11pm EST on November 4. I was in my living room with my son, yelling and jumping up and down. Even though he is autistic, my joy was so great that he actually joined in and started raising his arms and yelling "TOUCHDOWN!!" Just glad to be alive and aware to experience Obama's victory. The video below shows some lead up to the moment, then the moment itself. Enjoy a look back.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
2008 Burning Bush Awards - Decision of the Year
Of course, it is the Palin choice for VP by McCain. Fortunately, here at Burning Bush, we were able to retrieve the actual conversation where the offer was made.
2008 Burning Bush Awards - Palin Moment of the Year
It's hard to choose just one, but this was clearly a disqualifying moment.
2008 Burning Bush Awards - Best Political Ad of the Year
Hagan was 15-20 points behind Elizabeth Dole when the DSCC started running this ad. People at my office were talking about it for weeks. Hagan moved ahead, then wound up winning a surprisingly comfortable victory when Dole imploded in the last week.
2008 Burning Bush Awards - Dunk of the Year
And the winner is LeBron James, who posterizes most of the Celtic team on this one, lastly KG.
2008 Burning Bush Awards -- Political Diss of the Year
The winner is Robert Gibbs, whose destruction of Sean Hannity was so complete that Fox probably had to retrieve Hannity with a broom and dustpan.
Playoffs? Whaddaya Mean Playoffs?
Yeah, here are my picks, EB:
Atlanta 27 Arizona 20
Indy 45 San Diego 34
Philly 20 Minny 13
Miami 17 Baltimore 13
OK, that last one is a big-time reach, call it my Upset Special. I'll be genuinely shocked if Miami is even able to score a touchdown in that one. Other predictions for these games:
1. Kurt Warner will be knocked out of the game.
2. Chargers fans will boo Norv Turner.
3. The Vikings will have many turnovers.
4. Ricky Williams will be de-cleated at least once.
Atlanta 27 Arizona 20
Indy 45 San Diego 34
Philly 20 Minny 13
Miami 17 Baltimore 13
OK, that last one is a big-time reach, call it my Upset Special. I'll be genuinely shocked if Miami is even able to score a touchdown in that one. Other predictions for these games:
1. Kurt Warner will be knocked out of the game.
2. Chargers fans will boo Norv Turner.
3. The Vikings will have many turnovers.
4. Ricky Williams will be de-cleated at least once.
Playoff Challenge--Bring It, BB
Here we go with my picks for Wild Card weekend:
Atlanta 31, Arizona 17
Indianapolis 38, San Diego 21
Minnesota 16, Philadelphia 10
Baltimore 20, Miami 7
Let's hear yours, BB
Atlanta 31, Arizona 17
Indianapolis 38, San Diego 21
Minnesota 16, Philadelphia 10
Baltimore 20, Miami 7
Let's hear yours, BB
Tim Duncan is getting old
... and it breaks my heart to say it.
Tonight I watched Duncan get outplayed by the Bucks' Andrew Bogut, after a week of watching him struggle against middling bigs whom he used to school effortlessly. He can't drive past defenders anymore, even those without great foot speed, and so he shoots that mid-range bank shot a lot more often now, and misses it too much.
His reflexes are slowing down, and so he gets beat on defense more, commits more fouls, and occasionally gets outrun down the floor by his opponent.
Tonight he actually seemed to get mad, and his concentration suddenly became intense, and he made several really good plays in a row. But he looked like he was trying really hard, whereas in the past he did so with a blase look on his face and without breaking a sweat. And by the way, the Spurs lost the game, at home, against a so-so opponent. In crunch time, Duncan missed a driving lay-up that he couldn't get up over Bogut, and then allowed Bogut on the other end to make a pretty bounce pass right past him for the clinching lay-up. This is a guy Duncan would have gotten 30 or 40 points against and fouled out of the game even 2-3 years ago.
It kills me because Duncan has been one of my favorite players ever since he came into the league in 1997. He has been a quiet dominating big man who makes everyone around him better. Consensus rookie of the year in 1997-98, NBA Finals MVP in 1999. That year he put on a clinic in the playoffs, humiliating Shaqille O'Neal and the Lakers in a sweep, then eliciting a full mental breakdown from the favored Trailblazers in the Western Conference Finals, before rolling the Ewing-less Knicks in the championship round (imagine what a Ewing-Duncan matchup would have been like that year).
I still fully believe the Spurs would have repeated in 2000 had it not been for injuries to Duncan, David Robinsion, and Sean Elliott going into the playoffs, which cleared the way for the still-untested Lakers under the overrated Phil Jackson to win their first title. Why do I think this, besides that I'm very biased? Because of a late-season game that year in which the Spurs absolutely destroyed the Lakers, with then-point guard Avery Johnson talking all kinds of trash at Jackson and the Lakers bench throughout the game.
The next year, the Lakers and Spurs met in Round Two of the playoffs and the Lakers swept easily. In Game Two, Duncan went for 40 but nobody else scored in double figures. Shaq talked as if he had shut down or intimidated Duncan, a wish fantasy for a guy who never had the skills or discipline to compete with bigs unintimidated by his physical dominance, such as Duncan, Robinson, or most memorably, Hakeem Olajuwon, who schooled Shaq in Houston's NBA Finals sweep of Shaq's Orlando Magic in 1995.
Duncan won back-to-back league MVP awards in 2002-03, the last one coming along with a very satisfying defeat of the Lakers in the playoffs en route to another championship. Duncan won Finals MVPs in 1999, 2003, and 2005. In that last title, a seven-game duel with the Pistons, Duncan played up and down ball, but came through with big plays in the fourth quarter of Game Seven, and showed the real heart of a champion. It is my firm belief that he will be remembered as the dominant big man of his era, despite the fact that his career coincided with Shaq's.
Today he is definitely slowing down, even though he still puts up ridiculous numbers in the same quiet, understated fashion as in past years (the other day he put up like 25 points, 19 rebounds, even though he seemed to have a mediocre game). As a fan, I would still like to believe that he has one last burst of greatness left, one more great championship run, but as a realist, I doubt it, a lot. He's reportedly kept himself in excellent condition, unlike his nemesis Shaq who has become fat and slow, but time still has a way of catching up. I expect Duncan still has a couple of good years left, maybe more depending on the quality of players surrounding him in the twilight of his career.
Consider this a paean from a longtime fan. The guy has never gotten anything close to the respect he deserves, mainly because he doesn't market himself and doesn't preen around every time he makes a play asking the camera to look at him.
There is much more to say about this part of Duncan's career because I think he was an oddity when he entered the NBA but has become less of one as the normative expectations for player behavior have changed. It's not "cool" anymore to be a moron, to be "gangsta," to be dysfunctional. Smart is in, we now live in the Age of Obama, and I think there is a correlate on the basketball floor. Another post.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Today's Must Read
A fabulous, chronological oral history of the Bush presidency compiled by Vanity Fair. The more you peel back the layers, the uglier the administration becomes. As poorly regarded as Bush already is, I'm guessing history will treat him exponentially worse.
One of many key graphs:
Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: We had this confluence of characters—and I use that term very carefully—that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin–like president—because, let’s face it, that’s what he was—was going to be protected by this national- security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire. What in effect happened was that a very astute, probably the most astute, bureaucratic entrepreneur I’ve ever run into in my life became the vice president of the United States. He became vice president well before George Bush picked him. And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush—personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum.
One of many key graphs:
Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: We had this confluence of characters—and I use that term very carefully—that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin–like president—because, let’s face it, that’s what he was—was going to be protected by this national- security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire. What in effect happened was that a very astute, probably the most astute, bureaucratic entrepreneur I’ve ever run into in my life became the vice president of the United States. He became vice president well before George Bush picked him. And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush—personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Dubya the Reader
For all the absurdity Karl Rove has managed to get the nation to swallow, I think he's really gone over his credit limit on this one--the assertion of Bush as an avid, curious, even scholarly reader of dense, complex histories, who narrowly lost in prolific reading contests to Rove. In one year, the tally was a completely implausible 110 (Rove) to 95 (Bush). Of course nobody's going to believe this crap, but it dimly reminds us that not too long ago, there was a time when all sorts of ridiculous mythology about Bush actually COULD be successfully sold to the public. Man...three more weeks.
I would be willing to bet that Bush has never even seen 95 books in any one place, nor read 95 books in his entire lifetime. Granted, the massive neglect of his presidency, in which his own responsibilities were essentially outsourced to Cheney, Petraeus, and Paulson, has undoubtedly left him with sufficient time to not only read 95 books, but to complete a doctoral program (given his love of "The Very Hungry Caterpillar", I'd have to assume the PhD would be in childrens' literature).
It is articles like this one that make Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert not only funny, but absolutely necessary, and it is articles like this one that make even insufferable windbags like Keith Olbermann into can't miss TV.
My reaction...is sorta like the ESPN football panel when they do their feature on the worst plays of the day: "C'mon Man..."
I would be willing to bet that Bush has never even seen 95 books in any one place, nor read 95 books in his entire lifetime. Granted, the massive neglect of his presidency, in which his own responsibilities were essentially outsourced to Cheney, Petraeus, and Paulson, has undoubtedly left him with sufficient time to not only read 95 books, but to complete a doctoral program (given his love of "The Very Hungry Caterpillar", I'd have to assume the PhD would be in childrens' literature).
It is articles like this one that make Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert not only funny, but absolutely necessary, and it is articles like this one that make even insufferable windbags like Keith Olbermann into can't miss TV.
My reaction...is sorta like the ESPN football panel when they do their feature on the worst plays of the day: "C'mon Man..."
Monday, December 22, 2008
Re: Miami
BB,
I concede your point on the bigger picture. It is an amazing turnaround by any measure. Ol' Favre is looking pretty shaky these days, so who knows, maybe they'll pull it off in the Meadowlands, too.
I concede your point on the bigger picture. It is an amazing turnaround by any measure. Ol' Favre is looking pretty shaky these days, so who knows, maybe they'll pull it off in the Meadowlands, too.
Good to see more open-mindedness on Warren
From Juan Cole, no less. Warren is not easily dismissed, even if in some instances he is easily disagreed with. He's no neanderthal, and Obama is prescient (as usual) in reaching out to him. I hope it continues.
A More Real Miami Dolphins Reality Check
They were 1-15 last year, now they're 10-5, including wins against playoff-caliber competition such as the Patriots and Chargers.
They just won a meaningful game in December, in cold weather, on the road - all things they have failed miserably at going back to the Marino era.
Who cares if they gave up some yards and points to KC? They won in a notoriously difficult place to win. They are a physical team, not soft, and they have a QB who should win the comeback player of the year award.
I'm looking forward to seeing how they perform in the playoffs, and if they lose, who cares? This has been a killer season for the Dolphins no matter what happens the rest of the way. I have no illusions that they will even make it to the AFC title game. Just enjoy the ride, that's the reality check.
They have heart, which is more than I can say for the Cowboys, Jets, and Jags, each of whom have bucketloads more talent.
They just won a meaningful game in December, in cold weather, on the road - all things they have failed miserably at going back to the Marino era.
Who cares if they gave up some yards and points to KC? They won in a notoriously difficult place to win. They are a physical team, not soft, and they have a QB who should win the comeback player of the year award.
I'm looking forward to seeing how they perform in the playoffs, and if they lose, who cares? This has been a killer season for the Dolphins no matter what happens the rest of the way. I have no illusions that they will even make it to the AFC title game. Just enjoy the ride, that's the reality check.
They have heart, which is more than I can say for the Cowboys, Jets, and Jags, each of whom have bucketloads more talent.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
FWIW on Caroline Kennedy
I don't really care much, but it does seem odd for someone who has never been active politically to suddenly want to be handed a Senate seat. If she had been smarter, she'd have announced her intentions to run for the seat in 2010, regardless of who was appointed.
At least Hillary had to run for the seat and be voted into office in her own right. Again, I don't care much, as long as we get somebody in there who will vote correctly and can hold the seat. But it just seems like this has been misplayed by the Caroline crowd.
At least Hillary had to run for the seat and be voted into office in her own right. Again, I don't care much, as long as we get somebody in there who will vote correctly and can hold the seat. But it just seems like this has been misplayed by the Caroline crowd.
Miami Dolphins Reality Check
...in a must win game as a playoff contender against a 2-12 team...
they give up 28 points in the first half, and THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY NINE YARDS OF TOTAL OFFENSE.
Well, they might luck out and win this game (they did keep up, scoring 24 in the first half themselves), but make no mistake. They will not beat the Jets next week, even if they are fortunate enough to escape this week.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.
I know, I know, they were 1-15 last year, but good grief, they have something to play for, and this is what they do?
Updated at 4:23pm:
OK, so Miami scraped by here against a two-win team. But two straight weeks of crummy defense against lackluster teams, including 500 yards given up this week, can't bode well for next week's showdown with the Jets.
they give up 28 points in the first half, and THREE HUNDRED AND TWENTY NINE YARDS OF TOTAL OFFENSE.
Well, they might luck out and win this game (they did keep up, scoring 24 in the first half themselves), but make no mistake. They will not beat the Jets next week, even if they are fortunate enough to escape this week.
Ugly, ugly, ugly.
I know, I know, they were 1-15 last year, but good grief, they have something to play for, and this is what they do?
Updated at 4:23pm:
OK, so Miami scraped by here against a two-win team. But two straight weeks of crummy defense against lackluster teams, including 500 yards given up this week, can't bode well for next week's showdown with the Jets.
Last word on the shoe guy?
I see your point, EB, about how the shoe guy's actions make life tougher for Obama.
However, I think the blame falls less on shoe guy than on Bush, for inviting the response in the first place by being such a terrible president. In other words, it is Bush who has humiliated the office of the presidency, who has debased the commander-in-chief function. What incident better crystallizes the frequent criticism that Bush has wrecked our image in the world?
Bush should publicly call for clemency for shoe guy, and he should be released with a fine and/or probation, or whatever is the equivalent under Iraqi law (which apparently hasn't shed Saddam's influence, since the law he's being charged under is from the Saddam era - so much for introducing "freedom").
Although come to think of it, support from Bush might have the reverse effect and get shoe guy assassinated or something:)
However, I think the blame falls less on shoe guy than on Bush, for inviting the response in the first place by being such a terrible president. In other words, it is Bush who has humiliated the office of the presidency, who has debased the commander-in-chief function. What incident better crystallizes the frequent criticism that Bush has wrecked our image in the world?
Bush should publicly call for clemency for shoe guy, and he should be released with a fine and/or probation, or whatever is the equivalent under Iraqi law (which apparently hasn't shed Saddam's influence, since the law he's being charged under is from the Saddam era - so much for introducing "freedom").
Although come to think of it, support from Bush might have the reverse effect and get shoe guy assassinated or something:)
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Chris Matthews' Finest Hour
Riveting, must-see stuff. It's long, but entirely worthwhile, even necessary viewing.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Shoe Guy, Cont'd
BB,
I think here what is needed is to distinguish between the truth of a situation and the politics of a situation. Both are very complex, but don't actually use the same set of facts or realities.
I think your argument is based upon what you see as the truth of the situation in Iraq, and my argument is based on what I see as the politics of the situation.
It is for that exact reason that you say:
Lastly, one of the reasons people like me refuse to conflate Bush's personhood with the troops is because of what he has done. He doesn't merit that honor, and it does the troops no good whatsoever to do so. Making that conflation is legitimizing his warped view of the commander-in-chief function in the Constitution, which has provided the legal fig leaf for much of what has happened. He more than deserves to be slapped upside the head with a shoe, and so do we, for allowing the last 8 years to happen.
I agree wholeheartedly. He doesn't merit the honor. Believing that, even saying it openly, is fine. But the shoe guy didn't just humiliate George W. Bush. He humiliated the American president. He humiliated the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces (and, to some, he humiliated "America" itself). Now look, it isn't that Bush doesn't deserve that and more. He does. But the politics of the shoe throwing are what is bad. Humiliating the American president is bad for politics in America, because in these next years we will need the American president to be able to persuade Americans to continue to pursue cooperative efforts in the Middle East. This will be made more difficult because there is a sizable chunk of the American electorate who will respond xenophobically to this sort of humiliation. These are people who were initially supportive of the Iraq war who have come around to seeing it as a huge mistake. Thus, Obama's formulation that we should never have been there, but now that we are, we have to act responsibly, is a formulation that they can accept and gives cover to taking the steps needed to extricate ourselves from there while still trying to prop up the country and hopefully leave with a chance for an ally in the long term. I submit to you that most Americans, even those who are against the Iraq War, do not make the distinction you make and do not think it is acceptable for the American president to be pummeled with shoes, even more so when they learn the symbolism of it as it is seen in the Arab world. That doesn't make you "wrong" BB, but it does mean that is a political reality that we better respect. I'll guarantee you Obama respects it. He has to move the country to an entirely new footing in the Middle East, and this incident can serve to harden feelings and make his task more challenging with a subset of the electorate that would otherwise be persuadable.
In Iraq, the politics of this are bad because it has amplified the passions of those who don't want to be reasonable, don't want to be patient with the withdrawal plan, and either outright hate us or are leaning that way. These are people more willing to attack American soldiers and innocent Iraqis. I realize that Bush is deservedly a deeply unpopular figure in Iraq, but doesn't the shoe throwing encourage Iraqis to conflate our soldiers with Bush? Isn't that what a good portion of them already do? And if you conflate Bush with the soldiers, well then why not kill some? For Iraqis who are furious with Bush, the U.S. soldier is often the closest they'll get to him. In short, they pay the price for Bush's mistakes, and to the extent that this incident further incites people, it could even prove more costly.
On a more basic level across the Mideast, it sets a really awful precedent that will spread like wildfire in anti-American circles. I'm sure it will be an emotional high point--the time when they literally stuck it to the Americans and disrespected them right to their faces. The more these perceptions harden about America, the steeper Obama's uphill climb becomes.
Look, I wholeheartedly agree with you that Bush is the one to blame for this. It is his goddamned fault. And the truth is not on his side at all. So I agree, Dubya the person deserves a good shoe bashing. But this incident is bad for America in many ways, BB.
I think here what is needed is to distinguish between the truth of a situation and the politics of a situation. Both are very complex, but don't actually use the same set of facts or realities.
I think your argument is based upon what you see as the truth of the situation in Iraq, and my argument is based on what I see as the politics of the situation.
It is for that exact reason that you say:
Lastly, one of the reasons people like me refuse to conflate Bush's personhood with the troops is because of what he has done. He doesn't merit that honor, and it does the troops no good whatsoever to do so. Making that conflation is legitimizing his warped view of the commander-in-chief function in the Constitution, which has provided the legal fig leaf for much of what has happened. He more than deserves to be slapped upside the head with a shoe, and so do we, for allowing the last 8 years to happen.
I agree wholeheartedly. He doesn't merit the honor. Believing that, even saying it openly, is fine. But the shoe guy didn't just humiliate George W. Bush. He humiliated the American president. He humiliated the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces (and, to some, he humiliated "America" itself). Now look, it isn't that Bush doesn't deserve that and more. He does. But the politics of the shoe throwing are what is bad. Humiliating the American president is bad for politics in America, because in these next years we will need the American president to be able to persuade Americans to continue to pursue cooperative efforts in the Middle East. This will be made more difficult because there is a sizable chunk of the American electorate who will respond xenophobically to this sort of humiliation. These are people who were initially supportive of the Iraq war who have come around to seeing it as a huge mistake. Thus, Obama's formulation that we should never have been there, but now that we are, we have to act responsibly, is a formulation that they can accept and gives cover to taking the steps needed to extricate ourselves from there while still trying to prop up the country and hopefully leave with a chance for an ally in the long term. I submit to you that most Americans, even those who are against the Iraq War, do not make the distinction you make and do not think it is acceptable for the American president to be pummeled with shoes, even more so when they learn the symbolism of it as it is seen in the Arab world. That doesn't make you "wrong" BB, but it does mean that is a political reality that we better respect. I'll guarantee you Obama respects it. He has to move the country to an entirely new footing in the Middle East, and this incident can serve to harden feelings and make his task more challenging with a subset of the electorate that would otherwise be persuadable.
In Iraq, the politics of this are bad because it has amplified the passions of those who don't want to be reasonable, don't want to be patient with the withdrawal plan, and either outright hate us or are leaning that way. These are people more willing to attack American soldiers and innocent Iraqis. I realize that Bush is deservedly a deeply unpopular figure in Iraq, but doesn't the shoe throwing encourage Iraqis to conflate our soldiers with Bush? Isn't that what a good portion of them already do? And if you conflate Bush with the soldiers, well then why not kill some? For Iraqis who are furious with Bush, the U.S. soldier is often the closest they'll get to him. In short, they pay the price for Bush's mistakes, and to the extent that this incident further incites people, it could even prove more costly.
On a more basic level across the Mideast, it sets a really awful precedent that will spread like wildfire in anti-American circles. I'm sure it will be an emotional high point--the time when they literally stuck it to the Americans and disrespected them right to their faces. The more these perceptions harden about America, the steeper Obama's uphill climb becomes.
Look, I wholeheartedly agree with you that Bush is the one to blame for this. It is his goddamned fault. And the truth is not on his side at all. So I agree, Dubya the person deserves a good shoe bashing. But this incident is bad for America in many ways, BB.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
The Shoe Guy battle is joined
EB,
I don't for one minute think the Shoe Guy "sees the war as I do," and don't conflate him with Americans. In fact, that's precisely the point.
As an American, I don't have to deal in any material way with the actual effects of the war. It wasn't my country that was invaded, mismanaged, and demolished. It wasn't my national library that was looted, or my cities that were blown to bits, or my countrymen's kids who were slaughtered in "smart" carpet bombing campaigns.
So it's easier for Americans to react as you did, in my view. Other than military families, we don't really have to experience any meaningful consequences either way.
Also, this idea that the Iraqis should somehow be more grateful for what we've done for them, implied in your post, is insane. However bad Saddam's regime was (and I don't discount that), what we've put in its place has been far worse, if measured objectively in casualties and living conditions and practically every index used by international agencies to evaluate the quality of life in developing nations.
Lastly, one of the reasons people like me refuse to conflate Bush's personhood with the troops is because of what he has done. He doesn't merit that honor, and it does the troops no good whatsoever to do so. Making that conflation is legitimizing his warped view of the commander-in-chief function in the Constitution, which has provided the legal fig leaf for much of what has happened. He more than deserves to be slapped upside the head with a shoe, and so do we, for allowing the last 8 years to happen.
I don't for one minute think the Shoe Guy "sees the war as I do," and don't conflate him with Americans. In fact, that's precisely the point.
As an American, I don't have to deal in any material way with the actual effects of the war. It wasn't my country that was invaded, mismanaged, and demolished. It wasn't my national library that was looted, or my cities that were blown to bits, or my countrymen's kids who were slaughtered in "smart" carpet bombing campaigns.
So it's easier for Americans to react as you did, in my view. Other than military families, we don't really have to experience any meaningful consequences either way.
Also, this idea that the Iraqis should somehow be more grateful for what we've done for them, implied in your post, is insane. However bad Saddam's regime was (and I don't discount that), what we've put in its place has been far worse, if measured objectively in casualties and living conditions and practically every index used by international agencies to evaluate the quality of life in developing nations.
Lastly, one of the reasons people like me refuse to conflate Bush's personhood with the troops is because of what he has done. He doesn't merit that honor, and it does the troops no good whatsoever to do so. Making that conflation is legitimizing his warped view of the commander-in-chief function in the Constitution, which has provided the legal fig leaf for much of what has happened. He more than deserves to be slapped upside the head with a shoe, and so do we, for allowing the last 8 years to happen.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Re: Rick Warren at the Inaugural
This is all so obvious to me, and it will be painful to watch liberals drive themselves into a tizzy over Rick Warren delivering the invocation at Obama's inauguration.
I'm actually not unhappy with it at all, and it exactly fits Obama's approach not only to politics, but spirituality as well. Warren's appeal to Obama isn't that he agrees with Warren's every belief. It is that he thinks Warren is sincere, and he thinks there are areas where he can really work with him to move an issue forward somehow, like AIDS in Africa, or poverty, or the environment--areas where Warren has shown more openness and creativity than typical Republican dogma would suggest. Obama shows great self-confidence by honoring Warren rather than seeking to somehow neutralize him. It also makes it far more difficult for Christians (most of whom love Warren's books, by the way) to adopt the usual defensive crouch of "see, those secularists think they're better than us".
Obama likes to push boundaries, especially when he thinks they are there for no good reason. We might be seeing Obama challenge the solidarity of the Republican hold on Christian voters. He may be starting a challenge to how they engage in politics. It would be a bold, amazing challenge for him to make, and this Warren move is a great first step.
Remember he promised inclusiveness, and we cheered him when he did it. So, we can't get upset when he actually does it. If we want realignment, then we have to be willing to work for it, and be uncomfortable sometimes.
I'm actually not unhappy with it at all, and it exactly fits Obama's approach not only to politics, but spirituality as well. Warren's appeal to Obama isn't that he agrees with Warren's every belief. It is that he thinks Warren is sincere, and he thinks there are areas where he can really work with him to move an issue forward somehow, like AIDS in Africa, or poverty, or the environment--areas where Warren has shown more openness and creativity than typical Republican dogma would suggest. Obama shows great self-confidence by honoring Warren rather than seeking to somehow neutralize him. It also makes it far more difficult for Christians (most of whom love Warren's books, by the way) to adopt the usual defensive crouch of "see, those secularists think they're better than us".
Obama likes to push boundaries, especially when he thinks they are there for no good reason. We might be seeing Obama challenge the solidarity of the Republican hold on Christian voters. He may be starting a challenge to how they engage in politics. It would be a bold, amazing challenge for him to make, and this Warren move is a great first step.
Remember he promised inclusiveness, and we cheered him when he did it. So, we can't get upset when he actually does it. If we want realignment, then we have to be willing to work for it, and be uncomfortable sometimes.
Re: Shoe Guy
BB,
I don't actually find anything to disagree with in what you said. I only insist upon adding to it. What you said is all true. I agree with it and wouldn't edit it. I just think there are other sides to this event. The shoe guy is the living embodiment of the deep conflicts that the Iraq War causes. The war was fraudulently sold, inexcusably mismanaged, and poisoned with unforgiveable abuses of power by the Bush people. As such, the inevitable death of innocents, which happens in every war, even the ones the world comes to see as "good wars", becomes something far worse in the case of Iraq. In the "good war", the inadvertent death of innocents is seen as tragic and horrible, but because it is a "good war", their deaths actually tend to be blamed on the villain who is the object of our actions. In other words, if the Iraq War had been seen as a "good war" or a necessary war, then the civilian deaths would be more likely to be blamed on Saddam than on us. The logic would be "if that damned Saddam hadn't done x, y, and z, then this war wouldn't have had to happen, and these innocent people would still be alive." Obviously, Bush's war isn't given anywhere near such credit.
However, the other complication here is that despite the colossal failures of the Bush administration, 150,000 American boys are there right now, risking their lives, and have forestalled (even if only temporarily) an all-out civil war in Iraq. They actually have saved Iraqi lives, and in many areas of Iraq, have markedly improved the security situation. Even Obama acknowledges this. It is important to remember that those guys are there, and whatever we think of Bush, he is more than just a person deserving of our scorn (and the scorn of the shoe guy, no doubt). He is also an office, an institution, a representative of those 150,000 guys with lives on the line. Bush doesn't deserve respect, and I don't think the shoe guy went too far in feeling that way. Hell, I feel the same way. But out of respect for the 150,000 guys, don't do it. And certainly, for the rest of the Iraqi intelligentsia, don't honor it. Don't risk convincing the American public that the Iraqis disrespect America itself rather than just Bush. Don't risk convincing America that you don't appreciate the sacrifices of our soldiers, many of whom have died confronting some pretty awful shit in Iraq. I understand that a sophisticated argument can be made that splits out the visceral anger at Bush and separates it from the work of our soldiers, but I don't think throwing shoes at the president is the way to make a point like that.
Don't believe that this journalist truly sees the Iraq War in the same way that you do. Remember that you see it from the vantage point of an American. If your intelligence allows you the dexterity to make the elegant point that you can profoundly respect the risks American soldiers take while detesting the president who wrongly asked them to take said risks, that is a great thing to be able to do. I just don't see that in what the shoe guy did.
I don't actually find anything to disagree with in what you said. I only insist upon adding to it. What you said is all true. I agree with it and wouldn't edit it. I just think there are other sides to this event. The shoe guy is the living embodiment of the deep conflicts that the Iraq War causes. The war was fraudulently sold, inexcusably mismanaged, and poisoned with unforgiveable abuses of power by the Bush people. As such, the inevitable death of innocents, which happens in every war, even the ones the world comes to see as "good wars", becomes something far worse in the case of Iraq. In the "good war", the inadvertent death of innocents is seen as tragic and horrible, but because it is a "good war", their deaths actually tend to be blamed on the villain who is the object of our actions. In other words, if the Iraq War had been seen as a "good war" or a necessary war, then the civilian deaths would be more likely to be blamed on Saddam than on us. The logic would be "if that damned Saddam hadn't done x, y, and z, then this war wouldn't have had to happen, and these innocent people would still be alive." Obviously, Bush's war isn't given anywhere near such credit.
However, the other complication here is that despite the colossal failures of the Bush administration, 150,000 American boys are there right now, risking their lives, and have forestalled (even if only temporarily) an all-out civil war in Iraq. They actually have saved Iraqi lives, and in many areas of Iraq, have markedly improved the security situation. Even Obama acknowledges this. It is important to remember that those guys are there, and whatever we think of Bush, he is more than just a person deserving of our scorn (and the scorn of the shoe guy, no doubt). He is also an office, an institution, a representative of those 150,000 guys with lives on the line. Bush doesn't deserve respect, and I don't think the shoe guy went too far in feeling that way. Hell, I feel the same way. But out of respect for the 150,000 guys, don't do it. And certainly, for the rest of the Iraqi intelligentsia, don't honor it. Don't risk convincing the American public that the Iraqis disrespect America itself rather than just Bush. Don't risk convincing America that you don't appreciate the sacrifices of our soldiers, many of whom have died confronting some pretty awful shit in Iraq. I understand that a sophisticated argument can be made that splits out the visceral anger at Bush and separates it from the work of our soldiers, but I don't think throwing shoes at the president is the way to make a point like that.
Don't believe that this journalist truly sees the Iraq War in the same way that you do. Remember that you see it from the vantage point of an American. If your intelligence allows you the dexterity to make the elegant point that you can profoundly respect the risks American soldiers take while detesting the president who wrongly asked them to take said risks, that is a great thing to be able to do. I just don't see that in what the shoe guy did.
Addendum: Double Standard Alert
Appropo of my post below about the new double standard being applied to Obama, here's MC Rove bustin' a cap in his ass:
Karl Rove, who refused to answer questions for years on the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA official, criticized Barack Obama on Monday for not being more forthcoming in the Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) scandal.
Rove, a former top White House adviser to President Bush, said on Fox News, “[Obama] should have, right from the beginning, been more forthcoming.”
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
A.S.P.
Or, "Ass-Sniffing Punditry," is an acronym that Jormungandr and I started using a few years ago. This is our establishment media's default stance toward Republicans in general and powerful corporate and political elites particularly.
I was reminded of this today by two things.
First, Bush gave an interview in which he declared that despite the recent election and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the U.S. remains a "center-right country."
Second, the corporate media has begun reviving Clinton-era tactics in its coverage of the Blagojevich scandal and the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General. As Jormungandr notes below, well-heeled media stars like John King of CNN have speculated like Mean Girls at a deb ball about Obama's unwillingness to genuflect to their bottomless craving for mindless gossip about Blago. Now we have MSNBC today worrying that they have to be tougher on Obama to make up for their pathetic, ass-kissing performance during most of the Bush years.
So they're going to spread bullshit about Holder's role in the Marc Rich pardon even though they had nothing to say about the more reprehensible pardon of Scooter Libby for, basically, treason. Libby helped leak the name of an undercover CIA agent working to stop the spread of WMDs in the Islamic world. An extreme interpretation of Libby's act would construe it as "lending aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States," the definition of treason in the Constitution - a capital crime. But the ASPs yawned, just as they continue to do at Bush's embrace of torture.
And the same ass-sniffing media is apparently eager and ready to legitimize the notion that Holder played an important role in the Elian Gonzales case while he worked at the Clinton Justice Department.
Even if he did, so what? These assholes had nothing to say about Alberto Gonzales during his confirmation, and they failed utterly to expose the mountain of corruption under Gonzales' reign - it took the blogosphere to do that job. But now they want to re-establish an adversarial role just in time for Obama's administration. What a pack of worthless, cocktail party assholes. They don't understand that Obama's election was a repudiation of the ENTIRE political establishment, which includes their corrupt, bloated, Eunuch palace-guard, much sat upon asses.
They fools failed to report on Bush's lies when such reporting would have mattered. Now they want to legitimize manufactured lies on behalf of the same establishment out of power. This isn't a center-right country, but we have a center-right media elite. They earn six-figure salaries, come for the most part from very privileged backgrounds, and have no fucking clue about the country they've convinced themselves they speak for.
ASPs are blinded by the stench of the giant steaming Establishment Ass always hovering just an inch away from their shining eager faces.
I was reminded of this today by two things.
First, Bush gave an interview in which he declared that despite the recent election and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the U.S. remains a "center-right country."
Second, the corporate media has begun reviving Clinton-era tactics in its coverage of the Blagojevich scandal and the nomination of Eric Holder for Attorney General. As Jormungandr notes below, well-heeled media stars like John King of CNN have speculated like Mean Girls at a deb ball about Obama's unwillingness to genuflect to their bottomless craving for mindless gossip about Blago. Now we have MSNBC today worrying that they have to be tougher on Obama to make up for their pathetic, ass-kissing performance during most of the Bush years.
So they're going to spread bullshit about Holder's role in the Marc Rich pardon even though they had nothing to say about the more reprehensible pardon of Scooter Libby for, basically, treason. Libby helped leak the name of an undercover CIA agent working to stop the spread of WMDs in the Islamic world. An extreme interpretation of Libby's act would construe it as "lending aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States," the definition of treason in the Constitution - a capital crime. But the ASPs yawned, just as they continue to do at Bush's embrace of torture.
And the same ass-sniffing media is apparently eager and ready to legitimize the notion that Holder played an important role in the Elian Gonzales case while he worked at the Clinton Justice Department.
Even if he did, so what? These assholes had nothing to say about Alberto Gonzales during his confirmation, and they failed utterly to expose the mountain of corruption under Gonzales' reign - it took the blogosphere to do that job. But now they want to re-establish an adversarial role just in time for Obama's administration. What a pack of worthless, cocktail party assholes. They don't understand that Obama's election was a repudiation of the ENTIRE political establishment, which includes their corrupt, bloated, Eunuch palace-guard, much sat upon asses.
They fools failed to report on Bush's lies when such reporting would have mattered. Now they want to legitimize manufactured lies on behalf of the same establishment out of power. This isn't a center-right country, but we have a center-right media elite. They earn six-figure salaries, come for the most part from very privileged backgrounds, and have no fucking clue about the country they've convinced themselves they speak for.
ASPs are blinded by the stench of the giant steaming Establishment Ass always hovering just an inch away from their shining eager faces.
Morning Humor...this is hilarious
From Balloon Juice:
I am calling it now- John King, on CNN, just proclaimed that there is no allegation of wrong-doing in the Blagojevich case regarding the Obama team, but that he better prove he is innocent and get it right because he said he would have an open and transparent administration.
Got it? Unless Obama proves he didn’t do anything wrong, when he hasn’t been accused of any wrong doing, there will be hell to pay.
Now, no one has accused John King of buggering young children after luring them into his van down by the river with promises of candy and then feeding them rum balls and Jesus Juice before repeatedly sodomizing them, but he better prove this is not the case or there will be big problems for King and CNN. What did Wolf Blitzer know about this? It would be irresponsible to not speculate about this.
Can’t they put something useful on CNN before Fareed Zakaria’s GPS so I am not subjected to this bullshit?
*** Update ***
John King is from Idaho, which makes me wonder if he has ever had a tryst with Larry Craig, who is also from Idaho. Don’t you see the obvious connection? They are both from Idaho, just like Obama and Balgojevich are BOTH FROM CHICAGO. It is right there in front of your eyes, folks! Will John King be able to prove he has never had sex with Larry Craig in a bathroom stall? We need answers!
I am calling it now- John King, on CNN, just proclaimed that there is no allegation of wrong-doing in the Blagojevich case regarding the Obama team, but that he better prove he is innocent and get it right because he said he would have an open and transparent administration.
Got it? Unless Obama proves he didn’t do anything wrong, when he hasn’t been accused of any wrong doing, there will be hell to pay.
Now, no one has accused John King of buggering young children after luring them into his van down by the river with promises of candy and then feeding them rum balls and Jesus Juice before repeatedly sodomizing them, but he better prove this is not the case or there will be big problems for King and CNN. What did Wolf Blitzer know about this? It would be irresponsible to not speculate about this.
Can’t they put something useful on CNN before Fareed Zakaria’s GPS so I am not subjected to this bullshit?
*** Update ***
John King is from Idaho, which makes me wonder if he has ever had a tryst with Larry Craig, who is also from Idaho. Don’t you see the obvious connection? They are both from Idaho, just like Obama and Balgojevich are BOTH FROM CHICAGO. It is right there in front of your eyes, folks! Will John King be able to prove he has never had sex with Larry Craig in a bathroom stall? We need answers!
Monday, December 15, 2008
The shoe heard round the world
Got to disagree with Jormungandr here - the Shoe Guy just did what millions of people would like to have done... except he missed.
According to Juan Cole, the Iraqi reporter in question had covered massive aerial bombardments of major Iraqi cities, and witnessed first hand a great deal of civilian bloodshed as a result. To such a person, it must be unbearable to watch Bush extol the "great progress" toward "victory" as Bush was doing when the first shoe dropped, so to speak.
Now the guy is in prison and is reportedly being tortured and may face an 8-year imprisonment, for an act that Bush himself described as "the price of living in a free society."
Frankly, I expect quite a few US soldiers wouldn't have minded hurling that shoe either.
Can this jackass leave office soon enough?
According to Juan Cole, the Iraqi reporter in question had covered massive aerial bombardments of major Iraqi cities, and witnessed first hand a great deal of civilian bloodshed as a result. To such a person, it must be unbearable to watch Bush extol the "great progress" toward "victory" as Bush was doing when the first shoe dropped, so to speak.
Now the guy is in prison and is reportedly being tortured and may face an 8-year imprisonment, for an act that Bush himself described as "the price of living in a free society."
Frankly, I expect quite a few US soldiers wouldn't have minded hurling that shoe either.
Can this jackass leave office soon enough?
They Praise the Shoe Guy
The guy who threw his shoes at Bush is apparently an instant hero in the Middle East.
I have to admit, with 150,000 American soldiers risking their lives every day in Iraq, it's hard to know how to feel. Of course I have extreme contempt for Bush, but he also represents those guys, too.
It sure casts in sharp relief just how badly we need Obama to succeed. The world just doesn't do well when the U.S. president is an abject failure.
I have to admit, with 150,000 American soldiers risking their lives every day in Iraq, it's hard to know how to feel. Of course I have extreme contempt for Bush, but he also represents those guys, too.
It sure casts in sharp relief just how badly we need Obama to succeed. The world just doesn't do well when the U.S. president is an abject failure.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
The last word on Bill Ayers
belongs to Katha Pollitt of The Nation.
Her take on Ayers and the Weather Underground echoes my own understanding of their role in delegitimizing and ultimately destroying the antiwar left in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Their historical significance is that they helped revive the Republican Party and hard-right conservatives by making progressive views into cartoons. That's it.
There was a lot of bitterness against Ayers and the Weather Underground afterward, especially within the antiwar and progressive movements. Not so much from the Right, until it became politically convenient in 2008 to care about Weather's generally insignificant actions.
Having been involved in some progressive political activism, including street actions, I have witnessed people getting frustrated and wanting to move from nonviolent to violent action. I can sympathize with this feeling, but can't condone it. Not only is it immoral, it is counter-productive - the surest way to turn the public against your viewpoint. That's basically what Weather accomplished, intentionally or not.
While I admire some of the things Bill Ayers has done since then, primarily his work on inner-city education and juvenile justice reform in Chicago, I'm troubled by some of the ways he is defending his past lately. He hasn't really admitted how much Weather fucked everything up for the antiwar movement. Calling for peace through violence is nothing more than an addled, stoned-out copy of how the government conducted the Vietnam War and the Cold War generally.
Her take on Ayers and the Weather Underground echoes my own understanding of their role in delegitimizing and ultimately destroying the antiwar left in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Their historical significance is that they helped revive the Republican Party and hard-right conservatives by making progressive views into cartoons. That's it.
There was a lot of bitterness against Ayers and the Weather Underground afterward, especially within the antiwar and progressive movements. Not so much from the Right, until it became politically convenient in 2008 to care about Weather's generally insignificant actions.
Having been involved in some progressive political activism, including street actions, I have witnessed people getting frustrated and wanting to move from nonviolent to violent action. I can sympathize with this feeling, but can't condone it. Not only is it immoral, it is counter-productive - the surest way to turn the public against your viewpoint. That's basically what Weather accomplished, intentionally or not.
While I admire some of the things Bill Ayers has done since then, primarily his work on inner-city education and juvenile justice reform in Chicago, I'm troubled by some of the ways he is defending his past lately. He hasn't really admitted how much Weather fucked everything up for the antiwar movement. Calling for peace through violence is nothing more than an addled, stoned-out copy of how the government conducted the Vietnam War and the Cold War generally.
The OJ-ing of America
Frank Rich has a doozy of an editorial essay in today's NYT, in which he likens the pols who got us into Iraq, and the corporate heads who wrecked our economy, to OJ Simpson.
None of them are responsible for anything but they're out there looking for the "real" killer.
None of them are responsible for anything but they're out there looking for the "real" killer.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
College Football Needs Playoffs
While I'm absolutely the last person who would ever feel pity for the University of Texas at Austin athletic program, I think it's pretty obvious that the UT football team and QB Colt McCoy got jobbed by the ridiculous BCS system.
McCoy lost the Heisman tonight for the simple reason that he was denied a chance to play one more week in the Big 12 championship game, while the Heisman victor, Sam Bradford, won largely on the strength of his performance in that same game.
Texas beat both teams who played in the Big 12 championship, and should have been playing Oklahoma in that game. For what it's worth, I would say the same thing on Oklahoma's behalf if the stupid BCS computers had elevated Texas to play Missouri.
Now we have a bullshit title game.
What I really don't get are those people who say a playoff system would be bad for college football. Really? It's not hurting basketball. And it reinforces many of the moral lessons that sports are supposed to teach kids anyway, about earning what you get on the field.
McCoy lost the Heisman tonight for the simple reason that he was denied a chance to play one more week in the Big 12 championship game, while the Heisman victor, Sam Bradford, won largely on the strength of his performance in that same game.
Texas beat both teams who played in the Big 12 championship, and should have been playing Oklahoma in that game. For what it's worth, I would say the same thing on Oklahoma's behalf if the stupid BCS computers had elevated Texas to play Missouri.
Now we have a bullshit title game.
What I really don't get are those people who say a playoff system would be bad for college football. Really? It's not hurting basketball. And it reinforces many of the moral lessons that sports are supposed to teach kids anyway, about earning what you get on the field.
Stupid Parents Watch
This afternoon we brought our 7-year-old son, Alex, to a birthday party for one of his classmates. It was at Peter Piper Pizza, which is kind of like a ghettoish version of Chuck E Cheese. There we endured a textbook example of what parents should never do when hosting a birthday party.
First: They didn't actually buy the birthday party package from the restaurant. Instead, they just grabbed a table, set up some Star Wars stuff, and ordered a couple of cheap, plain cheese pizzas with that watery-ass sauce such places use. There wasn't enough food for everyone to have more than one skinny slice. And they didn't order sodas or tokens for the games, instead they went around and passed out like 4 tokens to each kid, which lasts for about 30 seconds. (One kid plaintively bummed a token off of me away from the table).
Second: This meant that I had to fork out $20-30 for tokens so Alex could play games. And I had to buy sodas for us. Other parents ordered their own food too. This is a big no-no - if you are hosting a kid party and asking parents to buy gifts, the least you can do is feed them. The parents were giving the birthday boy a fucking X-Box 360 but they couldn't give him, and us, a halfway decent party.
Third: The parents simply acted like assholes. Many of the women were dressed in full hoochie-mama gear, with flaccid bellies bulging out of their too-tight midriff shirts and low-rise jeans. They were clearly planning to hit the clubs after they gossiped with each other at the kid party. They ignored my wife while she sat there alone with our 6-month old son, so they could bullshit with each other about whatever.
The highlight was when my wife came running up to me all worried that we had to leave. Apparently, one couple came back to the table fuming because some guy had accidentally bumped into them at the soda machine. The man of the couple, a brain-dead looking dude covered in cheap, shitty-ass tattoos, cracked his knuckles menacingly, while his idiot girlfriend/wife/whatever riled up the whole crew about "getting" this poor guy and his party.
You wouldn't want to model the wrong behavior for the kids. Gotta keep it real, right?
Seriously, if you can't avoid getting into a fight over nothing at a kid party, you are a fucking imbecile. And a special shout-out for having lots of kids to provide us with a new generation of dumbass wannabe gangstas. Thanks dude!
By the way, the birthday boy, who is supposedly in second grade, looked like he was about 12, and apparently has bragged to Alex about kicking Chuck E Cheese in the nuts. Nice. Maybe that's why we were in Peter Piper.
So when the fight talk began we had to go. I left hungry, pissed-off, and about $35 lighter in the wallet. I swear, nothing makes me angrier than lousy parents.
First: They didn't actually buy the birthday party package from the restaurant. Instead, they just grabbed a table, set up some Star Wars stuff, and ordered a couple of cheap, plain cheese pizzas with that watery-ass sauce such places use. There wasn't enough food for everyone to have more than one skinny slice. And they didn't order sodas or tokens for the games, instead they went around and passed out like 4 tokens to each kid, which lasts for about 30 seconds. (One kid plaintively bummed a token off of me away from the table).
Second: This meant that I had to fork out $20-30 for tokens so Alex could play games. And I had to buy sodas for us. Other parents ordered their own food too. This is a big no-no - if you are hosting a kid party and asking parents to buy gifts, the least you can do is feed them. The parents were giving the birthday boy a fucking X-Box 360 but they couldn't give him, and us, a halfway decent party.
Third: The parents simply acted like assholes. Many of the women were dressed in full hoochie-mama gear, with flaccid bellies bulging out of their too-tight midriff shirts and low-rise jeans. They were clearly planning to hit the clubs after they gossiped with each other at the kid party. They ignored my wife while she sat there alone with our 6-month old son, so they could bullshit with each other about whatever.
The highlight was when my wife came running up to me all worried that we had to leave. Apparently, one couple came back to the table fuming because some guy had accidentally bumped into them at the soda machine. The man of the couple, a brain-dead looking dude covered in cheap, shitty-ass tattoos, cracked his knuckles menacingly, while his idiot girlfriend/wife/whatever riled up the whole crew about "getting" this poor guy and his party.
You wouldn't want to model the wrong behavior for the kids. Gotta keep it real, right?
Seriously, if you can't avoid getting into a fight over nothing at a kid party, you are a fucking imbecile. And a special shout-out for having lots of kids to provide us with a new generation of dumbass wannabe gangstas. Thanks dude!
By the way, the birthday boy, who is supposedly in second grade, looked like he was about 12, and apparently has bragged to Alex about kicking Chuck E Cheese in the nuts. Nice. Maybe that's why we were in Peter Piper.
So when the fight talk began we had to go. I left hungry, pissed-off, and about $35 lighter in the wallet. I swear, nothing makes me angrier than lousy parents.
Today's must-read...
...comes from my favorite truly left-wing author, Arundhati Roy. Superb analysis of India, Pakistan, and the Mumbai attacks.
UAW Pwns David Vitter
BB thinks I overuse the term "pwned", but in this case, I think even he will agree it is well applied. From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
WASHINGTON -- Morgan Johnson, president of the United Auto Workers local representing General Motors workers in Shreveport, said Friday that Sen. David Vitter's role in blocking an auto bailout indicates "he's chosen to play Russian roulette" with Louisiana jobs and the national economy.
"I don't know what Sen. Vitter has against GM or the United Auto Workers or the entire domestic auto industry; whatever it is, whatever he thinks we've done, it's time for him to forgive us, just like Sen. Vitter has asked the citizens of Louisiana to forgive him, " said Johnson, president of Local 2166. Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, "He'd rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers."
WASHINGTON -- Morgan Johnson, president of the United Auto Workers local representing General Motors workers in Shreveport, said Friday that Sen. David Vitter's role in blocking an auto bailout indicates "he's chosen to play Russian roulette" with Louisiana jobs and the national economy.
"I don't know what Sen. Vitter has against GM or the United Auto Workers or the entire domestic auto industry; whatever it is, whatever he thinks we've done, it's time for him to forgive us, just like Sen. Vitter has asked the citizens of Louisiana to forgive him, " said Johnson, president of Local 2166. Otherwise, Johnson said of Vitter, it would appear, "He'd rather pay a prostitute than pay auto workers."
Friday, December 12, 2008
Dead Wood (R-USA)
Jormungandr asked me to post this rant on the failed auto bailout bill:
What we need is a partisan, not givin' a shit, anti-Broderesque Dem to go apeshit.
Somebody needs to call them out, and not on Josh Marshall's blog. Go on national TV, Meet the Press, or something....don't be polite. Don't say it's a philosophical disagreement. Just say: "They hate unions, so they are willing to let millions of jobs be lost. They are butt boys for foreign automakers who have plants in their states, so they are willing to let millions of jobs be lost. They need something to oppose so they can redefine themselves, so they are willing to let millions of jobs be lost. Republicans HAVE NO PLAN FOR THE ECONOMY. NONE. ZERO. Their plan is to do exactly as they did here--stand on the sidelines with not much to say until they can filibuster something and then try to blame the Democrats. They HAVE NO PLAN. NONE. Let 'em go bankrupt is not a plan, any more than waiting for a wildfire to burn itself out is a plan. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that they have no plan. These were the champions of deregulation and unstructured free trade--which are basically Washington expressions for standing on the sidelines, going to cocktail parties and junkets, collecting campaign contributions, and getting re-elected. But now that plan has failed, and they have NO ALTERNATIVE PLAN. NONE."
What we need is a partisan, not givin' a shit, anti-Broderesque Dem to go apeshit.
Somebody needs to call them out, and not on Josh Marshall's blog. Go on national TV, Meet the Press, or something....don't be polite. Don't say it's a philosophical disagreement. Just say: "They hate unions, so they are willing to let millions of jobs be lost. They are butt boys for foreign automakers who have plants in their states, so they are willing to let millions of jobs be lost. They need something to oppose so they can redefine themselves, so they are willing to let millions of jobs be lost. Republicans HAVE NO PLAN FOR THE ECONOMY. NONE. ZERO. Their plan is to do exactly as they did here--stand on the sidelines with not much to say until they can filibuster something and then try to blame the Democrats. They HAVE NO PLAN. NONE. Let 'em go bankrupt is not a plan, any more than waiting for a wildfire to burn itself out is a plan. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that they have no plan. These were the champions of deregulation and unstructured free trade--which are basically Washington expressions for standing on the sidelines, going to cocktail parties and junkets, collecting campaign contributions, and getting re-elected. But now that plan has failed, and they have NO ALTERNATIVE PLAN. NONE."
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
My Bailout Concern
Amid the maelstrom of bailouts, real and proposed, and after all the posturing of members of Congress and careerist TV personality types (yes, you, Campbell Brown, and you, Lou Dobbs, among others), I keep trying to think this thing through for myself. Of course it's always better to be as open-minded as humanly possible, but I also like to at least have some sense of my own thoughts when I engage an important topic.
I hear some points that make some sense, but lack some depth, such as protesting the ease of bailing out Wall Street for $700B when the Big Three are raked over the coals when they've only asked for $34B, or 1/20th of the Wall Street outlay. OK, fair enough. And yes, it's pretty easy to fulminate over the CEOs taking their corporate jets to Washington to ask for a bailout. But now that they drove down in a hybrid car today, did it really change anything?
Here is what I can put together thus far. First of all, I have yet to be convinced that ANY of these people--public policy makers, the so-called Captains of Industry, economists, editorial writers, TV talking heads--none of the usual suspects of conventional wisdom seems to grasp what's going on. A shitload of money was invested in highly suspect securities and derivatives that were based upon very poorly performing products (like subprime mortgages). Subsequent financial structures that hedged said risk were deemed a value of their own, and were also bought and sold, as our creative geniuses found ways to derive "returns" (investment income) by selling their interest in these securities at a premium. It was an investment banker version of "Flip That House", only in this case the house was built on a pile of cow manure, and made of popsicle sticks.
Now the bailouts begin. And, now we enter a sick game of who lives and who dies. Who do we GIVE THE MONEY TO (also called "injecting capital to prop up the financial system"), and who do we LOAN THE MONEY TO (also called the far more politically damaging "bailout")? And lastly, who do we let fail (like Lehman brothers)?
My question is moral hazard, and the long term ramifications of what the hell we are doing here. I always understood that the success of a market based economy is driven in part by self-preservation. You better strive for excellence, because you have to compete to win, and if you don't compete well, you'll go out of business. The threat of real failure is one of the biggest motivating factors at the strategic level of any business. If that threat doesn't exist, then what incentive replaces it?
Hell, my own business is trying to figure out how to get their hands on TARP money! We made some poor strategic decisions, and have a good amount of bad business on our books as a result. And the management of my company, all conservative Republicans, many of whom donate heavily to the RNC and Republican candidates (I look them up on opensecrets.org), are having regular meetings to strategize about how to shape their proposal to the Feds to get a piece of the TARP! Suddenly, I work for socialists.
Captains of Industry believed in moral hazard when they thought THEY could never fail. Their immediate about face is proof positive that the free market is bullshit, and the market based economy is really a rigged game of cash and carry, a revolving door between large industries and their governmental patrons. Republicans and Democrats agreed to bail out Wall Street, and I am to believe that it is entirely coincidental that both political parties raise millions of dollars from Wall Street firms. Republicans oppose the auto bailout, and Democrats are trying to thread the needle of public opinion and figure out a way to make it happen. Of course, it is mere coincidence that Big Three's unionized workforce are the footsoldiers that deliver states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania for Democratic candidates year in and year out. Sure...coincidence.
Small businesses, which both parties have taken to extolling as the "engine of job growth in this country", and which are portrayed as so virtuous and quintessentially American--these guys fail tens of thousands of times a year. Families are ruined, and somehow that never comes up in the all the "virtuous" speechifying of our leaders. No bailouts for them. Not "too big to fail"...so no capitalist mulligans for them. But Citigroup...well...
Could we possibly set up a worse precedent? Isn't this a big shakedown? The Big Three aren't doing anything different than what the Wall Street firms did; they are just doing it with less political clout, but the message is the same: You better help us, or there will be disastrous economic consequences, and you, Mr. Politician, will be held responsible for it. I never thought I'd see so many politicians sounding at least halfway like grownups, which is quite a statement as to just how badly these industry geniuses have screwed up.
I see lots of commentary these days about how irresponsible American consumers have become. We don't save anymore. We overextend ourselves in our use of credit. We buy houses we can't afford with mortgages we can't pay for. We buy lottery tickets, overpriced handheld electronic devices, gas guzzling cars, and the latest "must have" toys. We eat unhealthy food, we worship celebrity, and subscribe to objectified stereotypes of women as sex objects and men as brute warriors.
Well...forgive my language on a public blog, but where the FUCK does all of this come from? INDUSTRY. The same damned industries that are coming to us with their hands out right now. It's almost like a coke addict loaning his dealer his life savings because, the dealer says, "that way I can be sure to keep the free flow of coke coming to you."
No borrower walked into a mortgage lender asking for a subprime adjustable rate mortgage so they could buy a half million dollar condo in Florida that they'd never afford when the rate adjusted. You had mortgage lenders like Countrywide encouraging these loans to keep production going so they could package these loans as securities and sell them to Wall Street investors. They paid brokers bonuses (called "points") to continue producing these loans, affordability be damned. I am pummeled all day long with credit card offers--in my mailbox, in my email, in internet pop up ads--they are everywhere. The lottery is in every gas station, and it's on billboards, and the 11:00 news. What suburban driver watched the Gulf War on TV in the early 90s, saw the Hummers on TV, and said, "I wanna drive me one of those!" That shit was hatched in a marketing department somewhere. The crappy food is on every street corner, and we need it to get through our pressurized days where we have no time for a decent meal. The celebrity worship is in every checkout line, every doctor's office, every auto service lobby...everywhere!
This is a CONSUMPTION society, not a production society. It is based on CREATING needs, not meeting them. It is dehumanizing and soulless...and now, not even accountable in business performance!
And THIS...THIS is what we want to save by bailing these bastards out?
I hear some points that make some sense, but lack some depth, such as protesting the ease of bailing out Wall Street for $700B when the Big Three are raked over the coals when they've only asked for $34B, or 1/20th of the Wall Street outlay. OK, fair enough. And yes, it's pretty easy to fulminate over the CEOs taking their corporate jets to Washington to ask for a bailout. But now that they drove down in a hybrid car today, did it really change anything?
Here is what I can put together thus far. First of all, I have yet to be convinced that ANY of these people--public policy makers, the so-called Captains of Industry, economists, editorial writers, TV talking heads--none of the usual suspects of conventional wisdom seems to grasp what's going on. A shitload of money was invested in highly suspect securities and derivatives that were based upon very poorly performing products (like subprime mortgages). Subsequent financial structures that hedged said risk were deemed a value of their own, and were also bought and sold, as our creative geniuses found ways to derive "returns" (investment income) by selling their interest in these securities at a premium. It was an investment banker version of "Flip That House", only in this case the house was built on a pile of cow manure, and made of popsicle sticks.
Now the bailouts begin. And, now we enter a sick game of who lives and who dies. Who do we GIVE THE MONEY TO (also called "injecting capital to prop up the financial system"), and who do we LOAN THE MONEY TO (also called the far more politically damaging "bailout")? And lastly, who do we let fail (like Lehman brothers)?
My question is moral hazard, and the long term ramifications of what the hell we are doing here. I always understood that the success of a market based economy is driven in part by self-preservation. You better strive for excellence, because you have to compete to win, and if you don't compete well, you'll go out of business. The threat of real failure is one of the biggest motivating factors at the strategic level of any business. If that threat doesn't exist, then what incentive replaces it?
Hell, my own business is trying to figure out how to get their hands on TARP money! We made some poor strategic decisions, and have a good amount of bad business on our books as a result. And the management of my company, all conservative Republicans, many of whom donate heavily to the RNC and Republican candidates (I look them up on opensecrets.org), are having regular meetings to strategize about how to shape their proposal to the Feds to get a piece of the TARP! Suddenly, I work for socialists.
Captains of Industry believed in moral hazard when they thought THEY could never fail. Their immediate about face is proof positive that the free market is bullshit, and the market based economy is really a rigged game of cash and carry, a revolving door between large industries and their governmental patrons. Republicans and Democrats agreed to bail out Wall Street, and I am to believe that it is entirely coincidental that both political parties raise millions of dollars from Wall Street firms. Republicans oppose the auto bailout, and Democrats are trying to thread the needle of public opinion and figure out a way to make it happen. Of course, it is mere coincidence that Big Three's unionized workforce are the footsoldiers that deliver states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania for Democratic candidates year in and year out. Sure...coincidence.
Small businesses, which both parties have taken to extolling as the "engine of job growth in this country", and which are portrayed as so virtuous and quintessentially American--these guys fail tens of thousands of times a year. Families are ruined, and somehow that never comes up in the all the "virtuous" speechifying of our leaders. No bailouts for them. Not "too big to fail"...so no capitalist mulligans for them. But Citigroup...well...
Could we possibly set up a worse precedent? Isn't this a big shakedown? The Big Three aren't doing anything different than what the Wall Street firms did; they are just doing it with less political clout, but the message is the same: You better help us, or there will be disastrous economic consequences, and you, Mr. Politician, will be held responsible for it. I never thought I'd see so many politicians sounding at least halfway like grownups, which is quite a statement as to just how badly these industry geniuses have screwed up.
I see lots of commentary these days about how irresponsible American consumers have become. We don't save anymore. We overextend ourselves in our use of credit. We buy houses we can't afford with mortgages we can't pay for. We buy lottery tickets, overpriced handheld electronic devices, gas guzzling cars, and the latest "must have" toys. We eat unhealthy food, we worship celebrity, and subscribe to objectified stereotypes of women as sex objects and men as brute warriors.
Well...forgive my language on a public blog, but where the FUCK does all of this come from? INDUSTRY. The same damned industries that are coming to us with their hands out right now. It's almost like a coke addict loaning his dealer his life savings because, the dealer says, "that way I can be sure to keep the free flow of coke coming to you."
No borrower walked into a mortgage lender asking for a subprime adjustable rate mortgage so they could buy a half million dollar condo in Florida that they'd never afford when the rate adjusted. You had mortgage lenders like Countrywide encouraging these loans to keep production going so they could package these loans as securities and sell them to Wall Street investors. They paid brokers bonuses (called "points") to continue producing these loans, affordability be damned. I am pummeled all day long with credit card offers--in my mailbox, in my email, in internet pop up ads--they are everywhere. The lottery is in every gas station, and it's on billboards, and the 11:00 news. What suburban driver watched the Gulf War on TV in the early 90s, saw the Hummers on TV, and said, "I wanna drive me one of those!" That shit was hatched in a marketing department somewhere. The crappy food is on every street corner, and we need it to get through our pressurized days where we have no time for a decent meal. The celebrity worship is in every checkout line, every doctor's office, every auto service lobby...everywhere!
This is a CONSUMPTION society, not a production society. It is based on CREATING needs, not meeting them. It is dehumanizing and soulless...and now, not even accountable in business performance!
And THIS...THIS is what we want to save by bailing these bastards out?
Right on
H/t John Cole:
Listening to Republicans trying to blame their loss on media bias is like listening to OJ Simpson trying to blame his conviction on racism.
The Republicans did not lose because of media bias.
Dan Rather wasn’t in New Orleans knocking water bottles out of people’s hands at the convention center. Brian Williams didn’t crash the stock market. Keith Olbermann didn’t invade Iraq. Chris Matthews doesn’t run OPEC.
Republicans lost because they were in charge of the country for the better part of the last decade, and their governance has been an unmitigated disaster. This is not rocket science.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Jeb in FL in 2010?
So it appears that ol' Jeb Bush is considering running for US Senate in Florida in 2010, now that the ever-useless (but helpfully Hispanic) Mel Martinez has withdrawn. Initial response, at least in the blogosphere, is a little hubristic, if Jonathan Singer of MyDD is to be believed.
The Bush name isn't as toxic in FL as it is in many other states, particularly Jeb's, where he was a moderately popular governor. In 2002, Democrats targeted Jeb heavily, with an air of revenge for the 2000 presidential debacle. Jeb won handily in what was admittedly a strong Republican year. However, even as Dubya's approval ratings spiraled ever lower, Jeb's did not. In 2004, Florida was hit by four (yes, four!) hurricanes in a single hurricane season, giving Jeb abundant opportunities to show himself as the concerned, active leader in crisis. He managed to speak with great concern, direct his state personnel appropriately, and avoid any silly "Brownie" moments of idiocy, all of which sent his popularity well into mid to high 60s, which in turn helped Dubya carry Florida so comfortably in the '04 presidential that he was free to concentrate more heavily on the deciding state--Ohio.
Jeb left office in 2006 with good ratings, and quickly removed himself from consideration in the '08 presidential race, recognizing that the last name "Bush" at that point would be a liability. However, now that Dubya has been swept away, I just don't see Jeb having any real obstacles to running in Florida, and I also don't see Florida as a state that moved leftward as much as other areas of the country. Remember, Obama won FL by only 3 points, while winning nationally by 7; thus, Florida went from being dead even in 2000, just as the country was, to being 4 points less Democratic than the nation. If anything, Florida has become slightly more Republican since 2000.
Obama carried Florida 51-48 by increasing Kerry's vote count by 600,000 over 2004 (a staggering accomplishment of ground game), while McCain still received almost the exact same number of votes as Dubya in '04. Thus, Obama found new votes to win and turned out young, new, and infrequent voters. The floor of Republican voters is still alive and well in Florida.
But there will be no Obama on the ballot in 2010 to help the Dems' senatorial candidate.
The national environment is the big unknown, just as it is in any 2010 race right now. Given the size of the challenges the Dems face as the governing party, there will most likely be a strong partisan lean in one direction or the other, based on their perceived success or failure in addressing the big ticket items facing the country right now.
Having said that, I'd have to think Jeb, while beatable, is favored if he gets in. He would be the strongest nominee they could put up. We "misunderestimate" him at our peril. : )
UPDATED: brownsox at Kos is on the same page as me, it appears.
The Bush name isn't as toxic in FL as it is in many other states, particularly Jeb's, where he was a moderately popular governor. In 2002, Democrats targeted Jeb heavily, with an air of revenge for the 2000 presidential debacle. Jeb won handily in what was admittedly a strong Republican year. However, even as Dubya's approval ratings spiraled ever lower, Jeb's did not. In 2004, Florida was hit by four (yes, four!) hurricanes in a single hurricane season, giving Jeb abundant opportunities to show himself as the concerned, active leader in crisis. He managed to speak with great concern, direct his state personnel appropriately, and avoid any silly "Brownie" moments of idiocy, all of which sent his popularity well into mid to high 60s, which in turn helped Dubya carry Florida so comfortably in the '04 presidential that he was free to concentrate more heavily on the deciding state--Ohio.
Jeb left office in 2006 with good ratings, and quickly removed himself from consideration in the '08 presidential race, recognizing that the last name "Bush" at that point would be a liability. However, now that Dubya has been swept away, I just don't see Jeb having any real obstacles to running in Florida, and I also don't see Florida as a state that moved leftward as much as other areas of the country. Remember, Obama won FL by only 3 points, while winning nationally by 7; thus, Florida went from being dead even in 2000, just as the country was, to being 4 points less Democratic than the nation. If anything, Florida has become slightly more Republican since 2000.
Obama carried Florida 51-48 by increasing Kerry's vote count by 600,000 over 2004 (a staggering accomplishment of ground game), while McCain still received almost the exact same number of votes as Dubya in '04. Thus, Obama found new votes to win and turned out young, new, and infrequent voters. The floor of Republican voters is still alive and well in Florida.
But there will be no Obama on the ballot in 2010 to help the Dems' senatorial candidate.
The national environment is the big unknown, just as it is in any 2010 race right now. Given the size of the challenges the Dems face as the governing party, there will most likely be a strong partisan lean in one direction or the other, based on their perceived success or failure in addressing the big ticket items facing the country right now.
Having said that, I'd have to think Jeb, while beatable, is favored if he gets in. He would be the strongest nominee they could put up. We "misunderestimate" him at our peril. : )
UPDATED: brownsox at Kos is on the same page as me, it appears.
Health Care
Agree in essence with BB's observations here...as I said in my previous Burning Bush post.
I think the ground has shifted in our favor on this one, but it still has to be navigated with care, intelligence, and determination...in other words, in Obama-like fashion. : )
I think the ground has shifted in our favor on this one, but it still has to be navigated with care, intelligence, and determination...in other words, in Obama-like fashion. : )
Harry and Louise coming back?
This editorial today by the incomparable Thomas Frank in the Wall Street Journal reminds us of how hard it will be to pass meaningful health care reform. Much like the fight in the early Clinton years, this scares the crap out of the Republicans because health care threatens their political survival.
If the federal government successfully provides health care to citizens, working and middle class voters will be voting Democratic for at least a generation, if not longer. Government as competent, caring, reliable? Hence the cries of "socialism" that make no sense to anyone under 35 years old.
Frank notes that none other than neocon embarrassment William Kristol recognized the political threat in 1993, and his argument is being rehashed now by his even more bare-knuckled successors.
For me, this evokes the ridiculous TV ads that the insurance industry ran against national health care back in the 90s. Remember them, the ones warning that we shouldn't entrust our health care to a gigantic, unaccountable bureaucracy that would "ration" our health care and prevent us from choosing our own doctors?
Of course, that's essentially what we have now, except the bureaucracy - and more importantly, the profits - are controlled by gigantic, unaccountable corporations. Will people fall for the flimflam again? Will Dems punk out again? We'll all be watching.
If the federal government successfully provides health care to citizens, working and middle class voters will be voting Democratic for at least a generation, if not longer. Government as competent, caring, reliable? Hence the cries of "socialism" that make no sense to anyone under 35 years old.
Frank notes that none other than neocon embarrassment William Kristol recognized the political threat in 1993, and his argument is being rehashed now by his even more bare-knuckled successors.
For me, this evokes the ridiculous TV ads that the insurance industry ran against national health care back in the 90s. Remember them, the ones warning that we shouldn't entrust our health care to a gigantic, unaccountable bureaucracy that would "ration" our health care and prevent us from choosing our own doctors?
Of course, that's essentially what we have now, except the bureaucracy - and more importantly, the profits - are controlled by gigantic, unaccountable corporations. Will people fall for the flimflam again? Will Dems punk out again? We'll all be watching.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Thought for the day
Throughout the election campaign, we kept hearing McCain say that Obama never stood up to the leadership of his own party in any meaningful way.
What about the Clintons?
Now they work for him.
What about the Clintons?
Now they work for him.
Monday, December 1, 2008
"The buck stops with me"
That's what Obama said today at his presser announcing his foreign policy/national security team. Man, it was nice to watch an intelligent, decisive, competent President say such things today. He clearly wants people to know that no matter who he appoints, he is in charge and responsible for the decisions of his administration.
Contrast that with the "deeply pathetic" (h/t TPM) interview Bush gave today to ABC, in which he went out of his way to evade responsibility for the plethora of clusterfucks that have taken place in the last 8 years.
Here's Bush answering a question about his greatest regret:
So do we.
Anyone who voted for this asswipe has zero credibility on criticizing our new, non-retarded President.
Contrast that with the "deeply pathetic" (h/t TPM) interview Bush gave today to ABC, in which he went out of his way to evade responsibility for the plethora of clusterfucks that have taken place in the last 8 years.
Here's Bush answering a question about his greatest regret:
BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.
So do we.
Anyone who voted for this asswipe has zero credibility on criticizing our new, non-retarded President.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Ain't That America
Numbers:
1,200,000 -- Number of jobs lost so far in 2008, according to the U.S. Labor Dept.
$1,000,000,000,000 -- Minimum amount of wealth lost to the falling stock market.
1,200,000 -- Number of New York City residents with no health insurance.
844,424 -- Number of children living in poverty in New York City, according to the NYC Food Bank.
55% -- Percentage of New York City high school students who either drop out or do not graduate on time, according to a study by Colin Powell's America's Promise organization.
and...lastly...wait for it...
$590,000 -- amount forfeited, in both salary and fines, by New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury for refusing to play on November 26 against Detroit.
One more...
$21,000,000 -- Marbury's salary this year.
Words fail.
1,200,000 -- Number of jobs lost so far in 2008, according to the U.S. Labor Dept.
$1,000,000,000,000 -- Minimum amount of wealth lost to the falling stock market.
1,200,000 -- Number of New York City residents with no health insurance.
844,424 -- Number of children living in poverty in New York City, according to the NYC Food Bank.
55% -- Percentage of New York City high school students who either drop out or do not graduate on time, according to a study by Colin Powell's America's Promise organization.
and...lastly...wait for it...
$590,000 -- amount forfeited, in both salary and fines, by New York Knicks guard Stephon Marbury for refusing to play on November 26 against Detroit.
One more...
$21,000,000 -- Marbury's salary this year.
Words fail.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Obama Condemns Mumbai Terror Attack
Sarah Palin, referencing Bill Ayers, accuses him of flip flopping on terrorism.
Thanksgiving Football
...sucks ass anymore. So Tennessee beats Detroit 47-10, and Dallas is already up 21-3 on Seattle. Great.
OK, maybe Seattle being such a bad team wasn't overly predictable. But Detroit? Not only do they stink, they have stunk for years, and will continue to stink for the forseeable future. Can we please rotate these games when it would make sense? Do I have to watch Detroit every year during a holiday meal?
Help a brutha out.
OK, maybe Seattle being such a bad team wasn't overly predictable. But Detroit? Not only do they stink, they have stunk for years, and will continue to stink for the forseeable future. Can we please rotate these games when it would make sense? Do I have to watch Detroit every year during a holiday meal?
Help a brutha out.
Health Care as a Threat
Sound odd? Well, don't forget the way Hillarycare was defeated in the early 1990s. It wasn't all about insurance industry profits. It was also driven by the fear among conservatives that a victory of this size would tip the country toward the Democratic party.
This time around, the insurance industry actually seems open to universal healthcare, with their main stipulation being that they want Congress to mandate that all Americans have coverage. Presumably this is their desire to force healthier people into the plan in order to profitably insure the less healthy, which is perfectly fair. Oddly enough, this is closer to Hillary's position than Obama's, but I don't think Obama is likely to fight this much.
Rest assured, however, conservatives are once again worried, and are gearing up for a big fight.
Here's an excerpt from a National Review article by Ramesh Ponnuru that captures their thinking pretty well:
…it [universal healthcare] would also move American politics permanently leftward. First, the inevitable disappointments and failures of a nationalized system would just as inevitably be blamed on underfunding, creating a bidding war that liberals would usually win. On those occasions when voters understood that spending had to be controlled, they would prefer that liberals control it, so as to do the bare minimum necessary. Second, the creation of a new health-care regime would alter the incentives for all the interest groups involved. In the short run, at least, squeezing money out of the government system would be more advantageous than abolishing it. Third, the creation of a new system would make free-market alternatives look more radical to the public than they do now, because they would be more radical. The public’s aversion to risk, which now hurts advocates of liberal policies as much as it helps them, would only help them.
This time around, the insurance industry actually seems open to universal healthcare, with their main stipulation being that they want Congress to mandate that all Americans have coverage. Presumably this is their desire to force healthier people into the plan in order to profitably insure the less healthy, which is perfectly fair. Oddly enough, this is closer to Hillary's position than Obama's, but I don't think Obama is likely to fight this much.
Rest assured, however, conservatives are once again worried, and are gearing up for a big fight.
Here's an excerpt from a National Review article by Ramesh Ponnuru that captures their thinking pretty well:
…it [universal healthcare] would also move American politics permanently leftward. First, the inevitable disappointments and failures of a nationalized system would just as inevitably be blamed on underfunding, creating a bidding war that liberals would usually win. On those occasions when voters understood that spending had to be controlled, they would prefer that liberals control it, so as to do the bare minimum necessary. Second, the creation of a new health-care regime would alter the incentives for all the interest groups involved. In the short run, at least, squeezing money out of the government system would be more advantageous than abolishing it. Third, the creation of a new system would make free-market alternatives look more radical to the public than they do now, because they would be more radical. The public’s aversion to risk, which now hurts advocates of liberal policies as much as it helps them, would only help them.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
"Change comes from me"
Just to add to Eric's post below on Gates, in his press conference this morning Obama was asked a somewhat gratuitously confrontational question by CNN's Ed Henry.
Henry asked Obama how he could claim to be bringing fresh thinking to the economic crisis given that he's appointed so many former Clinton hands thus far. He then tried to push Obama on some of the rumored cabinet appointments such as Hillary, Richardson, etc. It was a pathetic attempt to be "tough" - maybe Henry has been reading Mark Halperin lately or something.
Anyway, Obama shot that baby down by saying, essentially, that he needs experienced people around him, but that the change people voted for in November comes from him. He is running policy, and his appointees ultimately will be following his direction. Very necessary statement to calm the lefty Dems who are whining about appointments like Gates, and the ass-sniffing punditry looking for something pointless to criticize.
Henry asked Obama how he could claim to be bringing fresh thinking to the economic crisis given that he's appointed so many former Clinton hands thus far. He then tried to push Obama on some of the rumored cabinet appointments such as Hillary, Richardson, etc. It was a pathetic attempt to be "tough" - maybe Henry has been reading Mark Halperin lately or something.
Anyway, Obama shot that baby down by saying, essentially, that he needs experienced people around him, but that the change people voted for in November comes from him. He is running policy, and his appointees ultimately will be following his direction. Very necessary statement to calm the lefty Dems who are whining about appointments like Gates, and the ass-sniffing punditry looking for something pointless to criticize.
Gates
Regarding Gates, I know I have said this before, and I am sorry to keep repeating myself, but please, everyone of leftward persuasion, remember that the "change" we all really care about in the end is POLICY change. Chill out about Gates. I know, I know, he's a Bush appointee. However, before you recoil at the association with anything GWB has touched, remember that Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group that strongly criticized the Iraq War, and Bush appointed him from a very defensive posture after the PR disaster of Don Rumsfeld.
Also, I would urge you to remember the following:
1. He agrees with Obama on the most important priorities where his views matter, such as closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, and going after al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. If he agrees with Obama's policies and will faithfully implement them, what is the problem?
2. He had to assume his job after the category 5 tenure of Don Rumsfeld, and by all accounts has restored competence and professionalism to the defense department--no small accomplishment, indeed. As a result, he has the respect of the military brass, which is something Barack has yet to earn.
3. He is very close to Brent Scowcroft, whom Obama deeply respects. Also, if second hand sources are to be believed, he has a long standing relationship with Jim Jones, Obama's likely national security adviser.
4. It fulfills a major campaign promise, and shows Obama once again to be far more thoughtful than the reflexive political culture he operates in. He is anti-Bush where Bush is wrong. He isn't anti-Bush just because of the name. Wonder why Obama is so hard to target for righty partisans? That's why. The strongest advantage the Democratic Party has, BY FAR, is the Obama brand. Obama's approval rating is north of 70%. Congress is fortunate if they poll at Bush levels. That brand is what we will be cashing in for universal healthcare, energy independence, tax reform, aid to the states, re-regulation of the financial system, etc.
5. It is pretty hard for a defense secretary to be malignant all by himself. It is important to remember that Rumsfeld was enabled by an incredibly weak and unintelligent president, a Vice President at least as radical as Rumsfeld himself, a diffident national security adviser, and a marginalized Secretary of State. Those positions will now be held by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jim Jones, and Hillary Clinton. Even if Obama spends no time at all on defense/forpol, does anyone really believe that Gates will run roughshod over that bunch?
6. Which brings us to the 800-pound gorilla in the room--the economy. One of the most important decisions a president ever makes is how he will manage his time. What will he focus on? I actually read quite a bit during the primary season and into the fall about how Obama actually saw himself as more of a foreign policy president than a domestic one. Obviously, he has adapted his vision of the office based on where the economy has gone. Isn't that the right decision? Don't we want him dedicating his time there? Doesn't that make the continuity argument of Gates at defense all the more compelling? If that doesn't work out, he can always move Gates at a later time. For now, Gates is competent, widely respected, is likely to work well with the rest of Obama's national security team, and agrees with Obama's basic priorities. It makes a good deal of sense, and as usual, Obama has been thoughtful, pragmatic, and yet strong-minded at the same time.
He doesn't make decisions the way we are used to seeing politicians make decisions.
Remember, everyone. Keep your eye on the ball here. It is the POLICY that matters. Let's get the policy right, and leave the personality driven crap to the screaming heads on TV, ok?
Also, I would urge you to remember the following:
1. He agrees with Obama on the most important priorities where his views matter, such as closing Gitmo, withdrawing from Iraq, and going after al Qaeda in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. If he agrees with Obama's policies and will faithfully implement them, what is the problem?
2. He had to assume his job after the category 5 tenure of Don Rumsfeld, and by all accounts has restored competence and professionalism to the defense department--no small accomplishment, indeed. As a result, he has the respect of the military brass, which is something Barack has yet to earn.
3. He is very close to Brent Scowcroft, whom Obama deeply respects. Also, if second hand sources are to be believed, he has a long standing relationship with Jim Jones, Obama's likely national security adviser.
4. It fulfills a major campaign promise, and shows Obama once again to be far more thoughtful than the reflexive political culture he operates in. He is anti-Bush where Bush is wrong. He isn't anti-Bush just because of the name. Wonder why Obama is so hard to target for righty partisans? That's why. The strongest advantage the Democratic Party has, BY FAR, is the Obama brand. Obama's approval rating is north of 70%. Congress is fortunate if they poll at Bush levels. That brand is what we will be cashing in for universal healthcare, energy independence, tax reform, aid to the states, re-regulation of the financial system, etc.
5. It is pretty hard for a defense secretary to be malignant all by himself. It is important to remember that Rumsfeld was enabled by an incredibly weak and unintelligent president, a Vice President at least as radical as Rumsfeld himself, a diffident national security adviser, and a marginalized Secretary of State. Those positions will now be held by Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Jim Jones, and Hillary Clinton. Even if Obama spends no time at all on defense/forpol, does anyone really believe that Gates will run roughshod over that bunch?
6. Which brings us to the 800-pound gorilla in the room--the economy. One of the most important decisions a president ever makes is how he will manage his time. What will he focus on? I actually read quite a bit during the primary season and into the fall about how Obama actually saw himself as more of a foreign policy president than a domestic one. Obviously, he has adapted his vision of the office based on where the economy has gone. Isn't that the right decision? Don't we want him dedicating his time there? Doesn't that make the continuity argument of Gates at defense all the more compelling? If that doesn't work out, he can always move Gates at a later time. For now, Gates is competent, widely respected, is likely to work well with the rest of Obama's national security team, and agrees with Obama's basic priorities. It makes a good deal of sense, and as usual, Obama has been thoughtful, pragmatic, and yet strong-minded at the same time.
He doesn't make decisions the way we are used to seeing politicians make decisions.
Remember, everyone. Keep your eye on the ball here. It is the POLICY that matters. Let's get the policy right, and leave the personality driven crap to the screaming heads on TV, ok?
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Things to be thankful for
This story should warm the hearts of all, but as an educator I'm especially pleased:
I have met many talented students in the past few years that I've been teaching at the college level, and Rolle reminds me of them in some ways. Very nice to see. Here's more:
Florida State safety Myron Rolle was awarded a Rhodes scholarship Saturday. He is the first major-college football player of his generation to win what is considered the world’s most prestigious postgraduate academic scholarship.
I have met many talented students in the past few years that I've been teaching at the college level, and Rolle reminds me of them in some ways. Very nice to see. Here's more:
Rolle is in his final football season at Florida State and now faces a difficult decision. He will have to choose between perhaps playing in the N.F.L. next year and studying at Oxford. His planned course of study would be a one-year master’s degree in medical anthropology; he plans to become a doctor and open a clinic to help needy people in the Bahamas. Rolle has said that if he wins the award, he will make a decision with his family when things settle down.
“I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if he heads off to Oxford in October,” Karioth said of Rolle. “He’s really an academic. There aren’t a lot of Renaissance kids out there. He really is.”
Rolle has long stood out at Florida State. He was the country’s top recruit, started as a freshman and has had an all-American-caliber junior year in 2008.
Along with graduating in two and a half years with a 3.75 grade point average in pre-med, Rolle was awarded a $4,000 grant to conduct cancer research and set up a program in Okeechobee, Fla., to teach Seminole Indian children about health and physical fitness.
Elitism
H/t Digby:
In the first two weeks after the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition established over the last eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.
Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama’s appearance on CBS’s “Sixty Minutes” last Sunday witnessed the president-elect’s unorthodox verbal tic, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.
But Mr. Obama’s decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.
According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might find it “alienating” to have a president who speaks English as
if it were his first language.“Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement,” says Mr. Logsdon. “If he keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist.”
Monday, November 24, 2008
Obsolete terrorists
You think al-Qaeda is worried about Barack Obama? Check out Juan Cole's take on the recent video released by Ayman al-Zawahiri, in which he supposedly refers to Barack as a "house Negro" who betrays the legacy of Malcolm X:
It is absolutely clear toward the end of the video that al-Zawahiri is petrified of Obama's popularity and is very afraid that he will be a game-changer in relations between the Muslim world and the United States. Hence his flailing around talking about house slaves, as though Obama were not (as of Jan. 20) himself the most powerful man in the world, catapulted into his position by nearly half of American whites (who voted for him in higher proportions than they did for Clinton and Kerry).
Al-Zawahiri has seen a lot of Muslim politics, and if he is this afraid of Obama, it is a sign that the new president has enormous potential to deploy soft power against al-Qaeda, and al-Zawahiri is running scared, trying to pretend it is still the 1960s, when it just isn't.
Obama has the opportunity to be the most popular US president in the Middle East since Eisenhower. If he is wise, he will defeat al-Zawahiri not just by military means but by stealing away al-Zawahiri's own intended constituency. Obama is about building communities up; al-Zawahiri is about destroying them. If Obama can convince the Arab publics of this basic fact, he will win.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Poseur Alert...Have Brown Bag Handy
Today's Winner is Mark Halperin, who spoke of "extreme pro-Obama media bias" in this year's election coverage at a recent journalism conference at USC. See below:
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election. "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."
McCain ran a shallow, dishonest, content-free campaign filled with little more than indefensible attacks on his opponent and paeans to a guy not named Joe who wasn't really a plumber. What the hell kind of coverage should he get?
Take one example: When the McCain campaign decided that Obama's use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" to describe McCain's economic plans was actually a sexist insult directed at Sarah Palin. This was complete bullshit, and every single member of the political and media classes knew it. They knew it was a lie, and they knew that the entire McCain campaign knew it was a lie. Yet they covered it as though it was a legitimate point of view for the McCain campaign to take! We were treated to a few DAYS of "lipstick on a pig" and the McCain demand for Obama to apologize.
Here is what one skeptical journalist had to say about it on September 9th on CNN:
"It is a low point in the day ... and one of the low days of our collective coverage of this campaign. Stop the madness. I mean, this is, I think -- with all due respect to the program's focus on this and to what [CNN senior political analyst] David [Gergen] just said -- I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign's crocodile tears. They know exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign, in the sense that, every day, they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them, because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more."
Who was that journalist? Drum roll...yeah, you guessed it...Mark Halperin! Quite the media critic, ain't he?
Thus, we see that Halperin is actually a poseur...a superficial contrarian who jumps to whatever side makes him stand apart.
Media has many biases. Partisanship is one of the least common.
Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine's Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election. "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war," Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."
"I think it's incumbent upon people in our business to make sure that we're being fair," he said. "The daily output was the most disparate of any campaign I've ever covered, by far."
McCain ran a shallow, dishonest, content-free campaign filled with little more than indefensible attacks on his opponent and paeans to a guy not named Joe who wasn't really a plumber. What the hell kind of coverage should he get?
Take one example: When the McCain campaign decided that Obama's use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" to describe McCain's economic plans was actually a sexist insult directed at Sarah Palin. This was complete bullshit, and every single member of the political and media classes knew it. They knew it was a lie, and they knew that the entire McCain campaign knew it was a lie. Yet they covered it as though it was a legitimate point of view for the McCain campaign to take! We were treated to a few DAYS of "lipstick on a pig" and the McCain demand for Obama to apologize.
Here is what one skeptical journalist had to say about it on September 9th on CNN:
"It is a low point in the day ... and one of the low days of our collective coverage of this campaign. Stop the madness. I mean, this is, I think -- with all due respect to the program's focus on this and to what [CNN senior political analyst] David [Gergen] just said -- I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign's crocodile tears. They know exactly what he was saying. It's an expression. And this is a victory for the McCain campaign, in the sense that, every day, they can make this a pig fight in the mud. It's good for them, because it's reducing Barack Obama's message even more."
Who was that journalist? Drum roll...yeah, you guessed it...Mark Halperin! Quite the media critic, ain't he?
Thus, we see that Halperin is actually a poseur...a superficial contrarian who jumps to whatever side makes him stand apart.
Media has many biases. Partisanship is one of the least common.
Looking to 2010 in NC
brownsox from Dailykos has a good summation of the coming 2010 Senate race here in my home state.
To his credit, Richard Burr has positioned himself as well as a conservative can these days. He is a well-respected, hard working guy with a first-rate constituent services office. He also spends a good deal of time in NC at local community events and meeting with key leaders. We all saw how effectively the Hagan campaign was able to jab Liddy Dole for how little time and attention NC got from her. Not so with Burr. In addition, while a social conservative, Burr isn't a bomb thrower, and as a result, his cultural conservatism doesn't hurt him here.
No, the shape of this race will depend more on how the Obama administration performs, and how Burr responds to Obama's initiatives. If Obama performs well and the economy is beginning to turn, and most importantly, if Burr has opposed key Obama initiatives, then he is in serious jeopardy. That's the tricky part for Burr now. He is a conservative in an increasingly moderate state, and he is sure to face some difficult votes in the coming Congress. If he moves leftward and is able to attach himself to some bi-partisan Obama achievements, then he is less vulnerable. If he is seen as obstructing highly popular Obama proposals on issues like health care, energy, taxes, and infrastructure spending, then he'll be in real trouble.
Of all the Democrats who are expressing interest in this race (and there are a great deal, as brownsox points out, in light of Hagan and Obama's victories here), Roy Cooper is the most widely popular one, so I'd give him a slight edge going in, but it's a long way from here to there.
This is a seat to watch. Burr's positioning in the 2009 Congress will be watched fiercely by the Democrats here, and as he accumulates "no" votes, he'll get hammered up and down the state.
To his credit, Richard Burr has positioned himself as well as a conservative can these days. He is a well-respected, hard working guy with a first-rate constituent services office. He also spends a good deal of time in NC at local community events and meeting with key leaders. We all saw how effectively the Hagan campaign was able to jab Liddy Dole for how little time and attention NC got from her. Not so with Burr. In addition, while a social conservative, Burr isn't a bomb thrower, and as a result, his cultural conservatism doesn't hurt him here.
No, the shape of this race will depend more on how the Obama administration performs, and how Burr responds to Obama's initiatives. If Obama performs well and the economy is beginning to turn, and most importantly, if Burr has opposed key Obama initiatives, then he is in serious jeopardy. That's the tricky part for Burr now. He is a conservative in an increasingly moderate state, and he is sure to face some difficult votes in the coming Congress. If he moves leftward and is able to attach himself to some bi-partisan Obama achievements, then he is less vulnerable. If he is seen as obstructing highly popular Obama proposals on issues like health care, energy, taxes, and infrastructure spending, then he'll be in real trouble.
Of all the Democrats who are expressing interest in this race (and there are a great deal, as brownsox points out, in light of Hagan and Obama's victories here), Roy Cooper is the most widely popular one, so I'd give him a slight edge going in, but it's a long way from here to there.
This is a seat to watch. Burr's positioning in the 2009 Congress will be watched fiercely by the Democrats here, and as he accumulates "no" votes, he'll get hammered up and down the state.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Reports of Republicans in Decline are Exaggerated
The Economist has published an opinion that passes for a pretty broad swath of the emerging CW on the state of the Republican Party:
"The Republican party lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans..."
"Republicanism's anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party's electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party's loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda."
I like the criticism of their anti-intellectualism, but I also think that in its zeal to point out contemporary Republican shortcomings, it puts too kind a sheen on what the R's were doing in the 1980s. I would postulate that the last two election cycles are a matter of simple evolution. OK, so Bush is an idiot. But he's an idiot operating within the same damn firmament that Reagan and Bush 41 operated in. Some of Bush's failures are in fact the result of him being stoooopid (Katrina, for example). But most of the failure is a failure of conservatism as a governing philosophy, because most of what Bush did was straight out of the long-standing conservative playbook, only with Congressional majorities, and therefore a more potent version of the same conservative philosophy.
Conservatism's heyday was really enabled NOT by some high-minded, intellectually rigorous, philosophical triumph. Rather, it was the result of the southern strategy, the disastrous Carter administration and the easily attacked, bloated welfare state. In other words, conservatism never sold itself successfully. It just successfully attacked what was then taken as liberalism, thereby establishing the filter through which we have seen our politics for nearly 30 years. Has conservatism really ossified, or has its weaponry been neutralized by a liberalism that has adapted to its own political weaknesses? Obama seems to me to be the embodiment of liberalism with antibodies. How? Because the attack machine doesn't work on him.
The appeal of Republicanism is negativity--ridicule, scandal, investigation, character attacks, religious divisiveness, and anti-intellectualism. For a party that likes to deride liberals as overly emotional wussies, their appeals are entirely emotional, and based on winning elections by making the Democrat completely unacceptable in character. Democrats have a natural advantage on almost every issue (see my poll results table from a few days ago), but Republican character attacks are specifically designed to prevent the Democrat from ever really being heard.
That has been the Republican formula for victory since the 1960s, and in that sense, they have not changed one bit, whether they have won or lost. Republicanism is not aspirational, it is deconstructive. They couldn't break down Obama, so they lost. They broke down Kerry and Gore, so they won. They couldn't break down Clinton, so they lost. The difference with Clinton and Obama though, is their method of inoculating themselves against the Republican attack machine. Clinton neutralized them through triangulation and sometimes even capitulation. He surrendered the premises of Republican attacks and allowed them to frame American politics. He became the most skilled operator within a Republicanized landscape, which enabled him to win. Obama inoculated himself very differently. He challenged the entire framework of our politics, in his person, his approach to politics, and most importantly, his actual policies. He refused to "make a big election about small things", thus challenging the entire Republican narrative of the past 40 years. They couldn't break him down, so they lost. They couldn't deconstruct him and caricature him, so they lost. It wasn't the economy, it wasn't Iraq, it wasn't even Palin. These things only served to make people a little more willing to listen to Obama. But the win/lose is determined by whether the Republican succeeds in destroying the Democratic candidate's character. Every presidential election turns on that. Most state elections turn on that too.
That's the true barometer here. And that is why, if Obama governs successfully, this really could be realigning. The negativity stuff is weakened most by political and policy achievement. How will character attacks work if the Democrats are delivering real results? The question answers itself. They won't.
However, if the Democrats blow the enormous opportunity now in front of them, Republican attacks will be fierce, relentless, and highly potent, and we'll be right back in the mid-1990s. We'll hear about how liberals can't govern, that they can't protect the country, just want to tax and spend, and have failed to address the economy properly because they are latte-swilling effete snobs in Birkenstocks. It is maddeningly effective when it works.
But the real Change We Can Believe In is NOT about cabinet appointments. It's not about Joe Lieberman. It's not about the whole Clinton soap opera that we are unfortunately being treated to right now. It's about governing successfully over the next two years. There can be no disarray, no pettiness, no turf wars, none of the usual bullshit that Democrats get caught up in, as they did in 1993-1994. If Democrats are successful for the next two years, they will break the Republican Party as it currently exists, which will force the real conservatives to become far more intellectually rigorous and honest, and will split them from the paranoid Christian Righties and anti-government types, who will become electoral poison. If the Democrats are not successful, then Obama's historical importance becomes more symbolic and less substantive, and then we are right back in 1994.
I'll say it again. Super Bowl time, guys.
"The Republican party lost the battle of ideas even more comprehensively than they lost the battle for educated votes, marching into the election armed with nothing more than slogans..."
"Republicanism's anti-intellectual turn is devastating for its future. The party's electoral success from 1980 onwards was driven by its ability to link brains with brawn. The conservative intelligentsia not only helped to craft a message that resonated with working-class Democrats, a message that emphasised entrepreneurialism, law and order, and American pride. It also provided the party with a sweeping policy agenda. The party's loss of brains leaves it rudderless, without a compelling agenda."
I like the criticism of their anti-intellectualism, but I also think that in its zeal to point out contemporary Republican shortcomings, it puts too kind a sheen on what the R's were doing in the 1980s. I would postulate that the last two election cycles are a matter of simple evolution. OK, so Bush is an idiot. But he's an idiot operating within the same damn firmament that Reagan and Bush 41 operated in. Some of Bush's failures are in fact the result of him being stoooopid (Katrina, for example). But most of the failure is a failure of conservatism as a governing philosophy, because most of what Bush did was straight out of the long-standing conservative playbook, only with Congressional majorities, and therefore a more potent version of the same conservative philosophy.
Conservatism's heyday was really enabled NOT by some high-minded, intellectually rigorous, philosophical triumph. Rather, it was the result of the southern strategy, the disastrous Carter administration and the easily attacked, bloated welfare state. In other words, conservatism never sold itself successfully. It just successfully attacked what was then taken as liberalism, thereby establishing the filter through which we have seen our politics for nearly 30 years. Has conservatism really ossified, or has its weaponry been neutralized by a liberalism that has adapted to its own political weaknesses? Obama seems to me to be the embodiment of liberalism with antibodies. How? Because the attack machine doesn't work on him.
The appeal of Republicanism is negativity--ridicule, scandal, investigation, character attacks, religious divisiveness, and anti-intellectualism. For a party that likes to deride liberals as overly emotional wussies, their appeals are entirely emotional, and based on winning elections by making the Democrat completely unacceptable in character. Democrats have a natural advantage on almost every issue (see my poll results table from a few days ago), but Republican character attacks are specifically designed to prevent the Democrat from ever really being heard.
That has been the Republican formula for victory since the 1960s, and in that sense, they have not changed one bit, whether they have won or lost. Republicanism is not aspirational, it is deconstructive. They couldn't break down Obama, so they lost. They broke down Kerry and Gore, so they won. They couldn't break down Clinton, so they lost. The difference with Clinton and Obama though, is their method of inoculating themselves against the Republican attack machine. Clinton neutralized them through triangulation and sometimes even capitulation. He surrendered the premises of Republican attacks and allowed them to frame American politics. He became the most skilled operator within a Republicanized landscape, which enabled him to win. Obama inoculated himself very differently. He challenged the entire framework of our politics, in his person, his approach to politics, and most importantly, his actual policies. He refused to "make a big election about small things", thus challenging the entire Republican narrative of the past 40 years. They couldn't break him down, so they lost. They couldn't deconstruct him and caricature him, so they lost. It wasn't the economy, it wasn't Iraq, it wasn't even Palin. These things only served to make people a little more willing to listen to Obama. But the win/lose is determined by whether the Republican succeeds in destroying the Democratic candidate's character. Every presidential election turns on that. Most state elections turn on that too.
That's the true barometer here. And that is why, if Obama governs successfully, this really could be realigning. The negativity stuff is weakened most by political and policy achievement. How will character attacks work if the Democrats are delivering real results? The question answers itself. They won't.
However, if the Democrats blow the enormous opportunity now in front of them, Republican attacks will be fierce, relentless, and highly potent, and we'll be right back in the mid-1990s. We'll hear about how liberals can't govern, that they can't protect the country, just want to tax and spend, and have failed to address the economy properly because they are latte-swilling effete snobs in Birkenstocks. It is maddeningly effective when it works.
But the real Change We Can Believe In is NOT about cabinet appointments. It's not about Joe Lieberman. It's not about the whole Clinton soap opera that we are unfortunately being treated to right now. It's about governing successfully over the next two years. There can be no disarray, no pettiness, no turf wars, none of the usual bullshit that Democrats get caught up in, as they did in 1993-1994. If Democrats are successful for the next two years, they will break the Republican Party as it currently exists, which will force the real conservatives to become far more intellectually rigorous and honest, and will split them from the paranoid Christian Righties and anti-government types, who will become electoral poison. If the Democrats are not successful, then Obama's historical importance becomes more symbolic and less substantive, and then we are right back in 1994.
I'll say it again. Super Bowl time, guys.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Stan Lee, National Treasure
Apparently Stan Lee has been awarded the National Medal of Arts and the National Humanities Medal today.
The WaPo describes Lee as "co-creator" of most of Marvel Comics' best-known superheroes, which papers over his controversial image in the special world of comics' fandom. It must be killing the families of Steve Ditko (Spider-Man, Dr. Strange) and Jack Kirby (Captain America, Fantastic Four, Hulk, X-Men) to read this headline.
I met Stan Lee once, when I was about 10 years old, at a comic convention in New York City. All I recall is that Stan talked just like his comic book characters; he exhorted us "true believers" and "merry Marvelites" in line for his autograph, and seemed to wear a permanent smile... much like the one in the photo above. Man, it must be great to be that happy all the time!
Safe Haven
This disturbing story has received alot of play lately:
The mistake, said a Nebraska official this morning, is that they failed to define "child" precisely enough. The legislature had intended to limit dropoffs to newborns to prevent young mothers from abandoning their kids. Apparently pre-teens and teenagers don't qualify as "children" under the intended Nebraska definition.
What should we make of this strange and disturbing episode?
If parents truly are abandoning their kids (some even flying them in from out of state!) in Nebraska not out of financial need but for their own convenience, it seems like one of the more damaging indictments of our current culture. Here are a couple of gut-level observations:
1. Parenthood. We encourage parenthood without any sense of long-term commitment. Parenting is to a great extent sacrifice, from infancy on up. Too many people are in love with the idea of being a parent but have no use for the daily grind that kids present. It is easy to vent our collective outrage at the appalling choices of individual parents, as we're seeing in the Nebraska case, but we have to examine a society that offers too few supports for parents, that mindlessly celebrates parenthood for even the most obviously unfit parents, and that sets up teenagers in particular for failure.
2. Teenagers. We offer them the worst possible role models in our dumbass money culture, which actually celebrates ignorance, laziness, and hostility to any and all adult authority (regardless of how its constituted, so legitimate and illegitimate authority figures blur together). Moreover, when parents act in petty and selfish ways, as they often do when their kids inconvenience them, kids pick up on that and it becomes legitimate to them. "Fuck you, it's all about me" is too often a default response for parents and their teenage kids alike. "I should get my way even if I haven't earned it" likewise.
3. Childhood Protection. In many areas of our public life, we have defined downward the age line between childhood vulnerability and adult responsibility. Child offenders are tried as adults more often than at any time in the past 100 years (see the recent story about the 8-year-old who shot his dad who is about to be tried in adult court). In our culture, to paraphrase one scholar, kids "know what we know about sex and violence" at a much earlier age than they really should. Then we turn around and penalize them for acting on that knowledge in immature and dangerous ways.
I dearly wish this Nebraska story would prompt more critical analysis in the media of the underlying reasons why so many parents are so eager to dump their kids so callously. There are so many questions simply not even on the table in the public discourse that need to be.
Between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m. on Wednesday, three fathers walked into two
hospitals in Omaha and abandoned their children. One left nine siblings, ages 1
to 17.
The men, unless proven to have abused the kids, won't face prosecution
under a new Nebraska law that is unique in the nation. The law allows parents to
leave a child at a licensed hospital without explaining why.
Other parents have also used the law to leave their children. Last
week, a 13-year-old girl was left. The week before that, two boys ages 11 and
15. In all, fathers, mothers and caregivers in six families — some single
parents — have bailed on 14 kids, including seven teens, since the law took
effect in July.
"They were tired of their parenting role," says Todd Landry of
Nebraska's Department of Health and Human Services.
The mistake, said a Nebraska official this morning, is that they failed to define "child" precisely enough. The legislature had intended to limit dropoffs to newborns to prevent young mothers from abandoning their kids. Apparently pre-teens and teenagers don't qualify as "children" under the intended Nebraska definition.
What should we make of this strange and disturbing episode?
If parents truly are abandoning their kids (some even flying them in from out of state!) in Nebraska not out of financial need but for their own convenience, it seems like one of the more damaging indictments of our current culture. Here are a couple of gut-level observations:
1. Parenthood. We encourage parenthood without any sense of long-term commitment. Parenting is to a great extent sacrifice, from infancy on up. Too many people are in love with the idea of being a parent but have no use for the daily grind that kids present. It is easy to vent our collective outrage at the appalling choices of individual parents, as we're seeing in the Nebraska case, but we have to examine a society that offers too few supports for parents, that mindlessly celebrates parenthood for even the most obviously unfit parents, and that sets up teenagers in particular for failure.
2. Teenagers. We offer them the worst possible role models in our dumbass money culture, which actually celebrates ignorance, laziness, and hostility to any and all adult authority (regardless of how its constituted, so legitimate and illegitimate authority figures blur together). Moreover, when parents act in petty and selfish ways, as they often do when their kids inconvenience them, kids pick up on that and it becomes legitimate to them. "Fuck you, it's all about me" is too often a default response for parents and their teenage kids alike. "I should get my way even if I haven't earned it" likewise.
3. Childhood Protection. In many areas of our public life, we have defined downward the age line between childhood vulnerability and adult responsibility. Child offenders are tried as adults more often than at any time in the past 100 years (see the recent story about the 8-year-old who shot his dad who is about to be tried in adult court). In our culture, to paraphrase one scholar, kids "know what we know about sex and violence" at a much earlier age than they really should. Then we turn around and penalize them for acting on that knowledge in immature and dangerous ways.
I dearly wish this Nebraska story would prompt more critical analysis in the media of the underlying reasons why so many parents are so eager to dump their kids so callously. There are so many questions simply not even on the table in the public discourse that need to be.
Really Real Housewives?
The other night I was more or less "forced" to watch a couple of episodes of "The Real Housewives of Atlanta" on Bravo. Really, this has to be one of the worst shows ever.
The obvious reasons are its crass, almost ironically so, materialism, and celebration of idle wealth. But really, is this the only way women can attain wealth in our society? By blowing wealthy men really well, be they athletes or corporate tycoons or second-generation trust fund babies? The show reveals women who lead incredibly empty lives, filled with aimless driving of SUVs, endless gossping on walkie phones, and gaudy social gestures that seem deep and meaningful within their bubble but appear as unbelievably superficial and shallow to anyone who lives on Earth.
The most hilarious storyline on the show had to be a divorcee, Sherie, who attempts, pathetically, to launch a fashion line in Atlanta. It turns out her ex-husband was Bob Whitfield, the All-Pro offensive tackle for the Falcons, and one of the best linemen in recent NFL history.
The whole thing is supposed to be a show of her independence: she's doing her own fashion thing all by herself (but with his money). She's "worked really hard on it" (even though she didn't draw the designs, or sew the dresses, or actually do anything other than make lots of phone calls, bitch at people, hire unnecessary seeming staff assistants, and ogle male models who competed for the humiliation of standing around in underwear painted with her moronic "She" logo).
In a fitting turn of events, Sherie's shit gets all messed up. The day of an event she had scheduled at a hip gallery to show her line, her dresses arrived at her home mangled, poorly sewed, and unfit for public exhibition. So she had a show anyway, complete with media and hipsters in attendance, but with no dresses - just half-naked guys in fashion paint and blown-up sketches of her dresses (which she herself hadn't even drawn).
In other words, there was literally no there there. A fashion show with no clothes - an appropriately postmodern tribute to the women on this inane show. And it doesn't really matter if they're not like this in real life - this is how they and the producers choose to portray them.
Thorstein Veblen's head would explode if he had to watch these fucking shows. He thought New York's nouveau riche circa 1900 flaunted its wealth excessively by holding costume balls in faux Versailles palaces, or dining on tables made of gold, while thousands starved mere blocks away.
Were the Vanderbilts or the Rockefellers or the Carnegies as stupid and self-absorbed as the idle rich portrayed in the "Real Housewives" series? At least they started meaningful philanthropies and didn't invade people's living rooms every week.
Would that Bravo would do a "Real Real Housewives" show set in Flint, or any inner-city housing project, or some rural backwater in Louisiana or something. As my wife pointed out, it might be the same thing - women who aren't working with lots of time on their hands and wildly inflated delusions of grandeur.
Hole in the floor
Watched Obama's interview on 60 Minutes tonight. His answer on the proposed auto industry bailout was spot-on.
Michelle said when they first started dating his car had a hole in the bottom, and she could see the road thru it when they drove. This reminded me of something that happened to me right around the time, probably, that Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama were first tooling around Chicago in that old hooptie of Barack's.
One night in 1991, I drove a VW van with a gaping hole in the floor from Houston to New Orleans overnight in freezing weather. We had just seen Nirvana (this was right before "Nevermind" blew up). We road-tripped to a venue in Houston just to see the show and then drive back home, a solid 6-hour drive each way.
I was really tired and afraid that I'd fall asleep at the wheel, especially with nobody to talk to. Everyone else went right to sleep. My friend Terry rode shotgun and promised he'd keep me awake.
About 10 minutes after I got on the highway I turned to say something to him and he was out cold. I reached out and slapped him but nothing. Thanks, dude!
The only thing that kept me from passing out and killing us all the whole way home was the cold breeze on my feet from that damn hole in the floor!
Guess there's no sense of Presidential-level destiny from that story, but I thought of it nevertheless...
Michelle said when they first started dating his car had a hole in the bottom, and she could see the road thru it when they drove. This reminded me of something that happened to me right around the time, probably, that Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama were first tooling around Chicago in that old hooptie of Barack's.
One night in 1991, I drove a VW van with a gaping hole in the floor from Houston to New Orleans overnight in freezing weather. We had just seen Nirvana (this was right before "Nevermind" blew up). We road-tripped to a venue in Houston just to see the show and then drive back home, a solid 6-hour drive each way.
I was really tired and afraid that I'd fall asleep at the wheel, especially with nobody to talk to. Everyone else went right to sleep. My friend Terry rode shotgun and promised he'd keep me awake.
About 10 minutes after I got on the highway I turned to say something to him and he was out cold. I reached out and slapped him but nothing. Thanks, dude!
The only thing that kept me from passing out and killing us all the whole way home was the cold breeze on my feet from that damn hole in the floor!
Guess there's no sense of Presidential-level destiny from that story, but I thought of it nevertheless...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)