"Iran summons the Italian Ambassador to Tehran Alberto Bradanini in protest against the violent suppression of anti-G8 protesters. Bradanini was summoned to the Iranian Foreign Ministry on Friday to hear Tehran's concerns about the 'violent suppression of justice-seeking protesters by the Italian police.'"
You gotta respect the sheer balls of this. Unless it's unintentional delusional thinking.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
ARTLESS IN TEHRAN
The head of Tehran's police says few arrests were made in opposition protests that erupted in the Iranian capital in an opposition attempt to revive street demonstrations over the country's disputed election.
Police chief Azizullah Rajabzadeh says those arrested in Thursday's protests were involved in "damaging public property and chanting," according to a report Friday in the semi-official Mehr news agency.
Okay, so they'll bust you for singing - but will they bust you for hiphop moves?
Police chief Azizullah Rajabzadeh says those arrested in Thursday's protests were involved in "damaging public property and chanting," according to a report Friday in the semi-official Mehr news agency.
Okay, so they'll bust you for singing - but will they bust you for hiphop moves?
Friday, July 10, 2009
It's Not Just a Recession. It's a Mancession! - The Atlantic Business Channel
It's Not Just a Recession. It's a Mancession! - The Atlantic Business Channel
The end result of this, as I have said many times, will be a permanently unemployable and angry male working class. Give it a couple of years and some new Lenin is going to start making a lot of sense to these guys.
What is it that women do that men can't? Other than modeling push-up bras, not very much. What is that women do that men don't? As the article says, work as secretaries and administrative assistants, registered nurses, school teachers, cashiers, retail salespersons and health aides.
There is no reason that men couldn't do these jobs. I worked as a secretary once upon a time. There are a fair number of male nurses, teachers and cashiers and most retail jobs were at one time held by males.
But these are the careers women have gone into during all the long years they were barred from anything else. Jews were barred from anything but banking until fairly recently. So it's no wonder that so many bankers are Jews, and it's no wonder that so many of these listed jobs are held by women.
I have no doubt that, as the article says, the pay disparity between women and men is now working against men. But these listed jobs are all in the service sector - even though health care keeps trying to prove it is not a service business. The jobs that men are losing now are often jobs that created products and, in some cases, ideas. So it shouldn't be comforting even to women that the only place they can get a job is in businesses which produce nothing and simply serve to circulate the same dollar around a community.
And that is a very big problem, and requires thirty pages of Wikipedia.
The end result of this, as I have said many times, will be a permanently unemployable and angry male working class. Give it a couple of years and some new Lenin is going to start making a lot of sense to these guys.
What is it that women do that men can't? Other than modeling push-up bras, not very much. What is that women do that men don't? As the article says, work as secretaries and administrative assistants, registered nurses, school teachers, cashiers, retail salespersons and health aides.
There is no reason that men couldn't do these jobs. I worked as a secretary once upon a time. There are a fair number of male nurses, teachers and cashiers and most retail jobs were at one time held by males.
But these are the careers women have gone into during all the long years they were barred from anything else. Jews were barred from anything but banking until fairly recently. So it's no wonder that so many bankers are Jews, and it's no wonder that so many of these listed jobs are held by women.
I have no doubt that, as the article says, the pay disparity between women and men is now working against men. But these listed jobs are all in the service sector - even though health care keeps trying to prove it is not a service business. The jobs that men are losing now are often jobs that created products and, in some cases, ideas. So it shouldn't be comforting even to women that the only place they can get a job is in businesses which produce nothing and simply serve to circulate the same dollar around a community.
And that is a very big problem, and requires thirty pages of Wikipedia.
Administration Considers Bailout Funds for Small Businesses - washingtonpost.com
Administration Considers Bailout Funds for Small Businesses - washingtonpost.com
Finally, a decent economic idea - and Geithner and Summers haven't decided whether to support it? Well, why should they? Look where the money would come from.
Finally, a decent economic idea - and Geithner and Summers haven't decided whether to support it? Well, why should they? Look where the money would come from.
David Brooks: A Republican Senator 'Had His Hand On My Inner Thigh' For A 'Whole' Dinner Party (VIDEO)
David Brooks: A Republican Senator 'Had His Hand On My Inner Thigh' For A 'Whole' Dinner Party (VIDEO)
Here's what Brooks was missing: if Brooks was gay, he might very well have welcomed that hand on his thigh. The maneuver is not out of bounds in much of the gay community. And David Brooks does seem a little gay... so I will bet Senator Whoever assumed he was.
Here's what Brooks was missing: if Brooks was gay, he might very well have welcomed that hand on his thigh. The maneuver is not out of bounds in much of the gay community. And David Brooks does seem a little gay... so I will bet Senator Whoever assumed he was.
TheHill.com - House overwhelmingly rejects signing statement
TheHill.com - House overwhelmingly rejects signing statement
Bloody good. More more more rejection of Obama Bushisms.
Bloody good. More more more rejection of Obama Bushisms.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Ensign Paid Mistress' Family $96,000
Ensign Paid Mistress' Family $96,000
So Senator Ensign didn't pay off his mistress. His daddy and mommy did. And he lives in a dormitory with other Christian boys.
I thought you had to be an adult to be a United States Senator.
So Senator Ensign didn't pay off his mistress. His daddy and mommy did. And he lives in a dormitory with other Christian boys.
I thought you had to be an adult to be a United States Senator.
DeMint: America is ‘Where Germany Was Before World War II’ | The Washington Independent
DeMint: America is ‘Where Germany Was Before World War II’ | The Washington Independent
When before World War II? Weimar? The Third Reich? Either Demint believes that Weimar socialism led directly to the Third Reich (it did, but only in the sense that the Third Reich was its enemy) - or that socialism and Nazism are the same. Understandable that some people might be confused - Hitler did call his party National Socialist - but do we need people in Congress who don't know the difference? This guy should be out on the golf course trying to screw his friends.
When before World War II? Weimar? The Third Reich? Either Demint believes that Weimar socialism led directly to the Third Reich (it did, but only in the sense that the Third Reich was its enemy) - or that socialism and Nazism are the same. Understandable that some people might be confused - Hitler did call his party National Socialist - but do we need people in Congress who don't know the difference? This guy should be out on the golf course trying to screw his friends.
Frank Ricci: GOP To Showcase Firefighter Sotomayor Ruled Against
Frank Ricci: GOP To Showcase Firefighter Sotomayor Ruled Against
As politics devolves into the Theatre of the Absurd, will real life follow?
Probably.
As politics devolves into the Theatre of the Absurd, will real life follow?
Probably.
AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth: AIDS activists shut down US Capitol rotunda over Obama reversal on AIDS policy
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
House Finance Committee Members Took $62.9 Million From Industry Interests
House Finance Committee Members Took $62.9 Million From Industry Interests
I certainly have no objection to the health care industry talking to congresspeople and trying to get their vote - but this is a simple attempt to bribe, and probably a successful one.
Shouldn't there be a rule that congresspeople cannot accept contributions from anyone who has a particular interest in legislation they are considering?
Of course, I already have figured out the loophole. They don't make the contributions while the bill is pending. They make them way beforehand, because they know some bill is going to come before these people. In other words, they don't buy action on the bill. They buy the congresspeople.
Which returns me to my initial response to McCain-Feingold. You can't outlaw money in politics. There's a way around any restriction. What you have to do is change what the public will accept, and guarantee that players get voted out.
I certainly have no objection to the health care industry talking to congresspeople and trying to get their vote - but this is a simple attempt to bribe, and probably a successful one.
Shouldn't there be a rule that congresspeople cannot accept contributions from anyone who has a particular interest in legislation they are considering?
Of course, I already have figured out the loophole. They don't make the contributions while the bill is pending. They make them way beforehand, because they know some bill is going to come before these people. In other words, they don't buy action on the bill. They buy the congresspeople.
Which returns me to my initial response to McCain-Feingold. You can't outlaw money in politics. There's a way around any restriction. What you have to do is change what the public will accept, and guarantee that players get voted out.
A BETTER EXPLANATION
After finishing Descent into Chaos, I have to say that it would not be too much of a stretch to conclude that US policy in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, from Ronald Reagan to now, has been designed to destroy the peace and power of America and even to promote one or more attacks on the US mainland. Because for anyone who actually believes in America, that's a better explanation than blindness, stupidity and cupidity.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
JACKSON FOR PRESIDENT
A new poll indicates that 71% of Republicans would vote for Sarah Palin for President. Since Republicans have apparently forgotten that the president actually has to run the country, I suggest they nominate Michael Jackson in 2012. I bet he'd do better than 71%. And I don't think there's anything in the Constitution which requires a candidate to be alive.
This much I can say: if she is the Republican nominee in 2012, I will be preparing to flee the USA. I know we just lived through eight years of an ignorant president - which proves I don't bail out hastily - but Palin is Bush cubed. Today she announced that there is a Department of Law in the White House which would throw out ethics complaints against her when she's in office. This seems Constitutionally unlikely - face it, there's no such thing - but hey, we won't need a Constitution if she gets in.
This much I can say: if she is the Republican nominee in 2012, I will be preparing to flee the USA. I know we just lived through eight years of an ignorant president - which proves I don't bail out hastily - but Palin is Bush cubed. Today she announced that there is a Department of Law in the White House which would throw out ethics complaints against her when she's in office. This seems Constitutionally unlikely - face it, there's no such thing - but hey, we won't need a Constitution if she gets in.
Anti-Abortion Activists Push New, Radical Egg-As-Person Measures
Anti-Abortion Activists Push New, Radical Egg-As-Person Measures
They will go further and further off the cliff. I hope we don't follow them.
They will go further and further off the cliff. I hope we don't follow them.
REPUBLICAN POLICY ...
... consists these days of saying that Obama and the Democrats are wrong about everything. It's not a bad policy, because sooner or later - probably sooner - Obama will turn out to have been wrong about a number of things. The issue is not: what is right? The point is: get rid of the guy who was wrong.
Michael Jackson's Daughter Paris Speaks: "I Love Him So Much!" (VIDEO)
Michael Jackson's Daughter Paris Speaks: "I Love Him So Much!" (VIDEO)
Is the story here that Paris is fluent in English? Is capable of speech? Loves her Dad? What are we supposed to learn from this? And, if nothing, why report it?
Is the story here that Paris is fluent in English? Is capable of speech? Loves her Dad? What are we supposed to learn from this? And, if nothing, why report it?
Op-Ed Columnist - In Search of Dignity - NYTimes.com
Op-Ed Columnist - In Search of Dignity - NYTimes.com
I agree with all of this except the conclusion. Americans may admire Obama's "dignity," but they will see no need to develop it in themselves. The concept needs to be taught in a person's first years. It's too late for most people now alive, and since they don't grasp the concept, they can't teach it. The only thing that can bring it back is a disaster so massive that people begin to understand that this sort of "dignity" is an essential to survival. Because otherwise it's back to the animal state.
The thing that Brooks somewhat misses is this: "dignity" - or as I call it, grace - does not derive from obeying particular rules of behavior. It derives from one's perception of appropriate attitudes that one human being should bring to another. It's a matter of respecting, even honoring, others - honoring not just Michael Jackson, but every human being who doesn't destroy his right to that respect by conduct which doesn't comport with it. These days a lot of people don't respect anyone, and a lot of others dole out respect to undeserving others. Most of us have no idea what "dignity" means.
I agree with all of this except the conclusion. Americans may admire Obama's "dignity," but they will see no need to develop it in themselves. The concept needs to be taught in a person's first years. It's too late for most people now alive, and since they don't grasp the concept, they can't teach it. The only thing that can bring it back is a disaster so massive that people begin to understand that this sort of "dignity" is an essential to survival. Because otherwise it's back to the animal state.
The thing that Brooks somewhat misses is this: "dignity" - or as I call it, grace - does not derive from obeying particular rules of behavior. It derives from one's perception of appropriate attitudes that one human being should bring to another. It's a matter of respecting, even honoring, others - honoring not just Michael Jackson, but every human being who doesn't destroy his right to that respect by conduct which doesn't comport with it. These days a lot of people don't respect anyone, and a lot of others dole out respect to undeserving others. Most of us have no idea what "dignity" means.
Obama Poll Numbers Take Beating In Ohio Over Economy
Obama Poll Numbers Take Beating In Ohio Over Economy
It seems to me it would be important to go a little deeper into this data and try to understand what's happening. Or maybe the data doesn't go that deep. If not, of what possible value is this poll?
It seems to me it would be important to go a little deeper into this data and try to understand what's happening. Or maybe the data doesn't go that deep. If not, of what possible value is this poll?
SAD
The two areas in which Obama's progressive intentions - if he ever had any - have crumbled are in finance and national security - meaning torture, state secrets, etc. As to finance, I don't believe Obama ever had progressive intentions. He was forced into stating them, first by the Edwards campaign, and second by the developing economic crisis. I think he had very little inclination to make any significant change in the financial system. As to torture, etc., I think he did intend to make changes - and has in fact made a few. But these two areas are among those in which the most pressure is put on government by industry, the most money spent, the most revolving doors exist. Obama apparently decided the fight would be too destructive (and, I wouldn't be surprised, dangerous for his candidacy for a second term. So far the perception seems to be that Obama is focused on what's good for the nation and not what's good for him. That is a brilliant advantage which he, his team and the media have made believable, but no politician is immune to self-serving.)
The interesting thing to me is that the argument keeps being made that he doesn't want to expend political capital he will need for more important things down the road. As we move down the road, though, he keeps shifting the focus further and further into the future toward issues of which at this point we have not the vaguest idea. A while ago everyone said that he wouldn't take on the torturers because he was saving his political clout (and bipartisanship, don't you know) for the battle on health care. Now that battle is here, and he doesn't seem to be willing to spend much of that capital on this issue, either. What is he saving it for now? Who the hell knows? I'm sure he views himself as practicing the art of the possible. Constantly getting rolled is very possible. How much political capital is he going to end up with if he isn't actually willing to invest any of it?
This is the moment for progressive ideas. There is no potential presidential candidate, of either party (with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton) who is showing any progressive inclinations. This is going to be a pretty short moment.
The answer is, as always, grass roots pressure. But there isn't going to be much. Polls have showed that as much as 80% of the population wants a public option on health care - but it will never happen. Imagine the result, though, if those 80% went active. They would be irresistible.
If half of the national energy harnessed by the Michael Jackson PR team were put into health care reform, or fighting global warming, politicians would understand that they didn't need the lobbyists to get themselves re-elected - they just had to do the right thing. But that energy is not harnessed for important things. In Iran, people are fighting for democracy. In China, Uighurs are fighting for self-determination. In the US, people are fighting for free tickets to the Staples Center. Just how embarrassed ought we to be?
The interesting thing to me is that the argument keeps being made that he doesn't want to expend political capital he will need for more important things down the road. As we move down the road, though, he keeps shifting the focus further and further into the future toward issues of which at this point we have not the vaguest idea. A while ago everyone said that he wouldn't take on the torturers because he was saving his political clout (and bipartisanship, don't you know) for the battle on health care. Now that battle is here, and he doesn't seem to be willing to spend much of that capital on this issue, either. What is he saving it for now? Who the hell knows? I'm sure he views himself as practicing the art of the possible. Constantly getting rolled is very possible. How much political capital is he going to end up with if he isn't actually willing to invest any of it?
This is the moment for progressive ideas. There is no potential presidential candidate, of either party (with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton) who is showing any progressive inclinations. This is going to be a pretty short moment.
The answer is, as always, grass roots pressure. But there isn't going to be much. Polls have showed that as much as 80% of the population wants a public option on health care - but it will never happen. Imagine the result, though, if those 80% went active. They would be irresistible.
If half of the national energy harnessed by the Michael Jackson PR team were put into health care reform, or fighting global warming, politicians would understand that they didn't need the lobbyists to get themselves re-elected - they just had to do the right thing. But that energy is not harnessed for important things. In Iran, people are fighting for democracy. In China, Uighurs are fighting for self-determination. In the US, people are fighting for free tickets to the Staples Center. Just how embarrassed ought we to be?
EXCLUSIVE: Israel declines to ask U.S. to OK Iran attack - Washington Times
EXCLUSIVE: Israel declines to ask U.S. to OK Iran attack - Washington Times
It doesn't matter. The US will be held responsible for what Israel does. So if the US does not agree that Iran should be bombed, and is concerned about national security consequences to the US, it had better speak up very clearly to Israel. I'm not at all sure that that will be enough. Probably the US should threaten to cut financial support for Israel, and to stop selling them arms. And actually do so if Israel goes ahead.
I rather doubt even that would stop Israel. I suspect that Israel has sufficiently developed its technology industries that Israel could be self sustaining and could manufacture any military hardware it needs. Or buy it. But the issue is not what happens to Israel. The issue is what happens to the US.
Of course, if you want Iran bombed, and you see no national security consequences to the US - or are willing to accept them - you'll have an entirely different opinion.
It doesn't matter. The US will be held responsible for what Israel does. So if the US does not agree that Iran should be bombed, and is concerned about national security consequences to the US, it had better speak up very clearly to Israel. I'm not at all sure that that will be enough. Probably the US should threaten to cut financial support for Israel, and to stop selling them arms. And actually do so if Israel goes ahead.
I rather doubt even that would stop Israel. I suspect that Israel has sufficiently developed its technology industries that Israel could be self sustaining and could manufacture any military hardware it needs. Or buy it. But the issue is not what happens to Israel. The issue is what happens to the US.
Of course, if you want Iran bombed, and you see no national security consequences to the US - or are willing to accept them - you'll have an entirely different opinion.
Monday, July 06, 2009
MS. JACKSON
Nine stories on Palin right now on the HuffPo politics home page. Well, it's true I've never seen her dance.
Michael Jackson Fans Raise Money To Defeat Peter King
Michael Jackson Fans Raise Money To Defeat Peter King
Robert MacNamara fans are picketing Dick Cheney. Jonas Brothers fans are picketing adults. Important stuff, this celebritism.
Robert MacNamara fans are picketing Dick Cheney. Jonas Brothers fans are picketing adults. Important stuff, this celebritism.
Anne Barker, Seasoned Reporter, Gets Harassed, Spit On At Orthodox Jewish Protest In Jerusalem
Penitents Compete: Turkish Game Show's Religious Contestants Compete To Convert Atheists
Penitents Compete: Turkish Game Show's Religious Contestants Compete To Convert Atheists
Oh, man, would I love to have the US rights for this!
Oh, man, would I love to have the US rights for this!
ALL OF A SUDDEN I'M GETTING VERY TIRED OF OBAMA
Right after the election I spent $500 on the Shepard Fairey "Yes We Did" Obama poster that MoveOn had for sale. I thought it was a good investment. I don't think so now.
What Obama is, is a "normal" president. In other words, he behaves as you'd expect a president to behave. That looked transformational for a while because of the contrast between him and the abnormal prior administration - you know, not just anti-intellectual but anti-intelligence. I think the only transformation we have got is toward a less confrontational status quo.
I think I feel like they must be feeling in Iran - great expectations at the beginning, but no real change. Very disenchanting when expectations were so high. Plus ca change .... Why not just sleep through it all?
What Obama is, is a "normal" president. In other words, he behaves as you'd expect a president to behave. That looked transformational for a while because of the contrast between him and the abnormal prior administration - you know, not just anti-intellectual but anti-intelligence. I think the only transformation we have got is toward a less confrontational status quo.
I think I feel like they must be feeling in Iran - great expectations at the beginning, but no real change. Very disenchanting when expectations were so high. Plus ca change .... Why not just sleep through it all?
Don Lemon: Critics Of Michael Jackson Coverage Are "Elitist"
Don Lemon: Critics Of Michael Jackson Coverage Are "Elitist"
What they're actually waiting for is Jackson's resurrection. They expect to run into him at a crossroads between LA and La Jolla. He'll be glowing and he'll say something weird. And peace will descend on the world.
What they're actually waiting for is Jackson's resurrection. They expect to run into him at a crossroads between LA and La Jolla. He'll be glowing and he'll say something weird. And peace will descend on the world.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Wall Street and the Third World | vanityfair.com
Wall Street and the Third World | vanityfair.com
Frankly, sitting where we're sitting, it's hard to believe there's any truth to this.
Frankly, sitting where we're sitting, it's hard to believe there's any truth to this.
Friday, July 03, 2009
SHE QUIT?
So Sarah Palin's quitting? What a shock.
Why would you want to be governor of Alaska after you've seen Paree (from your porch)?
For sure she's got a TV job coming up - probably on Fox. Great money and great political exposure, and talking like an idiot is nothing new for Fox. It will be interesting to see how she takes to New York or D.C., but she can certainly import enough redneck to keep her comfortable.
This is going to be fascinating.
Why would you want to be governor of Alaska after you've seen Paree (from your porch)?
For sure she's got a TV job coming up - probably on Fox. Great money and great political exposure, and talking like an idiot is nothing new for Fox. It will be interesting to see how she takes to New York or D.C., but she can certainly import enough redneck to keep her comfortable.
This is going to be fascinating.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
UN-AMERICAN
Why do Republicans want to privatize the government? Well, there are some obvious reasons. Firstly, they direct the profit from privatization to themselves. Secondly, they don't want to support anyone else. The third reason is slightly more subtle.
They believe that anyone who has sunk so low as to require employment in the public sector is by definition corrupt and incompetent. The "corrupt" part is far from the crux, although they insist it is; if you give a Republican truth serum he will likely admit that corruption is often part and parcel of privatization. The "incompetent" part IS the crux; they are certain that anyone with even the slightest competence will go for the bigger bucks available in the private sector. They know there's plenty of incompetence in the private sector, and they can just imagine what anyone stupid enough to have a "socialist" mentality (read: who cares for anyone besides himself) is, or is not, capable of.
So, despite the strident nationalistic prose, Republicans are anti-nationalist. The issue for them is what's in it for me, not what's in it for us. They only use America; they are not "American."
They believe that anyone who has sunk so low as to require employment in the public sector is by definition corrupt and incompetent. The "corrupt" part is far from the crux, although they insist it is; if you give a Republican truth serum he will likely admit that corruption is often part and parcel of privatization. The "incompetent" part IS the crux; they are certain that anyone with even the slightest competence will go for the bigger bucks available in the private sector. They know there's plenty of incompetence in the private sector, and they can just imagine what anyone stupid enough to have a "socialist" mentality (read: who cares for anyone besides himself) is, or is not, capable of.
So, despite the strident nationalistic prose, Republicans are anti-nationalist. The issue for them is what's in it for me, not what's in it for us. They only use America; they are not "American."
PETERED OUT
Anything happening in Iran? Not on U.S. news. But nothing much is happening anyway.
The Green movement has run into the obvious: peaceful demonstrations do not create political change where the regime has no regrets over repressing its people. The Shah was taken down only because the U.S., at least, held him back from bringing in tanks. Nobody's holding this regime back, and they've got no compunctions.
It will take guns to bring down the regime, and that is simply not going to happen. The protesters are, for the most part, not the sort of people it takes to push through violent revolution. And the motivation for revolution is the wrong sort - it's for freedom, not for power or for cash. The latter two are the kinds that result in armed insurrection, no matter what the rhetoric depicts.
This one is going to peter out. The regime already knows that, since it is releasing a lot of the people it swept up during the demonstrations. I don't interpret this to be a softening - I interpret it as understanding that the threat has dissipated. Of course, shooting them all would help to guarantee that there won't be another movement for twenty years. So the regime is showing a bit of hesitation - but I think that's a political calculation to disarm the opposition, which fed - for a little while - on repression.
My guess? Bye bye regime change.
The Green movement has run into the obvious: peaceful demonstrations do not create political change where the regime has no regrets over repressing its people. The Shah was taken down only because the U.S., at least, held him back from bringing in tanks. Nobody's holding this regime back, and they've got no compunctions.
It will take guns to bring down the regime, and that is simply not going to happen. The protesters are, for the most part, not the sort of people it takes to push through violent revolution. And the motivation for revolution is the wrong sort - it's for freedom, not for power or for cash. The latter two are the kinds that result in armed insurrection, no matter what the rhetoric depicts.
This one is going to peter out. The regime already knows that, since it is releasing a lot of the people it swept up during the demonstrations. I don't interpret this to be a softening - I interpret it as understanding that the threat has dissipated. Of course, shooting them all would help to guarantee that there won't be another movement for twenty years. So the regime is showing a bit of hesitation - but I think that's a political calculation to disarm the opposition, which fed - for a little while - on repression.
My guess? Bye bye regime change.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Krugman: U.S. Headed for 'Jobless' Recovery - ABC News
Krugman: U.S. Headed for 'Jobless' Recovery - ABC News
How long have I been saying this?
But I don't agree with Krugman that another stimulus package is necessary. The only answer to unemployment is the mass deportation of MBAs who don't understand, or don't believe in, social policy and certainly don't believe that it is important for the corporations they work for to make a contribution to the national health by keeping workers working - even, if necessary and for the short term, at a loss. The beans the beancounters count are human heads. They know the easiest way to cut costs is to cut employees. And, as I've said, once costs are down they will not bring the workers back unless they can't increase corporate productivity some other way.
It will take a minimum of ten years to create new private sector jobs to take up some of this slack, and most of the laid-off employees will not be competent to do the new work. As things now stand, in ten years we going to need a massive infusion of Indian technocrats who will be living here like we used to live there - with ten servants to the house, all American workers who can no longer find other jobs. This concept of America is foreign to me. I don't want a corporate state.
How long have I been saying this?
But I don't agree with Krugman that another stimulus package is necessary. The only answer to unemployment is the mass deportation of MBAs who don't understand, or don't believe in, social policy and certainly don't believe that it is important for the corporations they work for to make a contribution to the national health by keeping workers working - even, if necessary and for the short term, at a loss. The beans the beancounters count are human heads. They know the easiest way to cut costs is to cut employees. And, as I've said, once costs are down they will not bring the workers back unless they can't increase corporate productivity some other way.
It will take a minimum of ten years to create new private sector jobs to take up some of this slack, and most of the laid-off employees will not be competent to do the new work. As things now stand, in ten years we going to need a massive infusion of Indian technocrats who will be living here like we used to live there - with ten servants to the house, all American workers who can no longer find other jobs. This concept of America is foreign to me. I don't want a corporate state.
California Misses Deadline, May Now Have To Issue IOUs
California Misses Deadline, May Now Have To Issue IOUs
If the goal of conservatives is to drown government in a bathtub, they are very close to success. If a state government can't provide necessary services, there is no reason for it to exist. And the states cited here are, for the most part, among the most populated.
Washington under Obama has not been much help. Combined with the massive infusion of capital into the banks, this situation indicates that the transfer of capital from the average citizen to the wealthy is not only continuing but is accelerating. The money that was given to the banks was, in some significant part, collected from citizens of these states. Now when they need help and the return of some of that collected capital, the money is not there, having been given to Goldman Sachs et al. Or Congress and the President just don't want to spend it.
This is the downside of states' rights doctrine. Not only are states alleged to be free to do as they wish with policy, but they are also free to drown in their own blood. Since before the Civil War, "states' rights" has been code for disintegration of the union. If the national government doesn't step in to prop up the states - using, for example, New Yorkers taxes to help California - then there's no need for a union.
We have not entered a new progressive era. We may be entering the most regressive in American history.
If the goal of conservatives is to drown government in a bathtub, they are very close to success. If a state government can't provide necessary services, there is no reason for it to exist. And the states cited here are, for the most part, among the most populated.
Washington under Obama has not been much help. Combined with the massive infusion of capital into the banks, this situation indicates that the transfer of capital from the average citizen to the wealthy is not only continuing but is accelerating. The money that was given to the banks was, in some significant part, collected from citizens of these states. Now when they need help and the return of some of that collected capital, the money is not there, having been given to Goldman Sachs et al. Or Congress and the President just don't want to spend it.
This is the downside of states' rights doctrine. Not only are states alleged to be free to do as they wish with policy, but they are also free to drown in their own blood. Since before the Civil War, "states' rights" has been code for disintegration of the union. If the national government doesn't step in to prop up the states - using, for example, New Yorkers taxes to help California - then there's no need for a union.
We have not entered a new progressive era. We may be entering the most regressive in American history.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+(2)+(Custom).jpg)