BLOG POSTS
Saturday, June 27, 2009
CONFESSION
I've been trying to figure out why politicans like Ensign and Sanford appear to believe that once they've confessed their affairs everything goes back to normal. And I think I've got it.
Both men claim to be serious practicing Christians. I don't know of what denomination. If Catholic, they have been taught that the mere confession of your sins puts you right with God, and therefore with their co-religionists. If you're not Catholic, the fact that you don't excuse so easily is your problem with God, and not theirs. They have done what God required them to do, and you have a lot of nerve being tougher on them than He is.
As for evangelicals, I don't know what kind of self-examination they have to do in their private religious meetings. Sanford seems to have gone through some personal hell over the fact that he was in love with someone other than his wife. He also seems to feel that having gone through that hell, he is fine both with himself and God. And maybe he is.
Problem is, for a lot of people he is not fine with them. He acknowledged that his conduct was unChristian and apologized to his evangelical advisers. But some of us think his conduct was idiotic - not the affair, but the way he handled it. A governor is not supposed to go off the deep end even if a woman has besotted him.
As to us, the apology was perfunctory. If we are good Christians, we are supposed to forgive. If we're not, what we think is irrelevant - except that in this nation we don't yet have Christian rule and therefore are for some reason allowed to vote. But we are not allowed to judge good Christian men. So it comes as a surprise to these guys when we do.
Both men claim to be serious practicing Christians. I don't know of what denomination. If Catholic, they have been taught that the mere confession of your sins puts you right with God, and therefore with their co-religionists. If you're not Catholic, the fact that you don't excuse so easily is your problem with God, and not theirs. They have done what God required them to do, and you have a lot of nerve being tougher on them than He is.
As for evangelicals, I don't know what kind of self-examination they have to do in their private religious meetings. Sanford seems to have gone through some personal hell over the fact that he was in love with someone other than his wife. He also seems to feel that having gone through that hell, he is fine both with himself and God. And maybe he is.
Problem is, for a lot of people he is not fine with them. He acknowledged that his conduct was unChristian and apologized to his evangelical advisers. But some of us think his conduct was idiotic - not the affair, but the way he handled it. A governor is not supposed to go off the deep end even if a woman has besotted him.
As to us, the apology was perfunctory. If we are good Christians, we are supposed to forgive. If we're not, what we think is irrelevant - except that in this nation we don't yet have Christian rule and therefore are for some reason allowed to vote. But we are not allowed to judge good Christian men. So it comes as a surprise to these guys when we do.
Friday, June 26, 2009
NO LIE
A senior Iranian cleric has said that Neda Agha Soltan was killed by protesters, not Iranian security forces quelling unrest. "Forces of the government do not shoot at a lady standing in a side street," he said.
This is not a lie. This man believes what he has said. Caught up in his ideology, or theology, or myth, or ego, he is incapable of seeing the truth. And we are seeing so much of this in the world these days.
I prefer liars. At least you know they can think. And there's always the possibility - slim though it is - that their minds can be changed. There's nothing you can do with guys like this cleric, except to hope that their God teaches them something new, or wait for them to die and get out of the way.
This is not a lie. This man believes what he has said. Caught up in his ideology, or theology, or myth, or ego, he is incapable of seeing the truth. And we are seeing so much of this in the world these days.
I prefer liars. At least you know they can think. And there's always the possibility - slim though it is - that their minds can be changed. There's nothing you can do with guys like this cleric, except to hope that their God teaches them something new, or wait for them to die and get out of the way.
LOSS
Anderson Cooper Remembers Going To Studio 54 When He Was 10 With Michael Jackson (VIDEO)
This story, I think, capsulizes the Michael Jackson story. It's not Jackson we really want to think about. It's ourselves.
Michael Jackson, in himself, is not a loss to anyone but people who knew him personally. He is not likely to have produced any more meaningful art - he has produced nothing but personal oddities for the last twenty years. We have not lost the things of value he gave us. The music and the video is still here. We can see and hear the best of him any time.
If there is any meaningful sense of loss out there, beyond what the media is trying to engender, I guess it is that his death is a warning of our own mortality. He was a part of most people's lives. That part will die when we die. And that is unbearable. So, mourning Michael Jackson, we are mourning ourselves.
It's as if there's a fear that we have lost a part of our own myth. But we haven't. What we loved about Jackson is still with us. To put it rather crudely: the dinner we ate last night is gone. But, if it was brilliant, we'll remember it, and so it lives - for as long as we do.
This story, I think, capsulizes the Michael Jackson story. It's not Jackson we really want to think about. It's ourselves.
Michael Jackson, in himself, is not a loss to anyone but people who knew him personally. He is not likely to have produced any more meaningful art - he has produced nothing but personal oddities for the last twenty years. We have not lost the things of value he gave us. The music and the video is still here. We can see and hear the best of him any time.
If there is any meaningful sense of loss out there, beyond what the media is trying to engender, I guess it is that his death is a warning of our own mortality. He was a part of most people's lives. That part will die when we die. And that is unbearable. So, mourning Michael Jackson, we are mourning ourselves.
It's as if there's a fear that we have lost a part of our own myth. But we haven't. What we loved about Jackson is still with us. To put it rather crudely: the dinner we ate last night is gone. But, if it was brilliant, we'll remember it, and so it lives - for as long as we do.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
MARIA BELEN CHAPUR: Mark Sanford's Mistress (PHOTO, NEWS, VIDEO, INFO)
MARIA BELEN CHAPUR: Mark Sanford's Mistress (PHOTO, NEWS, VIDEO, INFO)
Whatever else has to be said, Sanford had excellent taste. I hope someone gets to interview her - I think we need to know what it was she saw in him.
Whatever else has to be said, Sanford had excellent taste. I hope someone gets to interview her - I think we need to know what it was she saw in him.
EXHAUSTING
Limbaugh Blames Sanford's Affair On Obama, Because Why Not?
I don't usually personalize this blog. But I need to point out that lately in my personal life I have come across a number of people (not you, Steve) who think precisely as Limbaugh does. I don't mean on his issues, I mean on theirs. Proposition 1: everything is somebody else's fault. Particularly if it really is their own fault. 2: if you disagree, then the somebody is you. 3: they not only distort the facts, they ignore them. 4: they have an attack-dog mindset. 5: they have an agenda even they are not aware of (Limbaugh, to his credit, is quite aware of his) having to do with the perceived need for self-defense and the conviction that the best defense is being offensive.
The abandonment of logic is becoming habitual.
I don't usually personalize this blog. But I need to point out that lately in my personal life I have come across a number of people (not you, Steve) who think precisely as Limbaugh does. I don't mean on his issues, I mean on theirs. Proposition 1: everything is somebody else's fault. Particularly if it really is their own fault. 2: if you disagree, then the somebody is you. 3: they not only distort the facts, they ignore them. 4: they have an attack-dog mindset. 5: they have an agenda even they are not aware of (Limbaugh, to his credit, is quite aware of his) having to do with the perceived need for self-defense and the conviction that the best defense is being offensive.
The abandonment of logic is becoming habitual.
SUSPENDED ANIMATION
It's to be assumed that 99.9% of the American press will be swimming in Michael Jackson today - and for a good time to come. But I had hoped that the only station I watch in prime time - MSNBC - would keep some perspective and not assume that the whole world was figuratively standing outside the hospital in LA or laying flowers on Jackson's star with their mouths hanging open in shock. I doubt they are doing that in Iran tonight.
But no. I gave up after a solid hour and a half of all-Jackson coverage. Poor Farrah Fawcett - what a fate. Never quite got her moment, and still can't.
Things have even slowed down at Nico Pitney's Iran liveblog. Maybe the whole world is in suspended animation, everyone trying to figure out what Michael Jackson's death means to them personally. Even Ahmadinejad. Nah, I don't think so.
But I can think of two people who are probably glad he died: Ayatollah Khamenei and Governor Sanford.
But no. I gave up after a solid hour and a half of all-Jackson coverage. Poor Farrah Fawcett - what a fate. Never quite got her moment, and still can't.
Things have even slowed down at Nico Pitney's Iran liveblog. Maybe the whole world is in suspended animation, everyone trying to figure out what Michael Jackson's death means to them personally. Even Ahmadinejad. Nah, I don't think so.
But I can think of two people who are probably glad he died: Ayatollah Khamenei and Governor Sanford.
MICHAEL
Not a great singer or songwriter, and certainly no great human being, but he had a brilliant sense of fashion and he moved his body better than anyone else I have ever seen. He was an athlete better than Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan. You had a reasonable expectation, once upon a time, of experiencing genius if you went to see him. The loss of a genius is usually a tragedy. But what I don't want to see, yet am already seeing, is this death knocking Iran off the front pages.
I don't know how long this story will boil, but it will simmer for years. Neverland will become another Graceland, even if it is not manipulated as post-Elvis Graceland was - although of course it will be. His face will soon start appearing on burnt toast. People have need of his blessing. I don't know why. But how sad never to see him move again.
I don't know how long this story will boil, but it will simmer for years. Neverland will become another Graceland, even if it is not manipulated as post-Elvis Graceland was - although of course it will be. His face will soon start appearing on burnt toast. People have need of his blessing. I don't know why. But how sad never to see him move again.
AIPAC AGAIN
"A Republican effort on Tuesday to cut off U.S. loans to some companies doing business with Iran will bring Congress deeper into the fray over the U.S. response to the Iranian elections," the congressional paper CQ reported earlier this week.
Adam Blickstein of the National Security Network, who calls the Iran provision "red meat for Ahmadinejad and the Khamenei regime," notes today that it was approved by committee and now is attached to a "must-pass" spending bill.
The man behind the measure is Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who has been highlighting the fact that the Israel lobby group AIPAC supports the measure. But Blickstein notes:
Keith Weissman, AIPAC's former top Iran analyst, strenuously disagreed with such initiatives, at least for right now. "The best policy now is, 'Do no harm,'" he said.
Neither sanctions nor diplomatic engagement has meaning now, since the country is in internal turmoil, Weissman explained: "What AIPAC is doing here is hurting the very people the U.S. and the rest of world would like to assist in Iran. Any kind of message like this just proves what the bad guys in Iran have been saying to their people for years. It makes it easier for them to hurt the people Obama is trying to help.
Adam Blickstein of the National Security Network, who calls the Iran provision "red meat for Ahmadinejad and the Khamenei regime," notes today that it was approved by committee and now is attached to a "must-pass" spending bill.
The man behind the measure is Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who has been highlighting the fact that the Israel lobby group AIPAC supports the measure. But Blickstein notes:
Keith Weissman, AIPAC's former top Iran analyst, strenuously disagreed with such initiatives, at least for right now. "The best policy now is, 'Do no harm,'" he said.
Neither sanctions nor diplomatic engagement has meaning now, since the country is in internal turmoil, Weissman explained: "What AIPAC is doing here is hurting the very people the U.S. and the rest of world would like to assist in Iran. Any kind of message like this just proves what the bad guys in Iran have been saying to their people for years. It makes it easier for them to hurt the people Obama is trying to help.
Wall Street Begins Campaign to Thwart ‘Populist Overreaction’ - Bloomberg.com
Wall Street Begins Campaign to Thwart ‘Populist Overreaction’ - Bloomberg.com
And it'll probably work.
And it'll probably work.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising
Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising
If the current reports are true, I am afraid this is reaching the point where the US - or preferably the UN - is going to have to do something meaningful. The next thing we're going to hear is that they've taken Moussavi, and that will be the crisis point.
If the current reports are true, I am afraid this is reaching the point where the US - or preferably the UN - is going to have to do something meaningful. The next thing we're going to hear is that they've taken Moussavi, and that will be the crisis point.
North Korea Threatens To Wipe Out The U.S. "Once And For All"
North Korea Threatens To Wipe Out The U.S. "Once And For All"
The question is whether they're all crazy, or just Kim. I can think of two reasons why he's doing this: either he's really insane or he's pissed that he's not getting enough attention from the rest of the world.
I wonder if there will come a day when there are no more crazy bastards in charge of governments. We got rid of one in 2000. Who's going to be next?
The question is whether they're all crazy, or just Kim. I can think of two reasons why he's doing this: either he's really insane or he's pissed that he's not getting enough attention from the rest of the world.
I wonder if there will come a day when there are no more crazy bastards in charge of governments. We got rid of one in 2000. Who's going to be next?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
THE LATTER
I'm glad the Iranian reform movement has adopted Neda as its martyr. They need one, But I've heard her described as "The Joan of Arc of Iran" - and I find it difficult to believe that the Iranians think of her in those terms. I think it's an American trope.
Firstly, I don't imagine that Iranians would describe their martyr by comparing her to a Christian warrior.
Secondly, Joan of Arc led armies. Neda was an innocent bystander. Only in America is the difference uncomprehended.
Americans routinely described victims as heroes. It's a very odd distortion of the nature of life. Neda undoubtedly took some conscious risk in merely going to the scene of the demonstrations. Her goal may have been some passive support or merely curiosity. But to compare this to Joan of Arc, who chose the risk of death in combat and chose not to recant, and so to suffer the death she got, is bizarre. Drawing an equivalence between purposely courting risk and simple bad luck isn't helpful if you want to accomplish something. But it's like comparing Steve Jobs to the guy who won the lottery. They're both rich, ain't they? And who is the better: the one who busted his ass for his wealth or the guy who had to do nothing? I sometimes think the American conclusion is the latter.
Firstly, I don't imagine that Iranians would describe their martyr by comparing her to a Christian warrior.
Secondly, Joan of Arc led armies. Neda was an innocent bystander. Only in America is the difference uncomprehended.
Americans routinely described victims as heroes. It's a very odd distortion of the nature of life. Neda undoubtedly took some conscious risk in merely going to the scene of the demonstrations. Her goal may have been some passive support or merely curiosity. But to compare this to Joan of Arc, who chose the risk of death in combat and chose not to recant, and so to suffer the death she got, is bizarre. Drawing an equivalence between purposely courting risk and simple bad luck isn't helpful if you want to accomplish something. But it's like comparing Steve Jobs to the guy who won the lottery. They're both rich, ain't they? And who is the better: the one who busted his ass for his wealth or the guy who had to do nothing? I sometimes think the American conclusion is the latter.
RECOUNT
Why are Westerners insisting on a recount in Iran, when it's pretty clear the ballots were never counted in the first place? Is it conceivable that the ballots now exist as they were voted - or exist at all?
What will hold Israel back from attacking Iran? And should they be held back at all?
As long as 1) there is a realistic possibility that the revolution could succeed - or maybe even an unrealistic one - and 2) the Iranians are not on the eve of having actual nukes, an attack could only be counterproductive. Let these events unfold.
What will hold Israel back from attacking Iran? And should they be held back at all?
As long as 1) there is a realistic possibility that the revolution could succeed - or maybe even an unrealistic one - and 2) the Iranians are not on the eve of having actual nukes, an attack could only be counterproductive. Let these events unfold.
Somalia Amputations Postponed Due To Weather
Somalia Amputations Postponed Due To Weather
This is just one example, but I suddenly had a vision that we are back in the day when Chinese Gordon was in Khartoum fighting the Mahdi. There were two worlds then, and there are two worlds now. And the struggle between them is happening in Iran.
This is just one example, but I suddenly had a vision that we are back in the day when Chinese Gordon was in Khartoum fighting the Mahdi. There were two worlds then, and there are two worlds now. And the struggle between them is happening in Iran.
Israel Defies Obama's Settlement Demand, Authorizes Construction Of 300 New Homes In West Bank
Israel Defies Obama's Settlement Demand, Authorizes Construction Of 300 New Homes In West Bank
What's he going to do about it?
What's he going to do about it?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Lingering Unemployment Likely to Challenge Obama and the Nation - washingtonpost.com
Lingering Unemployment Likely to Challenge Obama and the Nation - washingtonpost.com
Let's face it - only government employment will create jobs in this environment. Otherwise the former middle class is just screwed.
Let's face it - only government employment will create jobs in this environment. Otherwise the former middle class is just screwed.
TO THE BARRICADES
Tom Friedman writes that in order to overturn the alleged Iranian election results, the Iranian people are going to have to put their bodies in the path of the bullets. It's probably true, but it's so utterly graceless. It's as if he's gone beyond those who are demanding that Obama speak up more strongly and is himself demanding that the Iranians risk being killed. And anyone who believes that Friedman's concern is for the well-being of the Iranian people has not read Friedman's pieces for the last ten years. No, Friedman here establishes himself as the press' premier neocon.
What I'd like to ask Friedman is this: if the Iranians were telling you to go out and face bullets, would you do it? Or would you tell them to go to hell? I will bet you that Friedman would face no more bullets than Cheney or Bush did. Out of a sense of decency, he should just shut up.
But he makes an interesting point. He says the reformers are going to have to form a leadership, lay out their vision for Iran and keep voting in the streets - over and over and over. Change the word "Iran" to "America" and he has provided the prescription for how progressives can beat back the banks, the health care industry, bought and paid for congressmen and every other oppressive regime which operates in this country.
Tom Friedman says to the barricades, guys! Who are we to say no? And the good thing is, in America, you're somewhat less likely to get shot.
What I'd like to ask Friedman is this: if the Iranians were telling you to go out and face bullets, would you do it? Or would you tell them to go to hell? I will bet you that Friedman would face no more bullets than Cheney or Bush did. Out of a sense of decency, he should just shut up.
But he makes an interesting point. He says the reformers are going to have to form a leadership, lay out their vision for Iran and keep voting in the streets - over and over and over. Change the word "Iran" to "America" and he has provided the prescription for how progressives can beat back the banks, the health care industry, bought and paid for congressmen and every other oppressive regime which operates in this country.
Tom Friedman says to the barricades, guys! Who are we to say no? And the good thing is, in America, you're somewhat less likely to get shot.
WHY NO TANKS?
The key question to me is: why didn't the regime bring in the tanks and wipe out the demonstrators immediately? Until we know the answer to that question, we will not be able to understand what is going on in Iran. One thing seems clear, though: the longer they wait to do that, the more severe the consequences to them will be, both inside and outside Iran.
Speaking of which, on Meet the Press this morning Netanyahu made precisely the argument I outlined yesterday: no nation is going to allow a regime which kills its own people to get nukes. There will either be a revolution, or there will be some level of war with Iran.
Speaking of which, on Meet the Press this morning Netanyahu made precisely the argument I outlined yesterday: no nation is going to allow a regime which kills its own people to get nukes. There will either be a revolution, or there will be some level of war with Iran.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
CNN?
CNN spending more time telling us how brilliant they are than actually reporting the news. They keep telling us how closely they're following Twitter, and never telling us what's in the tweets. They're also claiming credit for a lot of stuff anyone can see at YouTube etc. I'm really learning to despise them.
AMERICAN TRIUMPH
What is happening in Iran, win or lose, is an American triumph.
Americans invented the internet, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. Americans have brought the world into Iran and Iran out to the world. But more directly, I think it's inarguable that the American overthrow of the Bush regime and the election of Obama are part of the motivation and timing for this uprising.
That being said, I do not believe Americans would have had the courage to do what these Iranians are doing if it became necessary. Or, in the future, becomes necessary.
So Americans can take credit for making it possible, but no credit at all for making it happen.
Americans invented the internet, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. Americans have brought the world into Iran and Iran out to the world. But more directly, I think it's inarguable that the American overthrow of the Bush regime and the election of Obama are part of the motivation and timing for this uprising.
That being said, I do not believe Americans would have had the courage to do what these Iranians are doing if it became necessary. Or, in the future, becomes necessary.
So Americans can take credit for making it possible, but no credit at all for making it happen.
WHY NOT?
Iran is not yet Tienanmen. They have not brought in tanks. In fact, the military doesn't seem to be involved.
Why not? Do they judge they're not needed? Or is it possible the military is not solid on this, from the government's point of view.
I'd like to hear about that.
UPDATE: Steve Loeb points to a Facebook mention that something which causes severe burns has been dropped out of helicopters. Whose helicopters are they?
Why not? Do they judge they're not needed? Or is it possible the military is not solid on this, from the government's point of view.
I'd like to hear about that.
UPDATE: Steve Loeb points to a Facebook mention that something which causes severe burns has been dropped out of helicopters. Whose helicopters are they?
HUMANS?
CNN is reporting video and tweets out of Iran. And the reporters are smiling! Are they human?
POLICY CHANGE WILL BE NECESSARY
The justification for, and the possibility of, future negotiations between the US and the Iranian regime is disappearing today. If the reform movement is crushed, Obama is going to have to announce that we will be treating Iran as an outlaw regime. The fact that Iran will use that statement to claim that the reform movement was a US plot will no longer have any relevance. Obama's policy has been wise - but today it begins to be unwise. Unless the reform movement continues to mount, there's no longer a reason for it.
I also suspect that the conclusion will have to be reached to unleash the Israelis to take out Iranian nuclear facilities. No one is going to tolerate this regime with nukes. That may turn the reformers against the US - but at that point there's little to lose, even if that happens.
This is going to embolden Israel. But there's nothing that can be done about that.
UPDATE: The policy change begins. Obama today:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
Obama's statement about the impossibility of suppressing ideas should, theoretically, resonate with the Iranian regime. If that statement was not true, Iran would now be ruled by the Shah. As it is, the present government is in the same position the Shah was in in 1979. It has the same legitimacy - none.
I also suspect that the conclusion will have to be reached to unleash the Israelis to take out Iranian nuclear facilities. No one is going to tolerate this regime with nukes. That may turn the reformers against the US - but at that point there's little to lose, even if that happens.
This is going to embolden Israel. But there's nothing that can be done about that.
UPDATE: The policy change begins. Obama today:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.
Obama's statement about the impossibility of suppressing ideas should, theoretically, resonate with the Iranian regime. If that statement was not true, Iran would now be ruled by the Shah. As it is, the present government is in the same position the Shah was in in 1979. It has the same legitimacy - none.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
WHAT ABOUT THEIR JOBS?
We're now approaching a week of ever huger demonstrations in Iran. But what I want to know is this: don't these millions have jobs? Are they all students or stay at home women or retired people? Are they all self-employed? Do they all have employers who don't care if they don't show up for work for a couple of weeks?
This is a very important question, because if they do have jobs, if I were the government I wouldn't attack or repress them in any way. I'd just wait until they had to go back to work, and then carry on as usual.
This is a very important question, because if they do have jobs, if I were the government I wouldn't attack or repress them in any way. I'd just wait until they had to go back to work, and then carry on as usual.
SUBTLE
Obama's tack on Iran is subtle and correct. That is the only thing now keeping me patient as he screws up on wars, Wall Street, gays and state secrecy. And threatens to screw up health care. And I know I'm forgetting at least one other thing.
Of course, subtlety is dangerous. As much as you can win with it, you can just as easily subtle yourself out of power.
Of course, subtlety is dangerous. As much as you can win with it, you can just as easily subtle yourself out of power.
IRAN
I think it is possible that the Iranian ruling circles are going to surrender to the protesters and either run another election or throw Ahmedinejad out. I think there is enough protest within the mullahs and everywhere else than Khamenei does not feel comfortable ordering a forceful crackdown. I have a feeling this is going to turn out better than I thought it possibly could.
But whether that's true or not, I'm glad I have lived to see the most dramatic demonstration for human freedom in my lifetime - MLK and 1968 quadrupled or more - something Americans would not have had the courage to do.
We are at a turning point, worldwide. I am following this minute by minute. I think the world may be in the process of becoming a better place.
But whether that's true or not, I'm glad I have lived to see the most dramatic demonstration for human freedom in my lifetime - MLK and 1968 quadrupled or more - something Americans would not have had the courage to do.
We are at a turning point, worldwide. I am following this minute by minute. I think the world may be in the process of becoming a better place.
EDDIE BAUER BANKRUPT
Good. If ever there was a worthless phony status conscious consumer conning company, that was it.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Rhode Island Will License Medical Marijuana Shops, Overriding Veto
Rhode Island Will License Medical Marijuana Shops, Overriding Veto
Sometimes I think I should never have left Rhode Island. And moved to Florida, for God's sake!
Sometimes I think I should never have left Rhode Island. And moved to Florida, for God's sake!
"Fire David Letterman" Protest Becomes Hatefest, Draws More Media Than Protesters
"Fire David Letterman" Protest Becomes Hatefest, Draws More Media Than Protesters
Fifteen people? And this gets top of the line coverage? Never let it be said the progressive media is less sensationalist than the tabloids. Shame on all of you.
Fifteen people? And this gets top of the line coverage? Never let it be said the progressive media is less sensationalist than the tabloids. Shame on all of you.
MySpace Layoffs: Slashing Workforce 30%
MySpace Layoffs: Slashing Workforce 30%
This is a bad sign. These jobs will never return, and the corporate intention is to keep the workforce small. Like I said, there are two ways they are regrowing the economy: boosting the Dow (fooling people into thinking things are better) and permanently cutting jobs. And where are the protests?
This is a bad sign. These jobs will never return, and the corporate intention is to keep the workforce small. Like I said, there are two ways they are regrowing the economy: boosting the Dow (fooling people into thinking things are better) and permanently cutting jobs. And where are the protests?
As Furor Over Palin Joke Rages, Letterman Rises in the Ratings - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com
As Furor Over Palin Joke Rages, Letterman Rises in the Ratings - Media Decoder Blog - NYTimes.com
And that's what it's all about.
And that's what it's all about.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
THEFT OR NOT?
Just before the 2004 elections, John Kerry was ahead in the polls, George Bush was despised, the war in Iraq was going badly ... yet Bush won.
There have been allegations of irregularities, but the consensus is that he won it by bringing out a surprisingly large number of supporters to the polls - in essence, a hidden majority very well organized and controlled. These were people who supported his war and defense policies and were in large part very actively Christian. And the surprised progressives claimed that Bush had stolen the election.
Anyone see any similarities to what just happened in Iran?
The allegations of fraud in Iran have considerably more factual support than did the claims of Bush fraud - but on the other hand until we know - if we ever do - exactly how the vote count was conducted and reported we can't know whether Ahmedinejad stole this election or won it legitimately. If I were Iran and I wanted to defuse the current situation I would very carefully lay out exactly how the results were arrived at. If they don't or can't, it's legitimate to assume this was a stolen election.
The hopeful sign - even assuming there was no theft - was that within two years the progressives here had beaten down what was potentially a very repressive regime led by a man whose ideology is a lot like Ahmedinejad's - not in the details but in the overall outlook of suspicion of and contempt for not only the rest of the world but a substantial number of his fellow citizens. So maybe ...
There have been allegations of irregularities, but the consensus is that he won it by bringing out a surprisingly large number of supporters to the polls - in essence, a hidden majority very well organized and controlled. These were people who supported his war and defense policies and were in large part very actively Christian. And the surprised progressives claimed that Bush had stolen the election.
Anyone see any similarities to what just happened in Iran?
The allegations of fraud in Iran have considerably more factual support than did the claims of Bush fraud - but on the other hand until we know - if we ever do - exactly how the vote count was conducted and reported we can't know whether Ahmedinejad stole this election or won it legitimately. If I were Iran and I wanted to defuse the current situation I would very carefully lay out exactly how the results were arrived at. If they don't or can't, it's legitimate to assume this was a stolen election.
The hopeful sign - even assuming there was no theft - was that within two years the progressives here had beaten down what was potentially a very repressive regime led by a man whose ideology is a lot like Ahmedinejad's - not in the details but in the overall outlook of suspicion of and contempt for not only the rest of the world but a substantial number of his fellow citizens. So maybe ...
Monday, June 15, 2009
WHY?
It seems clear that there was no interference with the actual election process in Iran. If in fact there was an 85% turnout, it was impossible for the paper ballots to have been counted in the 2-3 hours from when the polls closed until the "results" were announced. It couldn't be done in much of the U.S., as a matter of fact.
The regime said that announcement was possible because they had been keeping a running tally of the votes all day. If that were true - I doubt it, and I will tell you why - it would have been necessary that those running tallies all over the country be constantly communicated to the central government. What is completely unknown - and what needs to be Twittered out of Iran - was how the votes were handled. Once they were put in those boxes, what happened to them? When were they counted? Where were they put after they were counted? How were tallies kept? How were they reported?
I suspect all of this is irrelevant. Even before the voting started the army announced that they would ruthlessly crush any "revolution." They had to know they were going to get the reaction they did - and that means they knew ahead of time that the election was going to be stolen.
But if you're going to steal the election, why announce vote totals that make no sense? If the regime was, as it said, doing running tallies, they had to know how many votes Mousavi got, and they could have accommodated the obvious in their fix - which is why I don't believe they were keeping running tallies. But even if they weren't, they would have to have been blind not to be aware he was getting big totals. If they wanted their theft to be credible, why announce a blowout for Ahmedinijad, when a more reasonable split could have been "reported" which came close to reflecting the actual vote, with a small shift in the actual totals. Doing that would have neutralized opposition protests, because there would never be proof of fraud. But the vote ratio announced is itself proof of fraud. So why?
Did they assume there would be no protest? Then why pre-announce their intention to crush it? Did they think that pre-announcement would avert protest? That presupposes extreme naivete. Did they think a huge Ahmedinejad majority was necessary to legitimize him? How could they think that would possibly work in view of the actual vote? Did they think that a narrower margin would legitimize the reformers? Probably - but how did they think they were going to hide what actually happened when the election lines were visible and the polls were available to anyone?
The likely answer is that they didn't care. They were planning for repression, they are repressing, and they will continue to repress. Still, they look stupid. And nobody believes them. I guess, though, their theology protects them from that threat.
The regime said that announcement was possible because they had been keeping a running tally of the votes all day. If that were true - I doubt it, and I will tell you why - it would have been necessary that those running tallies all over the country be constantly communicated to the central government. What is completely unknown - and what needs to be Twittered out of Iran - was how the votes were handled. Once they were put in those boxes, what happened to them? When were they counted? Where were they put after they were counted? How were tallies kept? How were they reported?
I suspect all of this is irrelevant. Even before the voting started the army announced that they would ruthlessly crush any "revolution." They had to know they were going to get the reaction they did - and that means they knew ahead of time that the election was going to be stolen.
But if you're going to steal the election, why announce vote totals that make no sense? If the regime was, as it said, doing running tallies, they had to know how many votes Mousavi got, and they could have accommodated the obvious in their fix - which is why I don't believe they were keeping running tallies. But even if they weren't, they would have to have been blind not to be aware he was getting big totals. If they wanted their theft to be credible, why announce a blowout for Ahmedinijad, when a more reasonable split could have been "reported" which came close to reflecting the actual vote, with a small shift in the actual totals. Doing that would have neutralized opposition protests, because there would never be proof of fraud. But the vote ratio announced is itself proof of fraud. So why?
Did they assume there would be no protest? Then why pre-announce their intention to crush it? Did they think that pre-announcement would avert protest? That presupposes extreme naivete. Did they think a huge Ahmedinejad majority was necessary to legitimize him? How could they think that would possibly work in view of the actual vote? Did they think that a narrower margin would legitimize the reformers? Probably - but how did they think they were going to hide what actually happened when the election lines were visible and the polls were available to anyone?
The likely answer is that they didn't care. They were planning for repression, they are repressing, and they will continue to repress. Still, they look stupid. And nobody believes them. I guess, though, their theology protects them from that threat.
TERMINIX
Terminix is running an ad in which they say that cockroaches can carry 33 diseases, so you better get to them before they get to you. This is the point at which advertising becomes propaganda.
How many people get sick from contact with cockroaches? I don't know, but I bet it's miniscule. What's being done here is that a truth is being escalated through untruth to create fear to motivate people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do.
Just like the Nazis did. Just like the Republicans do.
Boycott Terminix.
How many people get sick from contact with cockroaches? I don't know, but I bet it's miniscule. What's being done here is that a truth is being escalated through untruth to create fear to motivate people to do something they wouldn't otherwise do.
Just like the Nazis did. Just like the Republicans do.
Boycott Terminix.
IT SHOULD BE
Jonah Goldberg says the word "neocon" is pejorative code for "Jew". What exactly is he saying - other than to make neocons out as victims?
The connection between neocon and Jew is rarely made, though it's obvious. Jews invented neoconservatism and continue to supply its intellectual underpinnings - such as they are. They are tied to the right in Israel. Much of their foreign policy is a reaction to the Holocaust.
Is Goldberg saying that most neocons are not Jews - which is untrue? Or that they are, and therefore opposition to neocons is antisemitism - which is also not true? What is clear is that Goldberg has made the neocon-Jew connection -which no non-Jew has dared to do.
The rest of us are lucky that they have not. Because if they understood what neocons have done, and that they're Jews, the antisemitic response would not be limited to neocons.
The connection between neocon and Jew is rarely made, though it's obvious. Jews invented neoconservatism and continue to supply its intellectual underpinnings - such as they are. They are tied to the right in Israel. Much of their foreign policy is a reaction to the Holocaust.
Is Goldberg saying that most neocons are not Jews - which is untrue? Or that they are, and therefore opposition to neocons is antisemitism - which is also not true? What is clear is that Goldberg has made the neocon-Jew connection -which no non-Jew has dared to do.
The rest of us are lucky that they have not. Because if they understood what neocons have done, and that they're Jews, the antisemitic response would not be limited to neocons.
PATHETIC
Nowadays jazz is pathetic. It's either elevator music or a bad copy of 50's genius or something no human can relate to or understand. We don't need it. Put it away.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
INTERESTING
There is here a lot of sympathy for and
romanticizing of the students in revolt in Iran, yet no nostalgia for 1968, even among those of us who participated in it.
Oh, well, I guess money is everything.
romanticizing of the students in revolt in Iran, yet no nostalgia for 1968, even among those of us who participated in it.
Oh, well, I guess money is everything.
COULD IT HAPPEN HERE?
The Iranian system gives theocrats the supreme power, while the day to day running of the state is left to conservative economic interests and the military.
We recently got very close to that. They are almost there in Israel, too.
And if they had achieved it here, at some point we'd see students riot, heads busted and brutal repression
We've already seen that here, too.
Don't get holier-than-thou.
We recently got very close to that. They are almost there in Israel, too.
And if they had achieved it here, at some point we'd see students riot, heads busted and brutal repression
We've already seen that here, too.
Don't get holier-than-thou.
DRAFT NOW
Today I read a post which said that the U S Army is recruiting neo-Nazis.
It's not bad enough that so many soldiers and officers come from the South, the increasingly isolated base of the radical right wing?
If we're going to preserve democracy, we need a draft.
It's not bad enough that so many soldiers and officers come from the South, the increasingly isolated base of the radical right wing?
If we're going to preserve democracy, we need a draft.
AT IT AGAIN!
My God, Tom Friedman is at it again! In his latest Times column, he claims that Bush's invasion of Iraq "opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades," and then goes on to credit the recent Lebanese election results and what is happening in Iran at least in part to Bush's war. God, he truly is a simple-minded twit.
It seems clear to everyone else that if there is anything America has done which has encouraged democracy in the Middle East, it was Obama's defeat of an obnoxious American regime and his hopeful opening to the Middle East, including his pressure on Israel. Does Friedman think that what's going on in Iran - I mean the good part, not the bad part - was motivated by the war in Iraq? Jeez. The war in Iraq motivated Iran to move out of its borders and try to take control of neighboring states, including Iraq. It did not motivate the Green Movement. Or is it fairer to say that events of 2009, and not of 2003, are more likely to have influenced recent Lebanese election results?
But keep trying, Tom. They seem to be paying you for it.
It seems clear to everyone else that if there is anything America has done which has encouraged democracy in the Middle East, it was Obama's defeat of an obnoxious American regime and his hopeful opening to the Middle East, including his pressure on Israel. Does Friedman think that what's going on in Iran - I mean the good part, not the bad part - was motivated by the war in Iraq? Jeez. The war in Iraq motivated Iran to move out of its borders and try to take control of neighboring states, including Iraq. It did not motivate the Green Movement. Or is it fairer to say that events of 2009, and not of 2003, are more likely to have influenced recent Lebanese election results?
But keep trying, Tom. They seem to be paying you for it.
KARL ROVE: PROPAGANDA: 12
Karl Rove, and Republicans in general, say over and over that if America adopts a single-payer health care system - or in fact in any way changes the current system - it will become the equivalent of a "European welfare state." What is the point of this propaganda axiom?
There is no such thing as a uni-definitional "European welfare state." Each European country has its own system and its own concept of which, if any, national social obligations exist, and which, if any, the government should undertake - in other words, what does each of their citizens owe to all of their citizens, and what responsibilities should each citizen have for all?
What's wrong with a "European welfare state"? In the health care context, they will toss out anecdotal evidence of people who did not get proper care - without noting that many Americans get no care at all, proper or otherwise.
Why are uninsured people ignored in this world view? It's the main reason they hold "European welfare states" in contempt. The real objection here is that a European welfare state redistributes wealth. What is not mentioned is that government, by definition, resdistributes wealth. If all you want of government is military protection, you still have to acknowledge that in providing it the government is taking money from all citizens and redistributing it to soldiers and, more importantly, to military contractors for services and goods.
From the Republican perspective, the problem is not really "redistribution of wealth" but from whom the money is taken and to whom it is given. The government of George Bush has been said to have presided over the greatest distribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich in the history of the world. It's resdistributing in the other direction Republicans despise. And that is what the "European welfare state" allegedly does.
When discussing redistribution of wealth, Republicans only mean redistribution down. Similarly, when they talk about activist judges, they only mean judges who take into consideration the interests of the less fortunate, or of the nation as a whole as opposed to the privileged class (which is why they are after Sotomayor who, truth be told, I am not convinced is not a closet Republican.)
What propaganda do you use to convince people who would benefit from redistribution down that they ought to hate the entire concept? Two things: American exceptionalism, and the evils of the social contract. You tell them in this great country anyone can be a billionaire, and anyone who isn't a billionaire or isn't trying to be a billionaire is not worth giving a moment's thought to, and certainly not worth giving a dollar to. They teach people that if they are not billionaires it's their own fault and they shouldn't complain about it. They hold out the hope to all that they can join the club, even though statistically the chances of that are minimal. And they tell you you have no obligation to anyone else.
Becoming a billionaire is like winning the lottery (except that hard work is understood to be required.) Everyone thinks they can win the lottery. Everyone thinks they are billionaires-in-process. Well - not everybody. But that is the propaganda message of the Republican party, which also includes the message that if you are not a billionaire-in-process you are un-American, because becoming a billionaire is what being an American is.
So you don't protest when the rich get richer, because someday you're going to share in that pie. What you don't realize is that, with a progressive tax system, you're already sharing in that pie. And that's why Republicans have some success - though not much - in preaching a flat tax, which is non-redistributive in the abstract and redistributes upward in practice, since it replaces progressive taxation.
Why is all this propaganda? Because the one thing the Republicans mean, but never say, is that their aim is to take your money and give it to themselves. And the definition of propaganda is to tell people that something bad is something good (or vice versa). If it wasn't that, you wouldn't need propaganda in the first place. Propaganda is fake truth hiding real truth. Why isn't the media saying so?
There is no such thing as a uni-definitional "European welfare state." Each European country has its own system and its own concept of which, if any, national social obligations exist, and which, if any, the government should undertake - in other words, what does each of their citizens owe to all of their citizens, and what responsibilities should each citizen have for all?
What's wrong with a "European welfare state"? In the health care context, they will toss out anecdotal evidence of people who did not get proper care - without noting that many Americans get no care at all, proper or otherwise.
Why are uninsured people ignored in this world view? It's the main reason they hold "European welfare states" in contempt. The real objection here is that a European welfare state redistributes wealth. What is not mentioned is that government, by definition, resdistributes wealth. If all you want of government is military protection, you still have to acknowledge that in providing it the government is taking money from all citizens and redistributing it to soldiers and, more importantly, to military contractors for services and goods.
From the Republican perspective, the problem is not really "redistribution of wealth" but from whom the money is taken and to whom it is given. The government of George Bush has been said to have presided over the greatest distribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich in the history of the world. It's resdistributing in the other direction Republicans despise. And that is what the "European welfare state" allegedly does.
When discussing redistribution of wealth, Republicans only mean redistribution down. Similarly, when they talk about activist judges, they only mean judges who take into consideration the interests of the less fortunate, or of the nation as a whole as opposed to the privileged class (which is why they are after Sotomayor who, truth be told, I am not convinced is not a closet Republican.)
What propaganda do you use to convince people who would benefit from redistribution down that they ought to hate the entire concept? Two things: American exceptionalism, and the evils of the social contract. You tell them in this great country anyone can be a billionaire, and anyone who isn't a billionaire or isn't trying to be a billionaire is not worth giving a moment's thought to, and certainly not worth giving a dollar to. They teach people that if they are not billionaires it's their own fault and they shouldn't complain about it. They hold out the hope to all that they can join the club, even though statistically the chances of that are minimal. And they tell you you have no obligation to anyone else.
Becoming a billionaire is like winning the lottery (except that hard work is understood to be required.) Everyone thinks they can win the lottery. Everyone thinks they are billionaires-in-process. Well - not everybody. But that is the propaganda message of the Republican party, which also includes the message that if you are not a billionaire-in-process you are un-American, because becoming a billionaire is what being an American is.
So you don't protest when the rich get richer, because someday you're going to share in that pie. What you don't realize is that, with a progressive tax system, you're already sharing in that pie. And that's why Republicans have some success - though not much - in preaching a flat tax, which is non-redistributive in the abstract and redistributes upward in practice, since it replaces progressive taxation.
Why is all this propaganda? Because the one thing the Republicans mean, but never say, is that their aim is to take your money and give it to themselves. And the definition of propaganda is to tell people that something bad is something good (or vice versa). If it wasn't that, you wouldn't need propaganda in the first place. Propaganda is fake truth hiding real truth. Why isn't the media saying so?
NEWT GINGRICH: PROPAGANDA: 11
Two recent statements by Newt Gingrich bear analyzing:
1) That he is not a citizen of the world.
This is a statement of American exceptionalism - that Americans are uniquely worthy and can do no wrong. Therefore we can only hurt ourselves by listening to anything any non-American says.
This dogma is absurd on its face and is unjustifiable - in other words, no intelligent reason can be given for why it should be true, and no facts can be asserted to back up its correctness. (The most likely explanation they'll give is that America is God's country, an assertion which can't be proved but can't be countered by reason.) It is a parallel of the Nazi doctrine of racial superiority and the Islamic extremist doctrine of God-based correctness, both of which were (and are) used to justify what can be described de minimis as anti-social behavior.
But in the American version there is a built-in flaw which works against the people who assert the doctrine. That is this: America changes regimes democratically, unlike Nazi Germany, and the doctrine assumes that whatever regime is in power in America can do no wrong. That means that the Obama administration can do no wrong, and that is certainly not what Gingrich wants to say. That is why Obama must be depicted as un-American, or alien, just as Jews, liberals and others were declared un-German by the Nazis. That's what the birth certificate nonsense is about, what "palling with terrorists" was about, etc. The corollary to Gingrich's exceptionalism is that only Republicans are truly American; exceptionalism applies only to them. And that is the total message of this part of the Republican propaganda panoply.
2) Health care is a human right which cannot be rationed by Washington. This one might be a bit too complex for its own good.
Asserting that there are universal human rights undercuts the doctrine of American exceptionalism. But contradictions like this are not a problem in propaganda. The Nazis contradicted themselves over and over again; they knew that in most cases their citizens had no idea of the contradictions and could not think deeply enough to comprehend their existence. Newt doesn't care if he's not making internal sense. He has a point to make, and a propaganda method to make it.
The point is the basic Republican point: that government is bad. Republicans have no need of government, except the military to protect wealth and the freedom to make it. The concept strangely parallels the Marxist idea of the withering away of the state - but the proposed Republican end result is the diametric opposite of the Marxist.
This Gingrich statement also contradicts itself. If health care is a human right, and so many people don't have it under the current private system, the obvious conclusion should be that the government should provide it. The obvious absurdity of Gingrich's statement shows again that logic is no part of propaganda; in fact logic is the enemy of propaganda. It's probable that most people can see through this absurdity. You can conclude that neither Gingrich nor Republicans in general are anywhere near as good as the Nazis were at this game. Their problem is that their assertion that government is bad (for everyone) can be easily shown to be false, and that in the American system there are people who can so show it. Asserting that Jews were bad was a much easier proposition.
But they will continue to try.
1) That he is not a citizen of the world.
This is a statement of American exceptionalism - that Americans are uniquely worthy and can do no wrong. Therefore we can only hurt ourselves by listening to anything any non-American says.
This dogma is absurd on its face and is unjustifiable - in other words, no intelligent reason can be given for why it should be true, and no facts can be asserted to back up its correctness. (The most likely explanation they'll give is that America is God's country, an assertion which can't be proved but can't be countered by reason.) It is a parallel of the Nazi doctrine of racial superiority and the Islamic extremist doctrine of God-based correctness, both of which were (and are) used to justify what can be described de minimis as anti-social behavior.
But in the American version there is a built-in flaw which works against the people who assert the doctrine. That is this: America changes regimes democratically, unlike Nazi Germany, and the doctrine assumes that whatever regime is in power in America can do no wrong. That means that the Obama administration can do no wrong, and that is certainly not what Gingrich wants to say. That is why Obama must be depicted as un-American, or alien, just as Jews, liberals and others were declared un-German by the Nazis. That's what the birth certificate nonsense is about, what "palling with terrorists" was about, etc. The corollary to Gingrich's exceptionalism is that only Republicans are truly American; exceptionalism applies only to them. And that is the total message of this part of the Republican propaganda panoply.
2) Health care is a human right which cannot be rationed by Washington. This one might be a bit too complex for its own good.
Asserting that there are universal human rights undercuts the doctrine of American exceptionalism. But contradictions like this are not a problem in propaganda. The Nazis contradicted themselves over and over again; they knew that in most cases their citizens had no idea of the contradictions and could not think deeply enough to comprehend their existence. Newt doesn't care if he's not making internal sense. He has a point to make, and a propaganda method to make it.
The point is the basic Republican point: that government is bad. Republicans have no need of government, except the military to protect wealth and the freedom to make it. The concept strangely parallels the Marxist idea of the withering away of the state - but the proposed Republican end result is the diametric opposite of the Marxist.
This Gingrich statement also contradicts itself. If health care is a human right, and so many people don't have it under the current private system, the obvious conclusion should be that the government should provide it. The obvious absurdity of Gingrich's statement shows again that logic is no part of propaganda; in fact logic is the enemy of propaganda. It's probable that most people can see through this absurdity. You can conclude that neither Gingrich nor Republicans in general are anywhere near as good as the Nazis were at this game. Their problem is that their assertion that government is bad (for everyone) can be easily shown to be false, and that in the American system there are people who can so show it. Asserting that Jews were bad was a much easier proposition.
But they will continue to try.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
PROPAGANDA: 10
Opening Arguments
- Conservative PR Firm That Repped Swift Boat Vets Now Helping Fight Sotomayor
All political or issue ads are propaganda. People only spend money on ads to convince people to do something.
If a candidate or a party or a real interest group puts up an ad, everyone knows what it's intended to accomplish, precisely because they know who put it up. Everyone knew who the Nazis were, and what they were saying. On this front at least, they rarely tried to hide anything.
The existence of this sort of propaganda is not dangerous in itself, because it is easily recognized for what it is. It becomes dangerous if the content is lies which cannot be easily recognized.
When an issue ad is put up by a fake-named group whose sole purpose for being is to propagandize, everyone can recognize the goal of the propaganda, but rarely can anyone understand its motivation - or, again, know if it is telling the truth. So, again, it becomes critical for the media not only to fact check the content but to reveal the motivations - who paid for the ad, who wrote it, and the ties and connections and history of all the people behind it. Only with that information can anyone make an informed decision as to whether or not to believe the content.
Let me put it bluntly: if so-called "journalism" doesn't perform this function, there is no purpose to its existence. Real journalists need to be divided from entertainers (which include just about every columnist), and a warning label needs to be put on the latter's product: "WARNING: THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE (or whatever) IS SOLELY THE ALLEGED OPINION OF THE AUTHOR. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS OR HER REASONS WERE FOR WRITING IT, OR WHAT PARTICULAR AX HE OR SHE HAS TO GRIND. UNLESS INCLUDED STATEMENTS ARE SOURCED, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED NO MORE VALUABLE THAN YOUR OWN OPINION - AND IF YOU TRUST YOUR OWN IGNORANT OPINION, YOU'RE A FOOL."
- Conservative PR Firm That Repped Swift Boat Vets Now Helping Fight Sotomayor
All political or issue ads are propaganda. People only spend money on ads to convince people to do something.
If a candidate or a party or a real interest group puts up an ad, everyone knows what it's intended to accomplish, precisely because they know who put it up. Everyone knew who the Nazis were, and what they were saying. On this front at least, they rarely tried to hide anything.
The existence of this sort of propaganda is not dangerous in itself, because it is easily recognized for what it is. It becomes dangerous if the content is lies which cannot be easily recognized.
When an issue ad is put up by a fake-named group whose sole purpose for being is to propagandize, everyone can recognize the goal of the propaganda, but rarely can anyone understand its motivation - or, again, know if it is telling the truth. So, again, it becomes critical for the media not only to fact check the content but to reveal the motivations - who paid for the ad, who wrote it, and the ties and connections and history of all the people behind it. Only with that information can anyone make an informed decision as to whether or not to believe the content.
Let me put it bluntly: if so-called "journalism" doesn't perform this function, there is no purpose to its existence. Real journalists need to be divided from entertainers (which include just about every columnist), and a warning label needs to be put on the latter's product: "WARNING: THE CONTENT OF THIS ARTICLE (or whatever) IS SOLELY THE ALLEGED OPINION OF THE AUTHOR. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HIS OR HER REASONS WERE FOR WRITING IT, OR WHAT PARTICULAR AX HE OR SHE HAS TO GRIND. UNLESS INCLUDED STATEMENTS ARE SOURCED, THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED NO MORE VALUABLE THAN YOUR OWN OPINION - AND IF YOU TRUST YOUR OWN IGNORANT OPINION, YOU'RE A FOOL."
National Briefing - Washington - Bush Lawyer Ordered to Testify - NYTimes.com
National Briefing - Washington - Bush Lawyer Ordered to Testify - NYTimes.com
And fuck Obama on this one. Thank you, judge.
And fuck Obama on this one. Thank you, judge.
WHAT NOW?
What does the US do about Iran now? Very tricky.
The goal is regime change and democratization. Does that mean encouraging counter-revolution? No; that will only get a lot of people killed. Will US military threats encourage democratization? No; they will likely have the opposite effect.
What the US needs to do is to hold out the promise that Iran will be welcomed into the community of nations once it is a true democracy. Beyond that, the best thing the US can do is infiltrate agents into Iran - not CIA, but MoveOn operatives and people from the Obama campaign, to help the reformists organize. The truth is that conditions in Iran right now are not much different from what they were here during the Bush Administration. The same skills that brought about regime change in the US can be and should be used in Iran.
The goal is regime change and democratization. Does that mean encouraging counter-revolution? No; that will only get a lot of people killed. Will US military threats encourage democratization? No; they will likely have the opposite effect.
What the US needs to do is to hold out the promise that Iran will be welcomed into the community of nations once it is a true democracy. Beyond that, the best thing the US can do is infiltrate agents into Iran - not CIA, but MoveOn operatives and people from the Obama campaign, to help the reformists organize. The truth is that conditions in Iran right now are not much different from what they were here during the Bush Administration. The same skills that brought about regime change in the US can be and should be used in Iran.
LETTERMAN-PALIN: PROPAGANDA 9
Now let's get down to the nitty-gritty manipulation involved here.
Why has Letterman been defending himself - and badly - instead of just telling Palin "You're ridiculous, fuck off"? The answer is simple.
Conan O'Brien has just taken over the Tonight Show. His viewership has been dropping nightly, and he's very vulnerable right now, as people decide whether he's an acceptable substitute for Leno. Letterman has actually topped him in the ratings, something which has rarely happened since Jack Paar. This whole thing with Palin is great for Letterman: people who don't like Palin want to support him, and people who do like Palin probably don't like Conan O'Brien - they will at least take a look at Palin's Devil to get a glimpse of the enemy and, who knows, maybe they'll stick with him. In the meantime, Letterman's name (linked with Palin's) is getting massive exposure across every form of media, which themselves are using this manufactured brouhaha to hype their ratings.
So Letterman and the rest of the media are getting increased ad revenues in return for helping Palin to attack the "liberal media" and implicitly all liberals, and to position herself for 2012. What the media get only matters to them. What Palin gets matters to everyone.
It's understandable, but it's depraved.
Why has Letterman been defending himself - and badly - instead of just telling Palin "You're ridiculous, fuck off"? The answer is simple.
Conan O'Brien has just taken over the Tonight Show. His viewership has been dropping nightly, and he's very vulnerable right now, as people decide whether he's an acceptable substitute for Leno. Letterman has actually topped him in the ratings, something which has rarely happened since Jack Paar. This whole thing with Palin is great for Letterman: people who don't like Palin want to support him, and people who do like Palin probably don't like Conan O'Brien - they will at least take a look at Palin's Devil to get a glimpse of the enemy and, who knows, maybe they'll stick with him. In the meantime, Letterman's name (linked with Palin's) is getting massive exposure across every form of media, which themselves are using this manufactured brouhaha to hype their ratings.
So Letterman and the rest of the media are getting increased ad revenues in return for helping Palin to attack the "liberal media" and implicitly all liberals, and to position herself for 2012. What the media get only matters to them. What Palin gets matters to everyone.
It's understandable, but it's depraved.
PROPAGANDA: 9
The other night Letterman said the following on his show: "One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game; during the seventh inning her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez."
It wasn't funny (Letterman rarely is). But it was a joke. It wasn't asserted as a statement of truth. No one could possibly have taken it as such. It did not advocate knocking up Palin's daughter. It did not advocate knocking up anyone. Now Palin is claiming all over the media that Letterman was promoting the date rape of her daughter. And the big issue for the media seems to be which daughter Letterman was talking about.
Now let's look at this in the context of propaganda.
Palin might sincerely believe that Letterman was promoting the date rape of her daughter. Let's assume, for the moment, that highly unlikely possibility. She is entitled to that opinion - but put it on the air? No sane media figure (excluding Fox types, obviously) can possibly believe that her opinion is correct.
No one can possibly believe that her umbrage is genuine, either. She herself played up the sexual activity of her kids, or at least one of them. The most Letterman can be accused of is implying that the Palins are rednecks - a fact which she herself used to tout quite proudly.
So Palin launches this false umbrage across the media. There is clearly a purpose to it, which makes it propaganda. It now becomes the media's duty - theoretically - to point out the purpose or purposes as well as to point out the absurdity of her position. This they have not done and will not do.
I can think of three possible purposes behind this propaganda. The most obvious is to keep Palin in the news. The second is to attack the "liberal media," personified by Letterman (while at the same time relentlessly using that media to attack itself - that Letterman has responded to this with anything but contempt shows how scared the media is of appearing "liberal." And that, by the way, is a symptom of the greatest propaganda victory the Republicans ever managed: branding liberals as treasonous, the media as liberal and therefore any media criticism of Republicans or conservatives as treason. Aside from the fact that all these assertions are untrue, this is a classic example of the kinds of misuse of logic that the Nazis pioneered. Substitute "Jew" for "liberal" and you'll see what I mean.)
The third possible purpose is somewhat unclear, although it is necessarily intended to advance some ideological position. What position exactly? Hard to say. Sex is bad? Rape is bad? Dating is bad? Liberals are bad? Jokes are bad? Baseball is bad? All Palins are good? God is good? God hates sex but loves slutty looking women?
The truth is, as the Nazis knew, that it is sometimes better not to be clear as to the purpose of your propaganda. Or, to put it another way, the specifics don't matter. In this case, Palin is simply putting a message out there which involves sex and "little girls," and leaving the target mind to come to its own conclusions as to what the message is. They infer from the umbrage that someone has done something bad, and it's someone they don't like who's done it, and therefore Palin is a victim, just like them, and they should share her outrage even if they have no real idea what she's outraged about. As a result of something someone said which actually had no intrinsic meaning, Palin draws to herself the voting power of idiots.
And that, in fact, is what propaganda is supposed to do. The skill of the propagandist determines the level of brainpower a proposition will reach and convert. Palin's stuff is pretty basic, moron-influencing level. But when the media throws it out en masse, over and over, without ever questioning not only what she's saying but whether anyone should bother listening, the level of brainpower the proposition reaches gets higher with each repetition (again a Nazi technique.)
And the kicker is that the debate is now not about what Letterman said or whether Palin's charges have any merit, but about which kid Letterman meant. Even Letterman is implying that's it not okay to promote sex with a 14 year old, but it's okay to promote sex with an 18 year old - completely ignoring the fact that he wasn't promoting sex AT ALL! Once the propaganda point becomes accepted and the debate moves on to subtleties, the game is over. The propagandist has won.
This is the world we are living in, and the sooner people understand it the healthier their minds will stay.
It wasn't funny (Letterman rarely is). But it was a joke. It wasn't asserted as a statement of truth. No one could possibly have taken it as such. It did not advocate knocking up Palin's daughter. It did not advocate knocking up anyone. Now Palin is claiming all over the media that Letterman was promoting the date rape of her daughter. And the big issue for the media seems to be which daughter Letterman was talking about.
Now let's look at this in the context of propaganda.
Palin might sincerely believe that Letterman was promoting the date rape of her daughter. Let's assume, for the moment, that highly unlikely possibility. She is entitled to that opinion - but put it on the air? No sane media figure (excluding Fox types, obviously) can possibly believe that her opinion is correct.
No one can possibly believe that her umbrage is genuine, either. She herself played up the sexual activity of her kids, or at least one of them. The most Letterman can be accused of is implying that the Palins are rednecks - a fact which she herself used to tout quite proudly.
So Palin launches this false umbrage across the media. There is clearly a purpose to it, which makes it propaganda. It now becomes the media's duty - theoretically - to point out the purpose or purposes as well as to point out the absurdity of her position. This they have not done and will not do.
I can think of three possible purposes behind this propaganda. The most obvious is to keep Palin in the news. The second is to attack the "liberal media," personified by Letterman (while at the same time relentlessly using that media to attack itself - that Letterman has responded to this with anything but contempt shows how scared the media is of appearing "liberal." And that, by the way, is a symptom of the greatest propaganda victory the Republicans ever managed: branding liberals as treasonous, the media as liberal and therefore any media criticism of Republicans or conservatives as treason. Aside from the fact that all these assertions are untrue, this is a classic example of the kinds of misuse of logic that the Nazis pioneered. Substitute "Jew" for "liberal" and you'll see what I mean.)
The third possible purpose is somewhat unclear, although it is necessarily intended to advance some ideological position. What position exactly? Hard to say. Sex is bad? Rape is bad? Dating is bad? Liberals are bad? Jokes are bad? Baseball is bad? All Palins are good? God is good? God hates sex but loves slutty looking women?
The truth is, as the Nazis knew, that it is sometimes better not to be clear as to the purpose of your propaganda. Or, to put it another way, the specifics don't matter. In this case, Palin is simply putting a message out there which involves sex and "little girls," and leaving the target mind to come to its own conclusions as to what the message is. They infer from the umbrage that someone has done something bad, and it's someone they don't like who's done it, and therefore Palin is a victim, just like them, and they should share her outrage even if they have no real idea what she's outraged about. As a result of something someone said which actually had no intrinsic meaning, Palin draws to herself the voting power of idiots.
And that, in fact, is what propaganda is supposed to do. The skill of the propagandist determines the level of brainpower a proposition will reach and convert. Palin's stuff is pretty basic, moron-influencing level. But when the media throws it out en masse, over and over, without ever questioning not only what she's saying but whether anyone should bother listening, the level of brainpower the proposition reaches gets higher with each repetition (again a Nazi technique.)
And the kicker is that the debate is now not about what Letterman said or whether Palin's charges have any merit, but about which kid Letterman meant. Even Letterman is implying that's it not okay to promote sex with a 14 year old, but it's okay to promote sex with an 18 year old - completely ignoring the fact that he wasn't promoting sex AT ALL! Once the propaganda point becomes accepted and the debate moves on to subtleties, the game is over. The propagandist has won.
This is the world we are living in, and the sooner people understand it the healthier their minds will stay.
Iran Election Results: Ahmadinejad Declared Winner By Govt
Iran Election Results: Ahmadinejad Declared Winner By Govt
It's Tienanmen, for now.
The interesting detail in this story is their admission that Moussavi won Tehran. That detail could corroborate the overall vote total, because most of the media coverage of reformists in the street focused on Tehran. It was always known that Ahmedinejad was stronger in the countryside, and that makes sense. Reform is always an urban imperative. The countryside is always conservative.
So Iran is now where we were in 2000, or maybe 2004. The question is whether the reformists are going to do the work that MoveOn and the Democrats did - and Obama did - to get us to 2008. It appears they understand what needs to be done. But will they stick to it, and will the government leave them alone?
It's Tienanmen, for now.
The interesting detail in this story is their admission that Moussavi won Tehran. That detail could corroborate the overall vote total, because most of the media coverage of reformists in the street focused on Tehran. It was always known that Ahmedinejad was stronger in the countryside, and that makes sense. Reform is always an urban imperative. The countryside is always conservative.
So Iran is now where we were in 2000, or maybe 2004. The question is whether the reformists are going to do the work that MoveOn and the Democrats did - and Obama did - to get us to 2008. It appears they understand what needs to be done. But will they stick to it, and will the government leave them alone?
Friday, June 12, 2009
PROPAGANDA:8
What is clearly propaganda anywhere else is called "opinion" in America. And, in America, if you can make enough noise, the press will call on you when, they believe, they need to present two sides of the relevant issue, even if in truth there is only one credible side. The press is not thinking about truth here - it is thinking about theater. It wants conflict. You can provide it.
Aside from the fact that this opinion is never tested against either fact or common sense, there is another big problem with conflating opinion and propaganda. An opinion is something you believe. Propaganda is a strategy for making others believe it and therefore follow or support a mass course of action.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, crazy or not. No one else has to consider it - although when the press considers it to the extent of giving it air time,you would think they'd understand that they owe it to the public to at least have searched for some support for it.
Propaganda, though, because of its purpose, is a societal concern. Judgment must be applied to it. At the very least, the press must understand and tell us why the statement is being said, what the purpose behind it Is. It would certainly be nice if they would go a little further and tell us, based on their research and analysis, whether it is correct or not, and why.
The American press hardly ever does either. And so they become, whether they know it or not, a propaganda weapon. If they don't care whether what they present is or is not true, they are not the press, they are PR, and they get paid for their service in access.
If you come across a program which presents two sides and gives you nothing independently with which to frame those sides, that program is a propaganda tool, and if they're smart, they know it. They will also know which side will win the "debate" because they've judged it not on it's truth but on its entertainment value. And man bites dog will always beat dog bites man.
Aside from the fact that this opinion is never tested against either fact or common sense, there is another big problem with conflating opinion and propaganda. An opinion is something you believe. Propaganda is a strategy for making others believe it and therefore follow or support a mass course of action.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion, crazy or not. No one else has to consider it - although when the press considers it to the extent of giving it air time,you would think they'd understand that they owe it to the public to at least have searched for some support for it.
Propaganda, though, because of its purpose, is a societal concern. Judgment must be applied to it. At the very least, the press must understand and tell us why the statement is being said, what the purpose behind it Is. It would certainly be nice if they would go a little further and tell us, based on their research and analysis, whether it is correct or not, and why.
The American press hardly ever does either. And so they become, whether they know it or not, a propaganda weapon. If they don't care whether what they present is or is not true, they are not the press, they are PR, and they get paid for their service in access.
If you come across a program which presents two sides and gives you nothing independently with which to frame those sides, that program is a propaganda tool, and if they're smart, they know it. They will also know which side will win the "debate" because they've judged it not on it's truth but on its entertainment value. And man bites dog will always beat dog bites man.
AL JAZEERA REPORTS
Al Jazeera is reporting that after the Iranian government reported, some two hours after the polls closed, that Ahmedinejad had won with 69% of the vote, journalists had expressed surprise at the speed and "conviction" of the vote counting. After all, the turnout was so huge - 80% turnout - that the polls were kept open six hours longer than originally intended.
And what was the government's explanation? That they had been counting votes all day and kept a running tally.
Now - you can't do that in America. Votes are not counted in any way - except by exit polling - until the polls close. Why would the government keep a running tally? Two reasons, I suspect: first so they'd know how much trouble they were in, and second, so they could fix it. Although, as I said before, reporting a 69% victory seems less likely to fix it than to blow it up.
I wonder if Moussavi has exit polls.
It's already being said that the government allowed the generally joyous expression of democracy at the ballot box and before to give people the impression that there was, in fact, democracy - with every intention of fixing the results later.
All the speculation is what's going to happen next. Here's my answer: think Hungary in 1956, think Czechoslovakia in 1968, think Tienanmen Square. And remember this: in none of those cases did an indigenous democracy movement ever succeed, not then or at any time thereafter. Hungary and Czechoslovakia, or whatever they call themselves now, are not free due to freedom movements. They are free due to the collapse of Soviet Russia, and the Chinese have more freedom now only because the Chinese government has turned capitalist.
There are going to be some very sad people in Iran.
And what was the government's explanation? That they had been counting votes all day and kept a running tally.
Now - you can't do that in America. Votes are not counted in any way - except by exit polling - until the polls close. Why would the government keep a running tally? Two reasons, I suspect: first so they'd know how much trouble they were in, and second, so they could fix it. Although, as I said before, reporting a 69% victory seems less likely to fix it than to blow it up.
I wonder if Moussavi has exit polls.
It's already being said that the government allowed the generally joyous expression of democracy at the ballot box and before to give people the impression that there was, in fact, democracy - with every intention of fixing the results later.
All the speculation is what's going to happen next. Here's my answer: think Hungary in 1956, think Czechoslovakia in 1968, think Tienanmen Square. And remember this: in none of those cases did an indigenous democracy movement ever succeed, not then or at any time thereafter. Hungary and Czechoslovakia, or whatever they call themselves now, are not free due to freedom movements. They are free due to the collapse of Soviet Russia, and the Chinese have more freedom now only because the Chinese government has turned capitalist.
There are going to be some very sad people in Iran.
RUSSERT
Why is Tim Russert so revered? His questions were not particularly incisive. His command of issues was spotty. I understand he was a great guy, but that makes him a celebrity, not a reporter. Do we know whether Ed Murrow's father was a wonderful man? Do we even know if he had a father?
Mobile Blogging from here.
Mobile Blogging from here.
OLBERMANN HALF GETS AT IT
I have been upset with Keith Olbermann for constantly promoting the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and Coulter by devoting a good part of his show to attacking them. Once begun on my series on propaganda, however, I have come to realize that he is performing an important service - since he is the only TV commentator to point out their lies.
What he is not doing, however, is calling them out for what they are - the Republican equivalents of Joseph Goebbels. I wish he would use the word "propaganda". I've already said why.
What he is not doing, however, is calling them out for what they are - the Republican equivalents of Joseph Goebbels. I wish he would use the word "propaganda". I've already said why.
PROPAGANDA: 7
The Nazis tailored their propaganda not just to accomplish what I've already laid out, but also to set out what would in normal times be shocking propositions. They knew that shocking statements got everyone's attention. Some would agree with them and some would not, but by making the shocking statement and repeating it, the shocking statement would become a part of the national dialog, or legitimized, and that is halfway to having it generally accepted. Or let's look at it this way: the shocking statement repeated often enough no longer is shocking. People get tired of hearing it (unless they're sociopaths), and so they get tired of refuting it, either to others or to themselves.
The Nazis had enough press outlets to keep making these shocking statements. I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the mainstream press then would have been inclined to pick these statements up - or that in fact, in their day, there was such a thing as a mainstream press. (Most if not all press outlets of that time were controlled by or allied with a particular political faction, and would not likely promote the positions of others. The mainstream press as we know it is relatively recently born - and, it would appear from what we see nowadays, born incomplete. Like a Thalidomide baby, it's often deformed, in that it is missing the moral underpinning or the capacity for thought that one is expected to be given at birth.)
That the mainstream press is now eager to pick such statements up gives the Republicans a wider platform to put them on. In that way, Republican propaganda is abetted even by those who might personally disbelieve it. They print it or they talk about it because it sells, and it sells because it shocks, and when it shocks it entertains.
The orchestrated campaign to label Sonia Sotomayor a racist is not only a perfect example of Republican shock tactics, but also of the willingness of the mainstream press to trumpet them. This is a confluence of amorality: the Republicans in coming up with patently false and exaggerated assertions, and the media in printing or talking about them without, in most cases, making any judgment as to their validity. As masters of propaganda, Republicans have learned - since Richard Nixon was defeated by his televised sweat - what you can do with television. It's as if they have taken Orwell's "1984" and used it as a handbook of effective techniques.
And yet I haven't heard even the most liberal commentators call it for what it is: propaganda. The word has a bad connotation since the 1950's - but it is entirely accurate to describe what Republicans are doing. Why not let the appropriate connotations fall on them? This I simply do not understand.
The Nazis had enough press outlets to keep making these shocking statements. I'm not sure, but I don't believe that the mainstream press then would have been inclined to pick these statements up - or that in fact, in their day, there was such a thing as a mainstream press. (Most if not all press outlets of that time were controlled by or allied with a particular political faction, and would not likely promote the positions of others. The mainstream press as we know it is relatively recently born - and, it would appear from what we see nowadays, born incomplete. Like a Thalidomide baby, it's often deformed, in that it is missing the moral underpinning or the capacity for thought that one is expected to be given at birth.)
That the mainstream press is now eager to pick such statements up gives the Republicans a wider platform to put them on. In that way, Republican propaganda is abetted even by those who might personally disbelieve it. They print it or they talk about it because it sells, and it sells because it shocks, and when it shocks it entertains.
The orchestrated campaign to label Sonia Sotomayor a racist is not only a perfect example of Republican shock tactics, but also of the willingness of the mainstream press to trumpet them. This is a confluence of amorality: the Republicans in coming up with patently false and exaggerated assertions, and the media in printing or talking about them without, in most cases, making any judgment as to their validity. As masters of propaganda, Republicans have learned - since Richard Nixon was defeated by his televised sweat - what you can do with television. It's as if they have taken Orwell's "1984" and used it as a handbook of effective techniques.
And yet I haven't heard even the most liberal commentators call it for what it is: propaganda. The word has a bad connotation since the 1950's - but it is entirely accurate to describe what Republicans are doing. Why not let the appropriate connotations fall on them? This I simply do not understand.
80%-20%?
Initial reports from Iranian government sources are that Ahmedinajad has 80% of the votes so far counted.
Is this fix in? We'll never know. But considering that the texting medium most often used by the reformers suddenly went off the air, and several of their web sites were blocked - and considering the army announced before the vote that any "revolutionary activities" - i.e., vote protests - would be "crushed," the answer has to be: probably.
If the vote totals are ultimately reported in the same ratio as now, there is an important question to be asked. If you were going to fix an election, would you report vote totals for a candidate which, by observation of facts on the ground, clearly could not be true? Wouldn't you make it look close, to keep protest under control?
There are two possible reasons Iran might not do that:
1) They simply are unable to admit the strength of the reform movement. This is essentially the absolutist mode - the same kind of thinking that brought down the Shah.
2) They specifically picked figures which would provoke protest - so they could find the protesters and put an end to them.
Neither of these bodes well for the immediate future. Two critical questions will arise: will outrage fuel a revolution, or at least continued growth in reform strength, or will the reform movement fade away like the Chinese movement, bought off (maybe) by prosperity? And, if the former, how many people will die?
Is this fix in? We'll never know. But considering that the texting medium most often used by the reformers suddenly went off the air, and several of their web sites were blocked - and considering the army announced before the vote that any "revolutionary activities" - i.e., vote protests - would be "crushed," the answer has to be: probably.
If the vote totals are ultimately reported in the same ratio as now, there is an important question to be asked. If you were going to fix an election, would you report vote totals for a candidate which, by observation of facts on the ground, clearly could not be true? Wouldn't you make it look close, to keep protest under control?
There are two possible reasons Iran might not do that:
1) They simply are unable to admit the strength of the reform movement. This is essentially the absolutist mode - the same kind of thinking that brought down the Shah.
2) They specifically picked figures which would provoke protest - so they could find the protesters and put an end to them.
Neither of these bodes well for the immediate future. Two critical questions will arise: will outrage fuel a revolution, or at least continued growth in reform strength, or will the reform movement fade away like the Chinese movement, bought off (maybe) by prosperity? And, if the former, how many people will die?
Joel B. Schwartzberg: Is "Change" Also an Iranian Election Theme?
Joel B. Schwartzberg: Is "Change" Also an Iranian Election Theme?
If you were alive in 1968, does what's in the above article sound familiar?
Including the turn to the right of the 1979 Iranian revolution, we have lived now through 30+ years of right wing dominance. That dominance has been so deep, particularly in all the monotheistic faiths, that it was difficult to completely dismiss their claims that we were headed for the Apocalypse. And we are not clear of it yet.
But it just may be that we are seeing the turning of the wheel.
Comparing what's happened in the US and what's happening in Iran to 1968 is actually not encouraging. 1968 marked the emergence of Nixon and the beginning of the end of nearly forty years of liberal dominance. Woodstock Nation lasted only about four years, to the date of the deaths at Kent State. That's not a promising track record for joyous politics.
The other memory of importance is that while the conservative dominance period was just about worldwide, the liberal dominance period beginning in 1932 in the US was anything but worldwide. If it had been worldwide, there would have been no World War II. Postwar, Communism turned to the right. So there has been no time when liberalism was worldwide, as opposed to many times when conservatism has been. It should also be noted that liberal revolutions in 1789 and 1871 did not produce long-standing liberal dominance; those revolutions did produce ideas which led to later revolutions, but those revolutions turned conservative pretty quickly.
So there is not much precedent for a long period of worldwide liberal dominance. Hopefully, the internet, which has led to the spread of the concept of "world citizen" which Newt Gingrich despises, may have created the conditions which will change all that. If not, I suggest that if Moussavi wins in Iran, we enjoy that triumph as long as we can - which may not be any longer than the moment of joy when the Chinese rose up in Tienanmin Square.
If you were alive in 1968, does what's in the above article sound familiar?
Including the turn to the right of the 1979 Iranian revolution, we have lived now through 30+ years of right wing dominance. That dominance has been so deep, particularly in all the monotheistic faiths, that it was difficult to completely dismiss their claims that we were headed for the Apocalypse. And we are not clear of it yet.
But it just may be that we are seeing the turning of the wheel.
Comparing what's happened in the US and what's happening in Iran to 1968 is actually not encouraging. 1968 marked the emergence of Nixon and the beginning of the end of nearly forty years of liberal dominance. Woodstock Nation lasted only about four years, to the date of the deaths at Kent State. That's not a promising track record for joyous politics.
The other memory of importance is that while the conservative dominance period was just about worldwide, the liberal dominance period beginning in 1932 in the US was anything but worldwide. If it had been worldwide, there would have been no World War II. Postwar, Communism turned to the right. So there has been no time when liberalism was worldwide, as opposed to many times when conservatism has been. It should also be noted that liberal revolutions in 1789 and 1871 did not produce long-standing liberal dominance; those revolutions did produce ideas which led to later revolutions, but those revolutions turned conservative pretty quickly.
So there is not much precedent for a long period of worldwide liberal dominance. Hopefully, the internet, which has led to the spread of the concept of "world citizen" which Newt Gingrich despises, may have created the conditions which will change all that. If not, I suggest that if Moussavi wins in Iran, we enjoy that triumph as long as we can - which may not be any longer than the moment of joy when the Chinese rose up in Tienanmin Square.
PROPAGANDA: 6
Particularly in the pre-power stage, Nazi propaganda was far more effective when it was destructive rather than constructive. Most of it was directed at bringing the enemy down. Statements as to what the Nazis would do if they had power were ancillary at best, to put a positive gloss on what was essentially negative. Most of what the Nazis said they would do in power they never actually intended to do - except for the promise they constantly made to destroy the opposition.
Republicans these days have one-upped the Nazis. They are hardly bothering to put a gloss on the negative. Just about everything Republicans say these days is nihilistic. You would have next to no idea of what they would do if they were in power if it were not for the eight years of evidence which you can fit into their nearly total lack of statements of positive goals.
Republicans these days have one-upped the Nazis. They are hardly bothering to put a gloss on the negative. Just about everything Republicans say these days is nihilistic. You would have next to no idea of what they would do if they were in power if it were not for the eight years of evidence which you can fit into their nearly total lack of statements of positive goals.
PROPAGANDA: 5
Key to Nazi success in propaganda was their ability to suppress facts and to create alternative realities. Before coming to power, they had little ability to suppress facts except by physically intimidating intellectuals and scientists. To some extent by co-opting both and bringing them into the party, they could suppress truth by convincing them either that the Nazi view was correct or that it was in the greater interest of Germany for them to pretend these views were correct. This was true of intellectuals outside Germany as well, for example those who were invited to celebrations of the fifth centenary of Heidelberg University and, wittingly or unwittingly, by attending seemed to express approval of the Nazi system. They were much more effective through use of the Big Lie technique, which they invented, and which consisted of endless repetition of the same untruth until it became generally accepted as the truth.
Greatly enhancing the Nazis' success with this technique was their understanding, as Hitler put it in Mein Kampf, that: "Hate is more lasting than dislike, and the thrusting power for the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times come less from scientific recognition than from a fanaticism that fills the souls of the masses and in a forward driving hysteria." So, the Big Lie technique was used not just to propagate something untrue, but untruths which caused Germans to hate the other, and played upon and increased already existing hate or distrust.
Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf: "Propaganda ... does not have to seek objectively for the truth so far as it favors an opponent .. but exclusively has to serve our interests .. Whenever our propaganda permits for a single moment the shimmer of an appearance of right on the other side, it has laid a foundation for doubt in the right of our cause ..."
When in power, Republicans relentlessly repressed truth, for example by controlling what was released by Federal agencies (such as the EPA with regard to global warming and the FDA with regard to health risks). Theirs was the most secretive regime in American history. Both in and out of power, they have also been the most effective at using the Big Lie through coordinated repetition of false propositions which the public has no capacity to independently see through, and the contemptuous denigration and ridicule of any source of the actual truth. Examples of this are everywhere - such as the aberrational belief that Obama is not an American citizen, or that he's a socialist. Like the Nazis, Republicans intend these lies to birth, not a rational questioning of the positions of the opposition, but hatred of the opposition itself. Had not the press ultimately awakened to Republican practice of the Big Lie, far more Americans would now believe things which are patently untrue.
There is one more element to this. In order for a Big Lie to spread, it must catch the public imagination. That is, it must be the sort of statement which has the capacity to fascinate. Saying that the economy is not growing, when in fact it is, is not such a statement. Saying Obama is a Muslim is. I suspect that's because many Americans suspect that there is a rotten underside to everything - a conception on which the tabloids, and conspiracy theorists, feed. What's interesting about this predisposition to believe that things are not what they seem is that it does not lead these Americans to suspect that Republicans are not what they seem, and that what Republicans say is not the truth. That, I think, is because Republicans are "exposing" the rotten underside of their opposition - i.e., giving these people what they want to hear. To some extent, once the press began exposing the rotten underside of Republicans, they created some disbelief in Republicans and Republican statements. The Mark Foley matter comes to mind, or the gay sex in the airport bathroom in Minnesota. The problem is that these matters are simple, black and white and involve illicit sex. More complex exposures of Republican lies are harder to understand and not titillating, making it much more difficult to cause them to catch on.
Greatly enhancing the Nazis' success with this technique was their understanding, as Hitler put it in Mein Kampf, that: "Hate is more lasting than dislike, and the thrusting power for the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times come less from scientific recognition than from a fanaticism that fills the souls of the masses and in a forward driving hysteria." So, the Big Lie technique was used not just to propagate something untrue, but untruths which caused Germans to hate the other, and played upon and increased already existing hate or distrust.
Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf: "Propaganda ... does not have to seek objectively for the truth so far as it favors an opponent .. but exclusively has to serve our interests .. Whenever our propaganda permits for a single moment the shimmer of an appearance of right on the other side, it has laid a foundation for doubt in the right of our cause ..."
When in power, Republicans relentlessly repressed truth, for example by controlling what was released by Federal agencies (such as the EPA with regard to global warming and the FDA with regard to health risks). Theirs was the most secretive regime in American history. Both in and out of power, they have also been the most effective at using the Big Lie through coordinated repetition of false propositions which the public has no capacity to independently see through, and the contemptuous denigration and ridicule of any source of the actual truth. Examples of this are everywhere - such as the aberrational belief that Obama is not an American citizen, or that he's a socialist. Like the Nazis, Republicans intend these lies to birth, not a rational questioning of the positions of the opposition, but hatred of the opposition itself. Had not the press ultimately awakened to Republican practice of the Big Lie, far more Americans would now believe things which are patently untrue.
There is one more element to this. In order for a Big Lie to spread, it must catch the public imagination. That is, it must be the sort of statement which has the capacity to fascinate. Saying that the economy is not growing, when in fact it is, is not such a statement. Saying Obama is a Muslim is. I suspect that's because many Americans suspect that there is a rotten underside to everything - a conception on which the tabloids, and conspiracy theorists, feed. What's interesting about this predisposition to believe that things are not what they seem is that it does not lead these Americans to suspect that Republicans are not what they seem, and that what Republicans say is not the truth. That, I think, is because Republicans are "exposing" the rotten underside of their opposition - i.e., giving these people what they want to hear. To some extent, once the press began exposing the rotten underside of Republicans, they created some disbelief in Republicans and Republican statements. The Mark Foley matter comes to mind, or the gay sex in the airport bathroom in Minnesota. The problem is that these matters are simple, black and white and involve illicit sex. More complex exposures of Republican lies are harder to understand and not titillating, making it much more difficult to cause them to catch on.
PROPAGANDA:2
Once a propaganda point was determined on, the Nazis made certain that everyone communicating on their behalf, in the media and otherwise, was saying exactly the same thing. The repetition itself was helpful, but it also crowded out any other opinions. Ultimately, when in power, they made expression of other opinions impossibly dangerous.
The first technique the Nazis used was name-calling. This does not mean insulting people with negative comparisons; it means taking a theoretically neutral word, the actual commonly accepted name of the group - like "Jew", for instance - and re-defining it to mean, whenever used, something disgusting or hateful or dangerous. Once the word "Jew" was defined, in the contradictory way the Nazis did, to describe both a sub-human creature and one who controlled the world (a very convenient combination of entirely contradictory fears), the word could be used not only against Jews but against all enemies. So, for example, in attacking the Dawes Plan, which set a schedule of reparations to be paid by Germany to Allied nations as compensation for losses incurred in the war, the Nazis called its namesake, Dawes, a Jew. He wasn't. The J.P. Morgan bank was called Jewish, and its founder was said to have been named J.P. Morgenstern at birth. The Nazis called all French people Jews.
Liberals and their institutions were described as communist, and communism was described as the evil of all evils. It was not necessary to explain what communism was, only to inculcate fear and hatred of it as an undefined entity - once again, by name-calling. Liberals were called weak, insipid, vacillating, temporizing and unprincipled believers in the stupid doctrine of equality which fostered Jewish-invented democracy and was actually "red."
Ultimately, as I've said, the words "Jew" and "liberal" came to mean what the Nazis said they meant, and in fact to be interchangeable - as they are, for example, in the work of Ann Coulter who, without ever saying so, uses the commonly known fact that many liberals are Jews to sub rosa demonize liberals.
Let me now begin to make the comparison to the Republicans.
The goal of Republicans is to eliminate all opposition. It is specifically not to debate issues, but to eliminate the necessity of debate. When in power, particularly under Tom Delay, they came very close to doing that in the political system. They did not accomplish it in the general public, however. But that was not for lack of trying, and the trying is still going on.
Republicans demonize all alternatives as the roots of, literally, all evils - that is, of what Americans believe is evil, and through their propaganda, as the Nazis did, attempt to create widespread American perceptions of evils which have never been perceived as evil before. They blame opponents for everything bad that has happened or is happening in America, and even redefine good things their opponents have done as bad. The intent is to convince Americans that they are victims, and that the Republicans are the only ones who can protect and vindicate them.
The fears the Republicans inculcate in others are often, in fact, the actual fears of their backers, whether they are the fears of American corporate business of "socialism" (i.e. organized workers, and particularly government support of organized workers), and their hatred of taxation (founded on their complete unconcern for the welfare of all but their own class), or the religious right's fear of moral uncertainty. The religious right comes to the party already convinced of its victimhood; in fact, that victimhood is an essential part of the religious right identity. The corporate class is not so stupid as to believe that it is victimized; but most Americans, I sense, have at least some conviction that someone is not treating them right, and it is American corporate business' intention to convince them that such mistreatment emanates from its own opposition (or, in their term, enemy)- in other words, that all right-thinking Americans share the outlook of the corporate business sector and will defend it even if it is screwing them to the wall.
We are now in the throes of at least some economic collapse. We also are an angry nation, the anger on both sides focusing on the consequences of 9/11 and on the so called "values war." This was to some extent a naturally developing phenomenon. But what the Republicans have done, as the Nazis did, is to stoke that anger relentlessly and with one voice, to set the basic ground conditions for the use of further propaganda - and perhaps other elements, such as violence - to bring the Republicans in for the kill.
The first technique the Republicans used was name-calling. This does not mean insulting people with negative comparisons; it means taking a theoretically neutral word - like "liberal", for instance - and re-defining it to mean, whenever used, something disgusting or hateful or dangerous. Once the word "liberal" was defined, in the contradictory way the Republicans did, to describe both a sub-human creature and one who controlled the world (a very convenient combination of entirely contradictory fears), the word could be used not only against liberals but against all opponents. So, for example, Colin Powell is called a liberal.
Democrats and their institutions are described as socialist, and socialist defined as communist, the evil of all evils. It has not been necessary to explain what communism is, only to inculcate fear and hatred of it as an undefined entity - once again, by name-calling. Democrats were called weak, insipid, vacillating, temporizing and unprincipled believers in the stupid doctrine of equality which fostered liberal-invented democracy and is actually "red."
The Republicans added several elements which the Nazis did not have available. They attack liberals (and Democrats - once again the words have been made interchangeable) as being in the thrall of the black race, while at the same time calling them racist. They have used the gay issue relentlessly; the Nazis never had the issue to use, because homosexuality was little known in Germany other than in decadent urban centers like Weimar Berlin. When in power they put the gays in concentration camps and treated them exactly like Jews, but that was more a matter of their own moral strictures. There was plenty of homosexuality in the SA particularly, and Hitler murderously got rid of it.
The Republicans use Hispanic immigration to stir up hate; Germany had no significant immigration, and the Nazis directed hate against the other to persons outside Germany's borders, not within them.
It was not much of a stretch for Republicans to define blacks and gays as evil. There was plenty of history for that. And peasants (Mexicans) were unnatural in America. All the Republicans had to do to move beyond the obvious was to define everything as evil which was not "like you." That is essentially what the Nazis did.
There is one thing the Nazis did that the Republicans don't. At the outset, the Nazis actually claimed to have socialist aims, which they ripped out of their program once they had sucked in those for whom the concept of socialism was attractive. Republicans, on the other hand, are so ideologically rigid that they will not use or credit any argument or idea which does not fit within their theology, even as a deception. In that way, Republicans are actually more Nazi than the Nazis - certainly, at least, considerably less subtle, but more pure.
The Republican equivalence of the Nazi tactic of deceptive coloration is simply to attack everything the opposition says or does - i.e., rely entirely on what I've define as name-calling. The problem with this Republican tactic is that, since it is entirely responsive, it is sometimes difficult to avoid self-contradiction. Essentially, I think, this difference between Nazi and Republican tactics is reflective of the fact that the Nazis had somewhat more respect for the intelligence of the German populace than the Republicans do for Americans - and had, in fact, more intelligence at their own disposal than the Republicans can muster.
The fundamental point which both Nazis and Republicans recognized is that their propaganda did not have to make sense. It just had to work.
The first technique the Nazis used was name-calling. This does not mean insulting people with negative comparisons; it means taking a theoretically neutral word, the actual commonly accepted name of the group - like "Jew", for instance - and re-defining it to mean, whenever used, something disgusting or hateful or dangerous. Once the word "Jew" was defined, in the contradictory way the Nazis did, to describe both a sub-human creature and one who controlled the world (a very convenient combination of entirely contradictory fears), the word could be used not only against Jews but against all enemies. So, for example, in attacking the Dawes Plan, which set a schedule of reparations to be paid by Germany to Allied nations as compensation for losses incurred in the war, the Nazis called its namesake, Dawes, a Jew. He wasn't. The J.P. Morgan bank was called Jewish, and its founder was said to have been named J.P. Morgenstern at birth. The Nazis called all French people Jews.
Liberals and their institutions were described as communist, and communism was described as the evil of all evils. It was not necessary to explain what communism was, only to inculcate fear and hatred of it as an undefined entity - once again, by name-calling. Liberals were called weak, insipid, vacillating, temporizing and unprincipled believers in the stupid doctrine of equality which fostered Jewish-invented democracy and was actually "red."
Ultimately, as I've said, the words "Jew" and "liberal" came to mean what the Nazis said they meant, and in fact to be interchangeable - as they are, for example, in the work of Ann Coulter who, without ever saying so, uses the commonly known fact that many liberals are Jews to sub rosa demonize liberals.
Let me now begin to make the comparison to the Republicans.
The goal of Republicans is to eliminate all opposition. It is specifically not to debate issues, but to eliminate the necessity of debate. When in power, particularly under Tom Delay, they came very close to doing that in the political system. They did not accomplish it in the general public, however. But that was not for lack of trying, and the trying is still going on.
Republicans demonize all alternatives as the roots of, literally, all evils - that is, of what Americans believe is evil, and through their propaganda, as the Nazis did, attempt to create widespread American perceptions of evils which have never been perceived as evil before. They blame opponents for everything bad that has happened or is happening in America, and even redefine good things their opponents have done as bad. The intent is to convince Americans that they are victims, and that the Republicans are the only ones who can protect and vindicate them.
The fears the Republicans inculcate in others are often, in fact, the actual fears of their backers, whether they are the fears of American corporate business of "socialism" (i.e. organized workers, and particularly government support of organized workers), and their hatred of taxation (founded on their complete unconcern for the welfare of all but their own class), or the religious right's fear of moral uncertainty. The religious right comes to the party already convinced of its victimhood; in fact, that victimhood is an essential part of the religious right identity. The corporate class is not so stupid as to believe that it is victimized; but most Americans, I sense, have at least some conviction that someone is not treating them right, and it is American corporate business' intention to convince them that such mistreatment emanates from its own opposition (or, in their term, enemy)- in other words, that all right-thinking Americans share the outlook of the corporate business sector and will defend it even if it is screwing them to the wall.
We are now in the throes of at least some economic collapse. We also are an angry nation, the anger on both sides focusing on the consequences of 9/11 and on the so called "values war." This was to some extent a naturally developing phenomenon. But what the Republicans have done, as the Nazis did, is to stoke that anger relentlessly and with one voice, to set the basic ground conditions for the use of further propaganda - and perhaps other elements, such as violence - to bring the Republicans in for the kill.
The first technique the Republicans used was name-calling. This does not mean insulting people with negative comparisons; it means taking a theoretically neutral word - like "liberal", for instance - and re-defining it to mean, whenever used, something disgusting or hateful or dangerous. Once the word "liberal" was defined, in the contradictory way the Republicans did, to describe both a sub-human creature and one who controlled the world (a very convenient combination of entirely contradictory fears), the word could be used not only against liberals but against all opponents. So, for example, Colin Powell is called a liberal.
Democrats and their institutions are described as socialist, and socialist defined as communist, the evil of all evils. It has not been necessary to explain what communism is, only to inculcate fear and hatred of it as an undefined entity - once again, by name-calling. Democrats were called weak, insipid, vacillating, temporizing and unprincipled believers in the stupid doctrine of equality which fostered liberal-invented democracy and is actually "red."
The Republicans added several elements which the Nazis did not have available. They attack liberals (and Democrats - once again the words have been made interchangeable) as being in the thrall of the black race, while at the same time calling them racist. They have used the gay issue relentlessly; the Nazis never had the issue to use, because homosexuality was little known in Germany other than in decadent urban centers like Weimar Berlin. When in power they put the gays in concentration camps and treated them exactly like Jews, but that was more a matter of their own moral strictures. There was plenty of homosexuality in the SA particularly, and Hitler murderously got rid of it.
The Republicans use Hispanic immigration to stir up hate; Germany had no significant immigration, and the Nazis directed hate against the other to persons outside Germany's borders, not within them.
It was not much of a stretch for Republicans to define blacks and gays as evil. There was plenty of history for that. And peasants (Mexicans) were unnatural in America. All the Republicans had to do to move beyond the obvious was to define everything as evil which was not "like you." That is essentially what the Nazis did.
There is one thing the Nazis did that the Republicans don't. At the outset, the Nazis actually claimed to have socialist aims, which they ripped out of their program once they had sucked in those for whom the concept of socialism was attractive. Republicans, on the other hand, are so ideologically rigid that they will not use or credit any argument or idea which does not fit within their theology, even as a deception. In that way, Republicans are actually more Nazi than the Nazis - certainly, at least, considerably less subtle, but more pure.
The Republican equivalence of the Nazi tactic of deceptive coloration is simply to attack everything the opposition says or does - i.e., rely entirely on what I've define as name-calling. The problem with this Republican tactic is that, since it is entirely responsive, it is sometimes difficult to avoid self-contradiction. Essentially, I think, this difference between Nazi and Republican tactics is reflective of the fact that the Nazis had somewhat more respect for the intelligence of the German populace than the Republicans do for Americans - and had, in fact, more intelligence at their own disposal than the Republicans can muster.
The fundamental point which both Nazis and Republicans recognized is that their propaganda did not have to make sense. It just had to work.
PROPAGANDA: 4
The next Nazi tactic was to claim that their leader was the font of all wisdom and correct thought. I doubt Reagan would have made that claim for himself, but Republicans are constantly making it for him. There are some people whom Democrats revere, but I don't think they believe that any of those people are the font of anything.
PROPAGANDA 3
The second technique the Nazis used was to identify themselves as the party of German values. They did this in three ways. First, they culled out and emphasized values they actually did identify with - for example, the German concept of Volk, which they ultimately defined as meaning only racial Aryans. Secondly, they pretended to support other values which they did not - such as the concept of the common good, or the value of common laborers. Thirdly, they defined their opposition as sharing no German values at all.
It's hardly necessary for me to explain the comparison with Republicans. Substitute "unAmerican" for "Jew" and you have it all.
The third technique was to identify themselves with something which was respected and revered before the Nazis arrived. The Nazis used German mythology and, to some extent, the Christian God, with whom Hitler was often identified, either as the equivalent or the earthly prophet, particularly once the churches, as potential rivals for power and loyalty, were effectively driven out of Germany or neutralized. Baldur von Schirach, the head of Hitler Youth, wrote a poem which began: "Adolf Hitler, we believe in Thee. Without Thee we would be alone." It would have been graceless for Hitler to personally claim that he was God. However, he often invoked God's support of Nazi policies and actions, essentially claiming the divine right of kings, particularly after there were no churchmen left to contradict him.
Obviously, no Republican (so far) has claimed to be God, although many party members essentially deify Reagan. But that the Republicans claim to be the party of God is inarguable.
Germans worshipped manliness, which particularly included male superiority over females and militarism. The Nazis played these up relentlessly - the militarism for obvious reasons, the male superiority because they wanted women at home making babies to increase the population and therefore the power of the Reich. The comparison to Republicans is obvious. The difference between Nazis and Republicans here is that the most militarist Republican leaders (and right-wing talking heads and neocons) dodged the draft in the Vietnam War, while Hitler was deservedly decorated for bravery in World War I, and most top Nazis had either fought in the war at well or at least were proficient at breaking heads on the street. Republicans talk violence. Nazis practiced it. But I think some day soon there may be more equivalence between them, as the less civilized elements of the Republican party begin to take over from the political effete.
It's hardly necessary for me to explain the comparison with Republicans. Substitute "unAmerican" for "Jew" and you have it all.
The third technique was to identify themselves with something which was respected and revered before the Nazis arrived. The Nazis used German mythology and, to some extent, the Christian God, with whom Hitler was often identified, either as the equivalent or the earthly prophet, particularly once the churches, as potential rivals for power and loyalty, were effectively driven out of Germany or neutralized. Baldur von Schirach, the head of Hitler Youth, wrote a poem which began: "Adolf Hitler, we believe in Thee. Without Thee we would be alone." It would have been graceless for Hitler to personally claim that he was God. However, he often invoked God's support of Nazi policies and actions, essentially claiming the divine right of kings, particularly after there were no churchmen left to contradict him.
Obviously, no Republican (so far) has claimed to be God, although many party members essentially deify Reagan. But that the Republicans claim to be the party of God is inarguable.
Germans worshipped manliness, which particularly included male superiority over females and militarism. The Nazis played these up relentlessly - the militarism for obvious reasons, the male superiority because they wanted women at home making babies to increase the population and therefore the power of the Reich. The comparison to Republicans is obvious. The difference between Nazis and Republicans here is that the most militarist Republican leaders (and right-wing talking heads and neocons) dodged the draft in the Vietnam War, while Hitler was deservedly decorated for bravery in World War I, and most top Nazis had either fought in the war at well or at least were proficient at breaking heads on the street. Republicans talk violence. Nazis practiced it. But I think some day soon there may be more equivalence between them, as the less civilized elements of the Republican party begin to take over from the political effete.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
PROPAGANDA: 1
Tonight I begin a study of Nazi propaganda, with the aim of comparing it to current Republican propaganda.
The first caveat: Nazis were brilliant at the theatrical elements of propaganda. Other than Reagan, Republicans have been uniformly terrible at theater. It isn't that they haven't tried it. It's that they don't resonate with theater, or - other than urban Republicans - particularly appreciate it. They don't think they need to hype what they have to say with effective imagery, because simply stating "the truth" should be enough. (It's a very Calvinist sort of outlook; it shares little, except in language, with Catholicism as it was before the demise of the Latin mass.) It's the language and the ways it's used that are important to Republicans - so that is what I am going to focus on.
I will divide the discussion into two parts: one concerning the period before the Nazis took power, and the second the period after. I will discuss the former first.
Before the Nazis took power, what they wanted to achieve through their propaganda - and did in fact achieve - was to bring Germans into alliance with the Nazis by eliminating any other reasonable possibility. That required demonizing all alternatives as the roots of, literally, all evils - that is, of what Germans had already decided was evil. The second thing they did was to create opponents who were not in fact opponents, or even politically organized, and do the same to them. In many cases, by doing this they created German perceptions of what was evil which may not have been that widespread before.
The tactic was to blame opponents for everything bad that had happened or was happening to Germany, and even things which were not in fact happening. The intent was to convince Germans that they were victims, and that the Nazis were the only ones who could protect and vindicate them.
All this was necessary because the Nazis, having failed in a putsch, were determined to come to power constitutionally. They needed the votes, in other words.
The fears that the Nazis inculcated in others were often, in fact, the actual fears of their backers. German industrialists were afraid that democracy would harm them economically, particularly through the rise of labor unions. Honest Jew haters were afraid that Jews were the implacable enemy. It was necessary that Germans for whom democracy was, logically, beneficial be made to believe as the industrialists believed, and in fact to believe that their interests were identical to those of the industrialists.
Germany at the time was in the throes of economic collapse, and was an angry nation generally, having recently lost a major war. That set the ground conditions for Nazi propaganda.
The first caveat: Nazis were brilliant at the theatrical elements of propaganda. Other than Reagan, Republicans have been uniformly terrible at theater. It isn't that they haven't tried it. It's that they don't resonate with theater, or - other than urban Republicans - particularly appreciate it. They don't think they need to hype what they have to say with effective imagery, because simply stating "the truth" should be enough. (It's a very Calvinist sort of outlook; it shares little, except in language, with Catholicism as it was before the demise of the Latin mass.) It's the language and the ways it's used that are important to Republicans - so that is what I am going to focus on.
I will divide the discussion into two parts: one concerning the period before the Nazis took power, and the second the period after. I will discuss the former first.
Before the Nazis took power, what they wanted to achieve through their propaganda - and did in fact achieve - was to bring Germans into alliance with the Nazis by eliminating any other reasonable possibility. That required demonizing all alternatives as the roots of, literally, all evils - that is, of what Germans had already decided was evil. The second thing they did was to create opponents who were not in fact opponents, or even politically organized, and do the same to them. In many cases, by doing this they created German perceptions of what was evil which may not have been that widespread before.
The tactic was to blame opponents for everything bad that had happened or was happening to Germany, and even things which were not in fact happening. The intent was to convince Germans that they were victims, and that the Nazis were the only ones who could protect and vindicate them.
All this was necessary because the Nazis, having failed in a putsch, were determined to come to power constitutionally. They needed the votes, in other words.
The fears that the Nazis inculcated in others were often, in fact, the actual fears of their backers. German industrialists were afraid that democracy would harm them economically, particularly through the rise of labor unions. Honest Jew haters were afraid that Jews were the implacable enemy. It was necessary that Germans for whom democracy was, logically, beneficial be made to believe as the industrialists believed, and in fact to believe that their interests were identical to those of the industrialists.
Germany at the time was in the throes of economic collapse, and was an angry nation generally, having recently lost a major war. That set the ground conditions for Nazi propaganda.
HOW TO BUY ART
How do you buy art by new artists? Well, the first thing you do is throw out the old adage that you buy what you like.
The value of a piece of art does not depend on the quality or the substance of the work. It depends on whether the artist (or a gallery owner who is championing him or her) has enough gumption, clout, brains and attractiveness to build a career. What you want to know is whether the artist's next show is going to draw more attention and higher prices than the current one. It would help to know people in major art circles who can tip you off. If you don't, you need to watch Google and track what the artist says, what he or she looks like, what the critics are saying (it's all bullshit but it helps sales.) You want to know who the artist parties with, sleeps with and sucks up to - and better, who sucks up to him or her. You want to know who's bought him or her.
I.e., artistic success depends on social success. It only took me how many years to figure this out?
The value of a piece of art does not depend on the quality or the substance of the work. It depends on whether the artist (or a gallery owner who is championing him or her) has enough gumption, clout, brains and attractiveness to build a career. What you want to know is whether the artist's next show is going to draw more attention and higher prices than the current one. It would help to know people in major art circles who can tip you off. If you don't, you need to watch Google and track what the artist says, what he or she looks like, what the critics are saying (it's all bullshit but it helps sales.) You want to know who the artist parties with, sleeps with and sucks up to - and better, who sucks up to him or her. You want to know who's bought him or her.
I.e., artistic success depends on social success. It only took me how many years to figure this out?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
REALLY BAD
Judging from Artforum magazine, there's a lot of bad art out there. I mean, really a lot. Now, I know a great self promoter like Warhol sold a lot of bad art, but can ALL these bad artists be great self promoters? Is there a market for that much bad art? There are only so many sofas.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
I GET IT
I finally understand why so many women have turned to plastic surgery: those women have completely lost the knack of "putting themselves together."
Women used to be able to use makeup, clothes, posture, carriage and wit to make themselves enormously attractive even if they had little to work with. Now they don't even make expressive clothes, or if they do, women don't know it. As for carriage, they never heard of it. And wit? You can't get that at J C Penney. You can't even get it at Saks.
So, like thinking and speaking, they turn it over to the pros, failing to understand that to a man with grace a graceless woman with big tits is only good for a fuck.
Women used to be able to use makeup, clothes, posture, carriage and wit to make themselves enormously attractive even if they had little to work with. Now they don't even make expressive clothes, or if they do, women don't know it. As for carriage, they never heard of it. And wit? You can't get that at J C Penney. You can't even get it at Saks.
So, like thinking and speaking, they turn it over to the pros, failing to understand that to a man with grace a graceless woman with big tits is only good for a fuck.
HOPELESS
Bank Regulation Heats Up | Mother Jones
Citigroup Bonuses: Bank Pays Millions To London Traders
Hedge Funds Revive, With Big Gains in May - NYTimes.com
Republicans to counter Dems' U.S. financial reforms
| Politics
| Reuters
Credit card delinquency rates up 11% from last year - report - Jun. 8, 2009
After everything, right back to business as usual. Hopeless.
Citigroup Bonuses: Bank Pays Millions To London Traders
Hedge Funds Revive, With Big Gains in May - NYTimes.com
Republicans to counter Dems' U.S. financial reforms
| Politics
| Reuters
Credit card delinquency rates up 11% from last year - report - Jun. 8, 2009
After everything, right back to business as usual. Hopeless.
TEXAS
I've been saying forever that Texas is the source of much that's wrong with America. Here's what I didn't know:
The Scofield Reference Bible, the guidebook to American dispensationalism, was written in Dallas.
That theology was developed in Ireland and England in the 1820's. Its first American foothold was in Texas.
The Scofield Reference Bible, the guidebook to American dispensationalism, was written in Dallas.
That theology was developed in Ireland and England in the 1820's. Its first American foothold was in Texas.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Saturday, June 06, 2009
THE CORPORATE POCKET
Economists are all excited about the fact that the figures on month-by-month additions to the unemployment rolls are dropping. I don't see why they're excited.
The rate of growth in the unemployment rolls in the first months of the crisis was driven up by four things: 1) employers who really could not afford to keep their employees; 2) employers who were panicked by the spreading crisis without regard to their own real circumstances; 3) employers who wanted to get ahead of the curve by letting people go before they were forced to (if ever); and 4) employers who used the crisis as an excuse to get rid of employees.
Well, the panic has subsided; companies which have managed to hold on to their workforces this far are likely to continue to be able to; getting ahead of the curve NOW would mean rehiring in anticipation of recovery; and the companies using the crisis as an excuse have certainly finished that dirty work by now. We should be beyond the point of excitement at slowing growth rates of unemployment; there should no longer be a growth in unemployment statistics of any significance.
But the question is: what's going to reduce those statistics? The only thing that could drive unemployment down within existing firms or industries is an increase in demand to the point that more employees are needed to satisfy it. But America has for years now turned to outsourcing and heavy use of temps. I think those trends will continue and frankly I don't see the lost jobs returning. For those people there will be no recovery. And I think it's politically and economically absurd not to be very concerned about what they will find to do with their time.
The challenge is to create job fields - industries or whatever - which can use these laid off workers and actually WILL use them. I've heard plenty from Obama about creating new industries (particularly green industries, which is another sort of joke) but I have not heard any discussion on exactly how this corporate creation is going to result in American jobs. Until I do, I don't get excited about the economy. Nor should any economist or theoretician who is not, by pay or empathy, in the corporate pocket.
The rate of growth in the unemployment rolls in the first months of the crisis was driven up by four things: 1) employers who really could not afford to keep their employees; 2) employers who were panicked by the spreading crisis without regard to their own real circumstances; 3) employers who wanted to get ahead of the curve by letting people go before they were forced to (if ever); and 4) employers who used the crisis as an excuse to get rid of employees.
Well, the panic has subsided; companies which have managed to hold on to their workforces this far are likely to continue to be able to; getting ahead of the curve NOW would mean rehiring in anticipation of recovery; and the companies using the crisis as an excuse have certainly finished that dirty work by now. We should be beyond the point of excitement at slowing growth rates of unemployment; there should no longer be a growth in unemployment statistics of any significance.
But the question is: what's going to reduce those statistics? The only thing that could drive unemployment down within existing firms or industries is an increase in demand to the point that more employees are needed to satisfy it. But America has for years now turned to outsourcing and heavy use of temps. I think those trends will continue and frankly I don't see the lost jobs returning. For those people there will be no recovery. And I think it's politically and economically absurd not to be very concerned about what they will find to do with their time.
The challenge is to create job fields - industries or whatever - which can use these laid off workers and actually WILL use them. I've heard plenty from Obama about creating new industries (particularly green industries, which is another sort of joke) but I have not heard any discussion on exactly how this corporate creation is going to result in American jobs. Until I do, I don't get excited about the economy. Nor should any economist or theoretician who is not, by pay or empathy, in the corporate pocket.
Friday, June 05, 2009
2012
I've already figured out how Obama should handle his re-election.
Assuming things continue going well, and the Republicans nominate a jerk (do they have another choice?), Obama should completely ignore the Republican, run on his record and his plans, disdain getting into stupid discussions but make speeches refuting Republican positions - i.e., simply continue as he is now.
The major Democratic effort on the national level should be invested in getting rid of some of the jerks we are left with in Congress.
Assuming things continue going well, and the Republicans nominate a jerk (do they have another choice?), Obama should completely ignore the Republican, run on his record and his plans, disdain getting into stupid discussions but make speeches refuting Republican positions - i.e., simply continue as he is now.
The major Democratic effort on the national level should be invested in getting rid of some of the jerks we are left with in Congress.
Defiant settlers rebuild Maoz Esther outpost | Israel | Jerusalem Post
Defiant settlers rebuild Maoz Esther outpost | Israel | Jerusalem Post
Don't think that what Dov Lior is quoted as saying here is an aberration in Israel.
Don't think that what Dov Lior is quoted as saying here is an aberration in Israel.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
ENOUGH OF US?
It is not an exaggeration to say that Republican responses to events on the ground and to what Obama is doing about them are juvenile, divorced from the facts, playground behavior, unreasoned. Once I get past my fear that the American people will fall for them again, I suppose I'll be able to relax.
I used to question whether the Republicans believed what they were saying or what they were saying was intentional and tactical. But by now I've had enough conversations with Republicans or people who think their way to understand that for the most part they do believe what they say, and when they don't it's because they believe something much worse than what they are saying. It is a mindset which can be reversed only if they can be compelled into self-analysis, and everyone knows that's the toughest thing to do. They're addicted to their world view. Even if they think they're rational, they can't be, because at some point doctrine (or whatever else you call idees fixes)takes over their thought processes without them even knowing it. It takes less than 30 seconds of attempted issue-based conversation with any of them to realize you're going to get nowhere. As soon as they start repeating Republican talking points, the game is over - and that's true of many Republicans who have no involvement in politics. As I've said before, Republicanism is faith-based. They believe what they believe, and the truth be damned.
But again, the question is: as Obama leads us into a new Age of Reason, are enough of us going to be following him?
I used to question whether the Republicans believed what they were saying or what they were saying was intentional and tactical. But by now I've had enough conversations with Republicans or people who think their way to understand that for the most part they do believe what they say, and when they don't it's because they believe something much worse than what they are saying. It is a mindset which can be reversed only if they can be compelled into self-analysis, and everyone knows that's the toughest thing to do. They're addicted to their world view. Even if they think they're rational, they can't be, because at some point doctrine (or whatever else you call idees fixes)takes over their thought processes without them even knowing it. It takes less than 30 seconds of attempted issue-based conversation with any of them to realize you're going to get nowhere. As soon as they start repeating Republican talking points, the game is over - and that's true of many Republicans who have no involvement in politics. As I've said before, Republicanism is faith-based. They believe what they believe, and the truth be damned.
But again, the question is: as Obama leads us into a new Age of Reason, are enough of us going to be following him?
FINALLY
Obama's Cairo speech called out Arabs, Israelis, prior American presidents and important U.S. lobbies for forty years (at least) of unadulterated bullshit. What you have to hope is that by his saying what he said he has motivated moderates and progressives in all venues to take back the reins from the radical right in Israel, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the U.S. etc. (can't put the Palestinians on that list, since they are not anywhere that can be listed as a nation).
What you then have to hope, assuming any of this happens (extremely unlikely unless somehow this turns into 1968 redux), is that Obama will back the moderates up - unlike Bush 41 who stirred up the Shi'a in Iraq and then let Saddam murder them en masse.
But he said it. I never thought I'd hear it from an American president. Is it possible he's really not afraid of the Israel lobby? And if so, why? Will he not need their money when he runs in 2012 - and more to the point, what will the House and Senate do, since Jewish money is indispensable to many of them. Has the power in the American Jewish community suddenly migrated from neocons to progressives? Or is he just determined to do what he thinks is right and confident that in the end everyone else will find he was, in fact, right?
What you then have to hope, assuming any of this happens (extremely unlikely unless somehow this turns into 1968 redux), is that Obama will back the moderates up - unlike Bush 41 who stirred up the Shi'a in Iraq and then let Saddam murder them en masse.
But he said it. I never thought I'd hear it from an American president. Is it possible he's really not afraid of the Israel lobby? And if so, why? Will he not need their money when he runs in 2012 - and more to the point, what will the House and Senate do, since Jewish money is indispensable to many of them. Has the power in the American Jewish community suddenly migrated from neocons to progressives? Or is he just determined to do what he thinks is right and confident that in the end everyone else will find he was, in fact, right?
Hal Turner, Talk Radio Host, Facing Charges For Inciting Violence Against Officials
Hal Turner, Talk Radio Host, Facing Charges For Inciting Violence Against Officials
Okay! It's about fucking time. Let's hope this catches on.
Okay! It's about fucking time. Let's hope this catches on.
Court Tears Apart Gov. Sanford's Stimulus Refusal
Court Tears Apart Gov. Sanford's Stimulus Refusal
So they're talking about Sanford for president because he refuses to take Federal money to help South Carolina's schools and universities? The Republican Party is seriously insane. But then, maybe he'll be the president of the new Confederacy? Don't forget, South Carolina was the first state out, and fired the first shot on Fort Sumter.
But I'll miss Charleston and the Low Country.
So they're talking about Sanford for president because he refuses to take Federal money to help South Carolina's schools and universities? The Republican Party is seriously insane. But then, maybe he'll be the president of the new Confederacy? Don't forget, South Carolina was the first state out, and fired the first shot on Fort Sumter.
But I'll miss Charleston and the Low Country.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
INTELLECTUAL?
Judge Richard Posner, a major voice in the Chicago school of economics (and I think not nearly enough blame for what's happened recently has been laid at the feet of the University of Chicago) writes a book called A Failure of Capitalism and yet, when asked about it on Tom Ashbrook's show, finds very little wrong with capitalism as it now is and absolutely refuses to shoulder any of the blame for it. (On top of that he was very supercilious - a know-it-all who, it turns out, knew nothing and completely lacks what Obama calls "empathy". By the way, Robert Reich was entirely too civil to him. Posner is a neocon with typical origins.) Alan Greenspan writes one, too - same problem.
I think these guys are, on the one hand, trying to cash in on economic disaster and, on the other, trying to defend their principles under the pretense of attacking them. It's enough to turn you anti-intellectual.
I think these guys are, on the one hand, trying to cash in on economic disaster and, on the other, trying to defend their principles under the pretense of attacking them. It's enough to turn you anti-intellectual.
WEALTH IS OK
I am modifying my essentially Marxist views - or, rather, clarifying them. I have no problem with enormous wealth - Bill Gates', for instance. I have a problem with wealth accumulated without producing anything of value. Build a railroad, produce steel, revolutionize communications - you're worth every buck you get. Manipulate money or real estate - you've given us nothing back.
Okay, but those who manipulate money make other people rich, too. Isn't that productive? If money makes nothing but money, it has to be taking money from someone else. Shareholders benefit when jobs are cut. Lower taxes mean less services. The premise that you can make money with financial manipulation without essentially stealing it from someone else is what got us into the current mess.
The exception is venture capital, which is an interesting phenomenon. In the old days you bought stocks as an investment in the future of a company. In other words, to produce something of value. Now you buy stock as a gambling move. In other words, to get money for nothing. Venture capital has had to step in because the stock market no longer functions as a source of investment in productivity. That's entirely different from private equity, which invests solely to profit immediately, often at the expense of productivity. I. E., corporate raiders.
So when the revolution comes, all hail venture capital, and market makers up against the wall!
Okay, but those who manipulate money make other people rich, too. Isn't that productive? If money makes nothing but money, it has to be taking money from someone else. Shareholders benefit when jobs are cut. Lower taxes mean less services. The premise that you can make money with financial manipulation without essentially stealing it from someone else is what got us into the current mess.
The exception is venture capital, which is an interesting phenomenon. In the old days you bought stocks as an investment in the future of a company. In other words, to produce something of value. Now you buy stock as a gambling move. In other words, to get money for nothing. Venture capital has had to step in because the stock market no longer functions as a source of investment in productivity. That's entirely different from private equity, which invests solely to profit immediately, often at the expense of productivity. I. E., corporate raiders.
So when the revolution comes, all hail venture capital, and market makers up against the wall!
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
AT LONG LAST DECENCY?
Will the Tiller murder become a Joseph Welch moment?
Nah.
The Republicans have been priming us for it, but only Obama can do it.
Nah.
The Republicans have been priming us for it, but only Obama can do it.
GUNS
Susan Hill is not sure she will be able to attend the Tiller funeral for fear of more violence. Two questions:
1) why will there not be a million women at that funeral? Is all the action to be on the other side?
2) why will there not be a hundred gun-toting liberals there? If the American mood is for armed self-protection, why will the left not play the game?
1) why will there not be a million women at that funeral? Is all the action to be on the other side?
2) why will there not be a hundred gun-toting liberals there? If the American mood is for armed self-protection, why will the left not play the game?
RELAX
It does not make much sense to get all het up about North Korea. Kim wants nukes for the same reason he wants a flat screen TV; he wants to be seen as at least equal to South Korea, but he has no understanding of how to build his economy and nukes are the easy route, he thinks, to parity. He's enough of a nutcase to actually use one, but that is no reason to magnify the threat. It will be horrible if he does use one, but he has no capacity to sustain or build on that in the way al Qaeda did after 9/11. Kim is a one-trick pony. (Although I will have to revise this opinion if it turns out he is sharing nuke technology with terrorists.) The son he recently named as his successor studied in the US and loves Michael Jordan. One has to doubt that he is any more capable than his father of leading a modern nation. Once the wad is shot, the game is over for the Kims.
On the other hand, it may make eminent sense to APPEAR to be het up about North Korea, since that kind of attention is what Kim is after. Whether that attention or ignoring him completely is more likely to make him more dangerous is a question for shrinks to answer - and it seems to me shrinks should be making our foreign policy decisions when it comes to the Dear Leader's intentions and capacities. Is there an Undersecretary of State for Mental Cases?
On the other hand, it may make eminent sense to APPEAR to be het up about North Korea, since that kind of attention is what Kim is after. Whether that attention or ignoring him completely is more likely to make him more dangerous is a question for shrinks to answer - and it seems to me shrinks should be making our foreign policy decisions when it comes to the Dear Leader's intentions and capacities. Is there an Undersecretary of State for Mental Cases?
Monday, June 01, 2009
BOTH
There is debate going on among those (as opposed to so-called strict constructionists) who understand that the Supreme Court must of necessity make law (a case does not reach that level unless there is no law controlling it or the law is unclear, and any lawyer who says the law is fixed and the Court does not make it is necessarily disingenuous) as to whether the court should get ahead of public opinion or follow it.
The answer is: both.
The primary rule the Supreme Court has always followed is to do nothing which brings its own legitimacy into question. As is often said, the Supreme Court has no army. Its only power derives from the public's belief in it.
That's why in most cases they stay away from rulings which the public will not accept.
Sometimes, though, they do lead. There are two sorts of occasions for that:
1) when strict adherence to an ideology gives them a political agenda. It's when they make a political move that runs against public opinion that they get into trouble. Two cases come to mind: Dred Scott and Bush v Gore. Those decisions downgraded public opinion of the court to - in many cases - utter disrespect for the court as an institution.
2) the Constitution or a general concept of human rights requires the court to lead where the public is not ready to go. Brown v Bd of Ed. A case like that causes disrespect too - although in an entirely different wing of the population. Vale the Impeach Earl Warren movement and the hatred of William O. Douglas. But sometimes the public takes too long to recognize what the court knows is a moral imperative of the times. In some eras, without judges with the courage to step out ahead, humanity does not move ahead.
It amazes me that any of this is debatable. I can understand the general public not understanding how the court works, but anyone who claims to be a political pundit who debates the point is the same guy who wants to debate Darwinism. He's the same guy who won't recognize inherent human rights because if God didn't write it down it isn't a rule or the truth.
The answer is: both.
The primary rule the Supreme Court has always followed is to do nothing which brings its own legitimacy into question. As is often said, the Supreme Court has no army. Its only power derives from the public's belief in it.
That's why in most cases they stay away from rulings which the public will not accept.
Sometimes, though, they do lead. There are two sorts of occasions for that:
1) when strict adherence to an ideology gives them a political agenda. It's when they make a political move that runs against public opinion that they get into trouble. Two cases come to mind: Dred Scott and Bush v Gore. Those decisions downgraded public opinion of the court to - in many cases - utter disrespect for the court as an institution.
2) the Constitution or a general concept of human rights requires the court to lead where the public is not ready to go. Brown v Bd of Ed. A case like that causes disrespect too - although in an entirely different wing of the population. Vale the Impeach Earl Warren movement and the hatred of William O. Douglas. But sometimes the public takes too long to recognize what the court knows is a moral imperative of the times. In some eras, without judges with the courage to step out ahead, humanity does not move ahead.
It amazes me that any of this is debatable. I can understand the general public not understanding how the court works, but anyone who claims to be a political pundit who debates the point is the same guy who wants to debate Darwinism. He's the same guy who won't recognize inherent human rights because if God didn't write it down it isn't a rule or the truth.
EXCEPTIONAL
The American Dream is to work hard, make the most of yourself and succeed financially so you can own a home. Nobody but Americans has that dream. The rest of the world is dreaming about something else - maybe converting Americans to Islam or, in France, eating cheese. Some people don't have any dream.
That's why we're so special.
That's why we're so special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)
