles and Elvis to Sinatra - but in those cases women could legitimately claim to have been carried away by emotion or sexual longing. What is the emotion on DeGeneris? Exhibitionism? Consumerism? The joy of being in a crowd?
How about Hollywood? The screaming goes on at the Oscar red carpet. I guess that can be traced back to Valentino - but again that's a matter of being overwhelmed by beauty and sexual longing.
Did Chopin face this? Paderewski? Other pop idols of the 17th-19th centuries? I don't know and I'd like to hear about it - as well as any other examples of this kind of behavior.
The French revolution?
But even if the acceptance of this behavior goes back to the Bible, I'd like to know of other circumstances where the motivations were as banal and trivial as they are now.
I can trace it back through the Beatles and Elvis to Sinatra - but in those cases women could legitimately claim to have been carried away by emotion or sexual longing. What is the emotion on DeGeneris? Exhibitionism? Consumerism? The joy of being in a crowd?
How about Hollywood? The screaming goes on at the Oscar red carpet. I guess that can be traced back to Valentino - but again that's a matter of being overwhelmed by beauty and sexual longing.
Did Chopin face this? Paderewski? Other pop idols of the 17th-19th centuries? I don't know and I'd like to hear about it - as well as any other examples of this kind of behavior.
The French revolution?
But even if the acceptance of this behavior goes back to the Bible, I'd like to know of other circumstances where the motivations were as banal and trivial as they are now.
THE CYCLE
Making the statement that if Republicans continue on their present course they will self destruct is smart politics - in the sense that any statement repeated often enough gains traction. People may start to believe it, and then the prophecy fulfills itself.
But it is not smart journalism (and we're hearing it from pundits every hour on the hour.) Because it isn't true. I am constantly amazed at the definitive, final-word predictions pundits make based on nothing but current facts on the ground. They've been around long enough to know that politics is cyclical, and the Republicans have to change nothing in order for them to return to ascendency. The only variable which can be affected is when: will the public mood turn quickly, or have we entered a long-term phase? Or will something happen to change that mood immediately? Or will the Republicans make changes that will speed up the yin-yang swing?
Pundits need to be divided into classes: those who know they are right, and those who aren't so sure.
The first class needs to be deported immediately. The second class is worth listening to.
But it is not smart journalism (and we're hearing it from pundits every hour on the hour.) Because it isn't true. I am constantly amazed at the definitive, final-word predictions pundits make based on nothing but current facts on the ground. They've been around long enough to know that politics is cyclical, and the Republicans have to change nothing in order for them to return to ascendency. The only variable which can be affected is when: will the public mood turn quickly, or have we entered a long-term phase? Or will something happen to change that mood immediately? Or will the Republicans make changes that will speed up the yin-yang swing?
Pundits need to be divided into classes: those who know they are right, and those who aren't so sure.
The first class needs to be deported immediately. The second class is worth listening to.
CLASS WAR (ONE MORE TIME)
This is what Home Depot's founder Bernie Marcus said on a conference call in November:
"If a retailer has not gotten involved with this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to Norm Coleman and these other guys," Mr. Marcus said, apparently referring to Republican senators facing tough re-election fights, then those retailers "should be shot; should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs."
And they're saying the left is starting a class war?
"If a retailer has not gotten involved with this, if he has not spent money on this election, if he has not sent money to Norm Coleman and these other guys," Mr. Marcus said, apparently referring to Republican senators facing tough re-election fights, then those retailers "should be shot; should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs."
And they're saying the left is starting a class war?
PHILOSOPHY
The core of Obama's Notre Dame speech was the Golden Rule - a concept near to my heart (and dear to my book "The Tenth Cow"), to me the only way to reach moral agreements across faiths and lack of faith, and something brilliantly ignored by organized religion these days.
Obama is a philosopher-president. To govern by what you actually think - and actually doing meaningful thinking - is a unique, and nearly lost, art. The last one I know of was Lincoln - or maybe Reagan, if we can include a philosopher who got everything wrong. I disagree with plenty of what Obama is doing, or not doing, but there is a thrill to having him in the presidency in these times which must be what blacks felt when they had Martin Luther King. And I wonder if what happened to them when they lost MLK - a complete disintegration of their moral force and effectiveness - will happen to us after Obama has served his time. I suppose that depends on what he actually accomplishes. King didn't finish his job, and his successors weren't up to it. The likelihood of getting another thinker in the presidency inside of another fifty years is about zilch. I still don't know how we got this one.
Obama is a philosopher-president. To govern by what you actually think - and actually doing meaningful thinking - is a unique, and nearly lost, art. The last one I know of was Lincoln - or maybe Reagan, if we can include a philosopher who got everything wrong. I disagree with plenty of what Obama is doing, or not doing, but there is a thrill to having him in the presidency in these times which must be what blacks felt when they had Martin Luther King. And I wonder if what happened to them when they lost MLK - a complete disintegration of their moral force and effectiveness - will happen to us after Obama has served his time. I suppose that depends on what he actually accomplishes. King didn't finish his job, and his successors weren't up to it. The likelihood of getting another thinker in the presidency inside of another fifty years is about zilch. I still don't know how we got this one.
TANKING
Rachel Maddow has been getting away from cuteness, booking better and better guests, breaking (and sometimes making) news and going in depth into discussions of critical issues. I know of no other show that's been doing that (at least from a centrist or progressive perspective.)
That must explain why her ratings are tanking.
That must explain why her ratings are tanking.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Sheila Bair, Brooksley Born: JFK Award Recipients For Predicting Crisis
Sheila Bair, Brooksley Born: JFK Award Recipients For Predicting Crisis
And here's another economist Obama is ignoring.
And here's another economist Obama is ignoring.
Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board To Hold First Meeting
Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board To Hold First Meeting
It is not a good sign for economic fairness when progressives are reduced to complaining that Paul Volcker's not getting enough of the president's time.
It is not a good sign for economic fairness when progressives are reduced to complaining that Paul Volcker's not getting enough of the president's time.
Blue collar males lose more ground
Blue collar males lose more ground
| U.S.
| Reuters
If I remember right, the high unemployment rate of black males was blamed for the disintegration of black family life. Let's see what happens in Whitetown.
| U.S.
| Reuters
If I remember right, the high unemployment rate of black males was blamed for the disintegration of black family life. Let's see what happens in Whitetown.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
GETTING MINE
If you haven't quite completely given up on the idea that people will act, even slightly, against their own interests for the good of the general public, consider this:
Why is Florida in bad trouble? Too much development. What's the state legislature's solution? They've passed a bill eliminating rules requiring that adequate roads be in place before construction is allowed, and requiring that large development projects be thoroughly reviewed in advance.
Not enough construction jobs? Not enough profits for developers? In a state whose major enterprise is house building, these are big problems, right? So, now that no one is coming to Florida, let's build a lot more houses.
Long-term thinking? Never heard of it. If I'm a developer, I get mine.
Why is Florida in bad trouble? Too much development. What's the state legislature's solution? They've passed a bill eliminating rules requiring that adequate roads be in place before construction is allowed, and requiring that large development projects be thoroughly reviewed in advance.
Not enough construction jobs? Not enough profits for developers? In a state whose major enterprise is house building, these are big problems, right? So, now that no one is coming to Florida, let's build a lot more houses.
Long-term thinking? Never heard of it. If I'm a developer, I get mine.
Friday, May 15, 2009
NO CONTEST
Here's what I learned from eBay:
For $71 I could buy a gorgeous solid silver sugar bowl made in England in 1911, which I could enjoy for the rest of my life and when I'm dead they could probably sell it for more than I paid for it - or I could feed one person one time at a moderately priced restaurant.
This is no contest, in my view. Oh, sure, there may be memories from the dinner. On the other hand, maybe the sugar bowl would encourage me to invite people over to enjoy it, too. Over and over again.
For $200 I can have an iPhone, or feed two at a $$$$ place. Not a $$$$$ place.
Nope. No contest.
For $71 I could buy a gorgeous solid silver sugar bowl made in England in 1911, which I could enjoy for the rest of my life and when I'm dead they could probably sell it for more than I paid for it - or I could feed one person one time at a moderately priced restaurant.
This is no contest, in my view. Oh, sure, there may be memories from the dinner. On the other hand, maybe the sugar bowl would encourage me to invite people over to enjoy it, too. Over and over again.
For $200 I can have an iPhone, or feed two at a $$$$ place. Not a $$$$$ place.
Nope. No contest.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
THE SAFETY VALVE
Amidst all the media bafflement over why Dick Cheney has suddenly become so visible, The Daily Beast comes up with the obvious answer: he's running for president. And I think they're right.
Cheney believes Jesuitically in the dark Bush-Cheney view of the world and its dangers. He truly believes Obama is going to get us killed. He looks around (as we all do) and he sees no Republican he believes could possibly beat Obama, and no Republican who is dedicated to anything beyond him- or herself and the people who give him or her money. And he believes he's the only one who can do the necessary.
I know comparisons to Hitler are in disfavor these days (even if accurate), but I'm going to make one anyway. Hitler had the same dark view, and the same contempt for and also fear of cosmopolitan liberal elements. And he too believed he was the one who could hold them back. He also believed he had to do that through dictatorial means - a belief I'm pretty sure Cheney shares. Both Cheney and Hitler believed that they were goodness surrounded by demons - a Catholic view which led to the Inquisition.
I'm comfortable with the conclusion that if we get Cheney as president the result will be pretty much what Germany got with Hitler. I'm sorry, but the psychology is much too similar. The only question I have is whether Cheney has Hitler's gift for mesmerizing people. I don't think so; he's not magnetic, he's not even personable, and the myths he manipulates are far too small. And that may be the only safety valve we have.
Cheney believes Jesuitically in the dark Bush-Cheney view of the world and its dangers. He truly believes Obama is going to get us killed. He looks around (as we all do) and he sees no Republican he believes could possibly beat Obama, and no Republican who is dedicated to anything beyond him- or herself and the people who give him or her money. And he believes he's the only one who can do the necessary.
I know comparisons to Hitler are in disfavor these days (even if accurate), but I'm going to make one anyway. Hitler had the same dark view, and the same contempt for and also fear of cosmopolitan liberal elements. And he too believed he was the one who could hold them back. He also believed he had to do that through dictatorial means - a belief I'm pretty sure Cheney shares. Both Cheney and Hitler believed that they were goodness surrounded by demons - a Catholic view which led to the Inquisition.
I'm comfortable with the conclusion that if we get Cheney as president the result will be pretty much what Germany got with Hitler. I'm sorry, but the psychology is much too similar. The only question I have is whether Cheney has Hitler's gift for mesmerizing people. I don't think so; he's not magnetic, he's not even personable, and the myths he manipulates are far too small. And that may be the only safety valve we have.
THE REASON
So the Obama administration is sticking with the Bush national security state secrets policy, does not want an investigation of torture, is trying to hold back new photos of abuse in Iraq, is ramping up troop numbers in Afghanistan and continuing to use air strikes in civilians there and in Pakistan. He's reinstating military tribunals at Guantanamo. And more things you would not have expected from him. And I suspect I know why.
I think the Obama administration believes there is a decent chance Pakistan will fall apart and its nukes will get into the wrong hands. I think he believes America will be nuked. And he is trying not to give anyone the slightest excuse to say he was weak on security.
Unfortunately, not one of these things will prevent what they fear. They do not visibly appear to have a Pakistan policy. Aside from their incestuous relationship with the banks, this is the primary locus of Obaman insecurity.
I think the Obama administration believes there is a decent chance Pakistan will fall apart and its nukes will get into the wrong hands. I think he believes America will be nuked. And he is trying not to give anyone the slightest excuse to say he was weak on security.
Unfortunately, not one of these things will prevent what they fear. They do not visibly appear to have a Pakistan policy. Aside from their incestuous relationship with the banks, this is the primary locus of Obaman insecurity.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
OUR FAULT
GM has announced its restructuring plan: it will close 16 American plants, cut 21,000 American jobs and double its production of cars in Mexico, China and South Korea. That will make GM healthy, and America sicker.
If there's any recovery going on, it's corporate only. The above is a perfect example. Most of the so-called recovery is in the financial sector. This looks like a wider recovery because we've been taught to look at the stock market to see how we're doing. What we're actually seeing is how THEY'RE doing. While they're waiting for all the talk about regulation to go away, they're still not lending and they're making a fortune on increased credit card rates and fees. Meanwhile we keep losing jobs and likely will continue to. Not to mention we have no idea what they did with their bailout money.
Yet Congress does nothing. Their credit card bill does not limit exorbitant credit rates; all it does is force the banks to move a little slower in ripping us off. Not one thing has been done about regulation. France and Italy bailed out their auto companies on condition that their jobs stayed home. Nothing like that has even been discussed here.
As Dick Durbin said, the banks own Congress. I like Obama, but I suspect they own him too, and we're getting social policy sops to keep us progressives happy while the robbery continues. I'd give him six months and then try him for treason.
It's not going to change. You can't change Congress unless you threaten them with death if they don't change. Public election financing? Don't make me laugh.
In the old days the unions used to beat up scabs. Not nice tactics, but they often worked. And all they were was a balancing of union violence against the corporate violence they'd been living through for years.
It's our own damn fault. Instead of reliving 1917, we're reliving 1859. 'Nuff said.
If there's any recovery going on, it's corporate only. The above is a perfect example. Most of the so-called recovery is in the financial sector. This looks like a wider recovery because we've been taught to look at the stock market to see how we're doing. What we're actually seeing is how THEY'RE doing. While they're waiting for all the talk about regulation to go away, they're still not lending and they're making a fortune on increased credit card rates and fees. Meanwhile we keep losing jobs and likely will continue to. Not to mention we have no idea what they did with their bailout money.
Yet Congress does nothing. Their credit card bill does not limit exorbitant credit rates; all it does is force the banks to move a little slower in ripping us off. Not one thing has been done about regulation. France and Italy bailed out their auto companies on condition that their jobs stayed home. Nothing like that has even been discussed here.
As Dick Durbin said, the banks own Congress. I like Obama, but I suspect they own him too, and we're getting social policy sops to keep us progressives happy while the robbery continues. I'd give him six months and then try him for treason.
It's not going to change. You can't change Congress unless you threaten them with death if they don't change. Public election financing? Don't make me laugh.
In the old days the unions used to beat up scabs. Not nice tactics, but they often worked. And all they were was a balancing of union violence against the corporate violence they'd been living through for years.
It's our own damn fault. Instead of reliving 1917, we're reliving 1859. 'Nuff said.
THE SAME DYNAMIC
I've been talking about impending resumption of the Civil War. Let me make another analogy.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine (and Iowa) have now enacted laws allowing same sex marriage. Those were states which were in the forefront of the anti-slavery movement in the 1850's. New York is still teetering, which in fact it did just before the Civil War broke out; there were plenty of New Yorkers who wanted to declare Manhattan a free city, and who made a lot of money bringing in slaves, and New York's financial welfare was heavily tied up in the cotton market. But ultimately New York went with the North, and most likely will again.
It seems to me possible that gay marriage is the same type of issue that slavery was. While the North gets louder about advocating freedom, Southern states begin to talk about secession. The Southern argument back then was twofold: the less extreme were afraid that the North would not recognize their ownership of slaves if the slaves were brought out of the South for any reason, and the more extreme were sure the North would ultimately impose national legislation outlawing slavery. Now we have the South worried about being compelled to recognize a marriage of two gay New Yorkers who move to Texas, and certain the ultimate aim is to cram same sex marriage down their throats. (That is the aim of gay rights activists, just as it was the aim of abolitionists to destroy slavery in the South.)
To most of us the issue of gay rights does not rise to the level of black slavery. But the dynamic is the same. And on top of that we have a black president who, while being very cautious in speaking about the subject, is assumed by the South to be likely to look for national legislation. Although he didn't like the institution, Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves in the South, and only did so as a military measure once the war was on. Yet the South was convinced from before his election that he would take away their slaves. I'm sure the South now feels the same about Obama on the gay rights issue, whether he actually intends to do anything about it or not.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine (and Iowa) have now enacted laws allowing same sex marriage. Those were states which were in the forefront of the anti-slavery movement in the 1850's. New York is still teetering, which in fact it did just before the Civil War broke out; there were plenty of New Yorkers who wanted to declare Manhattan a free city, and who made a lot of money bringing in slaves, and New York's financial welfare was heavily tied up in the cotton market. But ultimately New York went with the North, and most likely will again.
It seems to me possible that gay marriage is the same type of issue that slavery was. While the North gets louder about advocating freedom, Southern states begin to talk about secession. The Southern argument back then was twofold: the less extreme were afraid that the North would not recognize their ownership of slaves if the slaves were brought out of the South for any reason, and the more extreme were sure the North would ultimately impose national legislation outlawing slavery. Now we have the South worried about being compelled to recognize a marriage of two gay New Yorkers who move to Texas, and certain the ultimate aim is to cram same sex marriage down their throats. (That is the aim of gay rights activists, just as it was the aim of abolitionists to destroy slavery in the South.)
To most of us the issue of gay rights does not rise to the level of black slavery. But the dynamic is the same. And on top of that we have a black president who, while being very cautious in speaking about the subject, is assumed by the South to be likely to look for national legislation. Although he didn't like the institution, Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves in the South, and only did so as a military measure once the war was on. Yet the South was convinced from before his election that he would take away their slaves. I'm sure the South now feels the same about Obama on the gay rights issue, whether he actually intends to do anything about it or not.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Thursday, May 07, 2009
BETTING
If you bet on a horse, you're betting on the horse - whether it has the stuff to win, based on its previous history and its provenance, which are known. When the race goes off, you know the weather, the track conditions, and just about anything that might affect the race other than a meteor strike.
If you bet on a stock - and if you buy a stock, you are betting on it unless you're in a position to control what it's going to do - you are not just betting on a company but on a whole host of factors which affect markets - some of them psychological, none of which you can completely understand and some of which never even occur to you.
Betting a horse is like flying in a plane. Betting a stock is like jumping out of it. Which means, in the market as it is since computerization, anyone who consistently does well picking stocks is either trading on inside info or running a Ponzi scheme. Except ...
The one known factor is the mood of the market. If the indexes are leaping up (day after day, not just once in a while), you have to be really unlucky to pick a loser. If the indexes are plummeting, you have to be really lucky to pick a winner. Because stock picking no longer has much to do with fundamentals. It has to do with what people think, and who's running the show.
The only rule worth following, I think, is that after the market has fallen people are going to buy, and after it has risen people are going to sell - unless you're in a bubble, in which people keep buying and you're betting your instincts are good enough to tell you when that day is coming when the whole thing is going to collapse, or you're in a bear market and you're betting your instincts are good enough to tell you when that day is coming when the whole thing is going to turn around.
Horses sounds better to me.
If you bet on a stock - and if you buy a stock, you are betting on it unless you're in a position to control what it's going to do - you are not just betting on a company but on a whole host of factors which affect markets - some of them psychological, none of which you can completely understand and some of which never even occur to you.
Betting a horse is like flying in a plane. Betting a stock is like jumping out of it. Which means, in the market as it is since computerization, anyone who consistently does well picking stocks is either trading on inside info or running a Ponzi scheme. Except ...
The one known factor is the mood of the market. If the indexes are leaping up (day after day, not just once in a while), you have to be really unlucky to pick a loser. If the indexes are plummeting, you have to be really lucky to pick a winner. Because stock picking no longer has much to do with fundamentals. It has to do with what people think, and who's running the show.
The only rule worth following, I think, is that after the market has fallen people are going to buy, and after it has risen people are going to sell - unless you're in a bubble, in which people keep buying and you're betting your instincts are good enough to tell you when that day is coming when the whole thing is going to collapse, or you're in a bear market and you're betting your instincts are good enough to tell you when that day is coming when the whole thing is going to turn around.
Horses sounds better to me.
THE HEIST
The big knock on the Bush administration was that for eight years, through manipulation of the tax structure (among other things) it perpetrated a huge transfer of wealth from most Americans to the wealthy.
Leave it to Naomi Klein to point out (as she did on Maddow last night) that, using the bank bailout, Obama has perpetrated an even more huge such transfer. Something is seriously wrong here.
Klein said yesterday (and I said last November) that the bailout would prove to be the biggest heist in history. How strange is it that it's now the Republicans who oppose it, when they bent over backwards for Bush when he was doing it. Of course that's because Republicans don't get and never got what Bush was doing, and now it's a Democrat, so of course it's bad. Their reasoning is faulty, but they're on the right side. They think they're being robbed, and they are.
Leave it to Naomi Klein to point out (as she did on Maddow last night) that, using the bank bailout, Obama has perpetrated an even more huge such transfer. Something is seriously wrong here.
Klein said yesterday (and I said last November) that the bailout would prove to be the biggest heist in history. How strange is it that it's now the Republicans who oppose it, when they bent over backwards for Bush when he was doing it. Of course that's because Republicans don't get and never got what Bush was doing, and now it's a Democrat, so of course it's bad. Their reasoning is faulty, but they're on the right side. They think they're being robbed, and they are.
AND WE DON'T NEED GEORGIA EITHER
Bonkers in Georgia: Hendrik Hertzberg: Online Only: The New Yorker
Let's send them a message that the US would welcome their secession - them and their football team.
Let's send them a message that the US would welcome their secession - them and their football team.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Friday, May 01, 2009
THREATS
So Israel warns the European Union to tone down its criticism of Israel or risk losing its role as broker in Mideast peace efforts.
I'm the EU, and I'm terrified. Let's face it: Israel doesn't want anyone brokering peace.
If I were the EU, here's what I'd say: We won't try to broker a peace. Because we don't like what you're doing, we won't allow any European corporation to arm you, we will slap restrictions on what can be sold to you, and we will put tariffs on what you can sell to us. If you don't want our help, we don't want your business. And the Jewish vote is not really a big deal over here.
I'm the EU, and I'm terrified. Let's face it: Israel doesn't want anyone brokering peace.
If I were the EU, here's what I'd say: We won't try to broker a peace. Because we don't like what you're doing, we won't allow any European corporation to arm you, we will slap restrictions on what can be sold to you, and we will put tariffs on what you can sell to us. If you don't want our help, we don't want your business. And the Jewish vote is not really a big deal over here.
Gallup: Jews, Muslims Come Together On Obama
Gallup: Jews, Muslims Come Together On Obama
This story is among the most heartening news I've heard in a long time. Despite the perception that Obama may put pressure on Israel, despite the fact that neocons are predominantly Jewish, the American Jewish community stays fundamentally progressive. Now if they would only get rid of their neocon "spokesmen" and "leaders", the only people who talk out for the Jews as a group, and who obviously have no right to do so.
This story is among the most heartening news I've heard in a long time. Despite the perception that Obama may put pressure on Israel, despite the fact that neocons are predominantly Jewish, the American Jewish community stays fundamentally progressive. Now if they would only get rid of their neocon "spokesmen" and "leaders", the only people who talk out for the Jews as a group, and who obviously have no right to do so.
Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com
Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com
And now we need to understand why this is true.
And now we need to understand why this is true.
FEAR
Why are so many Americans terrified of swine flu? Certainly official pronouncements have not helped. But as I said, this is another example of 9/11 terror and the unquenchable American need for security which led to the abrogation of fundamental American freedoms. In neither case were or are many Americans at risk.
I think it ties in with the memorial-at-the-side-of-the-road phenomenon. Whenever anyone dies unexpectedly - or at least when that death is picked up by the media or spread by word of mouth - people who didn't know the deceased come to mourn.
The conventional argument is that every life is precious. I agree, of course, but I think that's disingenuous. These people don't go to hospital wards to mourn people dying of disease. They mourn deaths which they think are unfair. And they mourn them because ... it could have been them.
So in a way this mourning is a celebration of the fact that someone is unfairly dead and they are not. Actually, I think all funerals are exactly that. But most funerals are attended only by close family and friends, who will actually miss the deceased. This roadside phenomenon is much wider.
With 9/11 and swine flu people were and are faced with the infinitesmal possibility that it could have been them. Or could be them. Rationally, one ought to recognize how small that likelihood is - after all, people don't run around terrified of being hit by lightning, which happens considerably more frequently. But the combination of massive media coverage of the unexpected and a narcissistic focus on oneself leads to voluntary partial paralysis. The fundamental belief is: I am too important to die. (It could be translated as: God wouldn't let me die like that. But the fear in that case is that God either had it in for you or, which is worse for them, didn't care.)
I don't know how people can live that way.
I think it ties in with the memorial-at-the-side-of-the-road phenomenon. Whenever anyone dies unexpectedly - or at least when that death is picked up by the media or spread by word of mouth - people who didn't know the deceased come to mourn.
The conventional argument is that every life is precious. I agree, of course, but I think that's disingenuous. These people don't go to hospital wards to mourn people dying of disease. They mourn deaths which they think are unfair. And they mourn them because ... it could have been them.
So in a way this mourning is a celebration of the fact that someone is unfairly dead and they are not. Actually, I think all funerals are exactly that. But most funerals are attended only by close family and friends, who will actually miss the deceased. This roadside phenomenon is much wider.
With 9/11 and swine flu people were and are faced with the infinitesmal possibility that it could have been them. Or could be them. Rationally, one ought to recognize how small that likelihood is - after all, people don't run around terrified of being hit by lightning, which happens considerably more frequently. But the combination of massive media coverage of the unexpected and a narcissistic focus on oneself leads to voluntary partial paralysis. The fundamental belief is: I am too important to die. (It could be translated as: God wouldn't let me die like that. But the fear in that case is that God either had it in for you or, which is worse for them, didn't care.)
I don't know how people can live that way.
TRUE HYPE
Now that the media have terrified you with swine flu - because it's a ratings grabber - into staying off planes and out of crowds, we suggest you actually lock yourself in at home, rather than driving to the market or the gas station. You're several thousand times more likely to get killed on that trip than by swine flu.
It's 9/11 all over again - national terror over minimal individual risk. Because, without swine flu, we are never going to die.
A couple of weeks in Darfur and the average American would at least have a chance to understand the true risks life presents.
It's 9/11 all over again - national terror over minimal individual risk. Because, without swine flu, we are never going to die.
A couple of weeks in Darfur and the average American would at least have a chance to understand the true risks life presents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
