The Front Page

By Distributorcap

Which came first -- journalists turning into to a bunch of sideshow barkers because the only thing Americans want is to be entertained or Americans losing any semblance of reality because the once noble profession of journalism has turned into nothing more than a conduit to sell Tide and Toyotas?

Once thought of as the guardians of democracy, equality, fairness, checks and balance (with figures like Cronkite, Murrow, Rice, Pyle, Bourke-White, Pulitzer), the fourth estate has (d)evolved into a bunch of bobble-headed bimbos reading propaganda off a TelePrompTer on Fox News. And if they are not reading someone else's agenda -- you have snake oil salesman like Glenn Beck -- who claim they aren't journalists -- spewing hate and lies under the cover of a misnomer called Fox News.

Journalism has a long and storied tradition in the United States. The first newspaper published in the Colonies was Publick Occurences in 1690. Today there are thousands of outlets for journalists - blogs, the tubes of the internets, radio, ever-struggling print newspapesr and the most influential of them all -- still -- television. One of the primary reasons this country has been able to flourish and develop far and above other societies has been the presence of a strong, accountable and influential press.

For a minute let's just forget coverage of business, sports, humanities, international, education, health, science, arts, and food as part of the generic heading of news. The credibility and quality of content for these particular subjects (as well as many others) has declined dramatically in an age of infinite choice and cannibalized audiences. But none of those topics compare to the absolute trashing and degraded treatment that political and government coverage has taken.

What was once one of the nation's strongest checks on power and corruption in the world's freest democracy, journalism has morphed into a lazy man's sport of quoting polls, hawking books, promoting agendas and handicapping horse races -- races that might even be years in the future.

Turn into any of the punditoria shows for any amount of time and you are sure to be a witness to the Road Map to 2012. It is over two years until the next presidential election -- and already every single journalistpundit has been giving odds and establishing strategies for the people they have deemed most likely to.

No matter how far and fast the economy is collapsing, no matter how many people are out of work, no matter how many bridges collapse, and no matter how many people cannot afford health care - there is never enough time to report about the comings and goings of Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Bobby Jindal, Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and now Joe "the Senator" Miller. Talking about how these guys can (or will) win is fun and exciting. Talking about kids with cancer and people being thrown out of their houses is boring and depressing.

Fun and exciting sell Tide and Toyotas. Boring and depressing make people turn the channel.

I guess if you have to compete with American Idol, The Bachelor, The Real World, Project Runway, Cupcake Wars or a real housewife for those limited and valuable eyeballs -- the only way to get attention is to make journalism more like a combination of The Gong Show and the $1.98 Beauty Show. Quality is no longer job one. Getting Jaye P. Morgan or Rip Taylor to laugh their asses off is.

Sarah Palin and her descamisados are not news -- they are a cult void of ideas and no thought. The Palinistas derive their cohesiveness from hate and subliminal racism. The fact that Palin may be and intellectual zero and one of the stupidest pieces of shit to ever enter this kabuki theater matters little to "news" organizations, Sarah Palin generates ratings. Whether it is her looks, her lunacy or her lack of intelligence -- showing that farbissenah punim on the teevee sells. When something sells it is the media's best interest to keep that hawker in full public view. The Teabaggers are not a true political movement - they are a bunch of people united by their anger and empty rhetoric towards things they simply do not comprehend or realize are important and necessary to their own lives. The fact that they are propped up by a bunch of rich businessmen who do have a vested interest in changing the status quo again does not matter to "news" organizations. What matters is they yell loud enough and have enough offensive signs. And people tune in.

Being both groups are easy generators of eyeballs, the media covers them with the fervor of real news instead of digging for the empty shell of real ideas and political management.

The failure for the press to expose the vacuous nature of Palin and the Teabaggers is only one aspect of political journalism that has harmed American society. Look at all the current candidates who refuse to debate in public (Steve King and Jan Brewer to name two), who refuse to be interviewed by any medium other than Fox News (Rand Paul and Sharron Angel), and will only appear in front of friendly and pre-selected audiences. Some sort of unwritten code in American political journalism has been permanently broken. And the press seems at a loss as to what to do about it.

And how have the "real" journalists handle this new reality - instead of calling out Brewer, Palin and Paul - they cover Lindsay Lohan and Tiger Woods and call it journalism.  Oh and read press releases from the candidates as if they are facts.

The politicians have beaten the journalists at their own game -- the politicians know it, the public knows it -- only the journalists haven't quite figured it out. Journalists used to be savvy about their strategies and smart about their tactics when they went looking for the story. The victory was uncovering the truth, not selling the most Toyotas. Today people like Palin, Romney, Paul, Rubio, King, Boner, and McConnell have been taught to master anti-journalism skills and make the press work for them. They have been able to stack the deck and play the journalists to their advantage.

With the fourth estate having little teeth, smart politicians (or politicians with smart advisors) have become blatant in their contempt and disregard for the press. They can (and will) lie their asses off knowing there will simply be no accountability anymore. These politicians feel empowered by the timidity of the press. They don't have to debate, they don't have to put themselves through any tough questioning, they don't even have to have any ideas. They just have to act like the Unknown Comic or Gene Gene the Dancing Machine from The Gong Show and they get their 15 minutes over and over and over again.

And the saddest part is that much of the country welcomes, rather than mourns, the loss of something so critical to our progress.

Where is Europe?

by Peter Henne

I am always amazed at the multiple layers in just about every seemingly-simple news story, as a piece in today's New York Times demonstrates. A program set up in Afghanistan to woo Taliban foot soldiers away from the militant group is faltering, due to organizational problems and a failure on the part of the international community to provide the promised funding. I have been very interested in this program, and if this falls apart, it would be disastrous for stabilization efforts there.

Several questions arise from the story. Are the difficulties due to disorganization on the part of the Afghan government? Fatigue among the international community? Or is it, as the story mentions, due to the apparent strength of the Taliban? These are all useful points, but one of the most interesting--to me, at least--is the question of what this tells us about US-European relations.

The conference that set up this program included numerous countries, with most major European states attending, and resulted in grand promises to develop Afghanistan. But many European donors have yet to fulfill their pledges. Of course, the United States could give more--although it appears we have donated a good amount--and countries outside Europe need to step up. But as Europe becomes increasingly integrated politically and takes a more prominent place in the international arena, it should also assume more responsibilities. The relatively sparse contribution so far is just one example of European states' failure to do so (it should be noted, however, that Estonia fulfilled its pledge).

A possible explanation for this was offered by Roger Cohen in the same issue as the above story on Afghanistan, in which he decries President Obama's lack of attention to Europe (Robert Kagan has raised the same point, but I admit I ignored him at the time). Europe is undoubtedly free-riding on US efforts, putting the minimal amount of resources in to please the United States in places like Afghanistan, but hesitant to commit anything more. Any good realist would expect them to do so. But free-riding was attempted all throughout the Cold War, and was headed off by fears of the Soviet threat and the patient efforts of US leaders. In the absence of a major threat, and with European publics less then enthused about international military endeavors, only persistent and intelligent diplomacy will keep Europe engaged in Afghanistan. And as the funding issues show us, the United States can't stabilize Afghanistan on its own.

There is of course the usual foreign policy caveat that it's an election year and the economy is all anyone is thinking about. But Americans expect leadership from their President, and there would be no better example of leadership than President Obama convincing Europe's leaders to shoulder their part of the burden in Afghanistan.

Koran-burning could endanger U.S. troops, says Petraeus

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may know, a Florida church is planning to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11. It claims that the burning will be "neither an act of love nor of hate," but it is clearly the latter. Pastor Terry Jones has called Islam "of the devil," "a deceptive religion" and "a violent religion" that is "causing billions of people to go to hell."

This is despicable bigotry, of course, and the consequences could be bloody:

The U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Monday criticized a Florida church's plan to burn copies of the Quran on September 11, warning the demonstration "could cause significant problems" for American troops overseas.

"It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan," Gen. David Petraeus said in a statement issued Monday.

I think that's right. Here's a church that no doubt considers itself patriotic, in that right-wing way that is really more nativist jingoism than patriotism, potentially putting American troops in harm's way as a direct result of its anti-Muslim bigotry.

But it isn't just Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center that's doing it. There is widespread anti-Muslim sentiment on the right, including among mainstream conservatives and throughout the Republican Party, and much of it, I think, adds to the existing anti-American sentiment among America's enemies, providing them with a rallying cry for action and support. More, I think, it reinforces the less intense and often non-violent anti-American sentiment within the Muslim community generally, pushing some towards violence and others towards skepticism of America's intentions at the very least. Anti-Muslim sentiment is undermining efforts of engagement with the Muslim world, weakening America's credibility around the world and threatening what limited advances America has made in building meaningful relationships with Muslim countries and reaching out to Muslims generally.

And yet it continues. There are those, for example, who call Obama a Muslim, implying that there is nothing worse than being a Muslim, that being a Muslim is being anti-American, with Islam and America forever at odds with one another. And there are those, like Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, among so many others on the right, attacking the planned Muslim community center near Ground Zero, Park51, implying that being a Muslim is essentially the same as being a terrorist, that the Muslims who would go to Park51 are essentially the same as those Muslims who flew planes into the Twin Towers on 9/11. Why else, in their view, would it be disrespectful to have a Muslim community near Ground Zero?

If they even understand this, conservatives don't seem to care. And why would they? Many of them adhere to a radical right-wing worldview that pits America (and fundamentalist American Christianity) against Islam in a clash of civilizations to the death. Their ideology rests to a great extent on bigotry. And their electoral success relies on feeding the culture of fear and loathing at home, scaring Americans into being terrified of their defined Other (Muslims, gays, socialists, etc.).

But there are consequences. And like a boomerang, the hatred that goes out will come right back, a cycle that keeps feeding on itself, and growing, allowing extremists there and here to ratchet up the attacks.

It must be stopped, but how, with churches burning the Koran, conservatism moving ever further to the right, and the Republican Party descending ever further into madness? There is so much more to America than this right-wing and evangelical Christian bigotry, so much goodness and decency in the American soul, but it is that bigotry that gets the attention, and that gets projected, and perhaps Muslims and others around the world should be excused, short of responding with violence, for thinking that these bigots speak for America.

Just how crazy is Sharron Angle (9)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So crazy, my friends, that she actually thinks she'd "be a mainstream Senator," or so she told CNN "in a rare one-on-one interview" recently.

Angle is of course anything but "mainstream," but, then again, her crazy right-wing extremism, so common among Republicans and teabaggers alike, is very much the GOP mainstream these days.

So in this case at least, it's all just a matter of perspective, with Angle and her ilk seeing things one way and those of us who live in reality seeing things quite differently.

Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: "Two Step"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Up late tonight. I just finished watching The Story of a Cheat, the wonderful, marvellous masterpiece -- and instantly one of my favourite films, such a joy to watch -- from 1936 by French director Sacha Guitry, barely known these days but nonetheless a major influence, featured in Criterion's Eclipse #22, a must for any serious cinephile.

Flipping through the channels, I caught a recent Simpsons episode, a surprisingly very good one from Season 21 (with a wonderful Cinema Paradiso-esque kissing montage that includes one of the greatest film couples in recent movie history, Wall-E and Eve), and then landed on a Dave Matthews concert on HDNet (with Tim Reynolds at Radio City Music Hall in '07), which is just wrapping up. I'm generally mixed on Matthews. I admire him a great deal, and yet, aside from a few songs here and there, I just can't get into him, or at least not nearly as much as his incredibly ardent and devoted fans. I have several songs on my iPod, mostly from Everyday, a fine album with his band, but he really is much more impressive live (or in concert on TV) than on his albums. Actually, this is quite amazing. I don't think I've been this engaged with, or impressed by, a concert on TV since Arcade Fire on Austin City Limits.

Anyway, here are Matthews and Reynolds doing "Two Step," the brilliant (and brilliantly performed) last song of the show, originally from the DMB album Crash.

Truth in Comics

By Creature


If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

The Great American Stupids

By Distributorcap

Both Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino and Bristol "The Unwed Mother with Family Values" Palin are going to be on the next edition of Dancing With The Stars

I didn't think it could get any worse than Tom Delay on the show, but it can. American society has definitely hit a new low.

I was secretly able to get a copy of Bristol's audition tape. Nepotism is alive and well on Dancing With The Stars. 

About Obama's base problem

By Greg Prince

Michael recently posted here about Obama's gay problem. Some good thoughts, but a little extension is necessary to get things in full perspective.

Obama does not have a problem with gays, he has a problem with the base across the board, and that is largely because he is underperforming across the board. That underperforming has a real cost in the enthusiasm gap.

If people turned out in 2010 at 2008 levels, the Democrats would be outright winning in North Carolina and very, very competitive in half a dozen other close races. As it stands, we will probably hold the Senate, but just barely.

Obama has not played hardball with Conservadems, let alone the GOP. He negotiates away the store before even coming to the table. He has not made proper or effective use of reconciliation in the Senate, and has not been forceful about the consequences of electing the Party of No. He has not been active in shaping policy and in selling policy in Congress.

He has not used his executive powers. He could order a stop to DADT, but he does not. He could choose not to defend anti-gay legislation in court, but he does not. HAMP is under "administrative" control and could work well if Obama chose to make it so. Congress voted down the idea of a Social Security panel, but Obama convened one anyway and stacked it with conservatives. He could restore full habeas corpus, but he does not.

Obama has direct control of TARP funds, and there are about $500 billion to play with. That's a lot of stimulus if he were to use it. He could use it to relieve distressed debt and turn a profit for the government while doing so. He could go after banks gouging customers by skirting credit card rules. He could be actively involved and upfront in pushing an agenda.

Another thing to consider is civil rights. As many people have noted recently, it's embarrassing when many prominent GOP leaders are to the left of Obama on gay rights. It's embarrassing when in debates such as Fiorina/Boxer the other night the GOP candidate justifies her opposition to equal rights by quoting the sitting Democratic president.

And gays have started to notice. You see, emphasizing one's own sexual orientation can lead one toward certain conclusions on civil rights but does little to inform one's opinions on taxation, protecting the environment, energy policy, immigration, etc. I think it's fair to say that a lot of gays lean Democratic not because they are inherently liberal so much as because they see few options as the GOP has been so hostile towards gays the last couple of decades.

In a recent column, Dan Savage observes that for all the rhetoric and chest-beating over recent past electoral cycles, the Democrats have done very little good, and the Republicans have done relatively little harm, at least in terms of revoking such gay rights advances as have been made. Bush got a blank check from Congress, yet we have no federal marriage amendment, and DADT and DOMA were Democratic inventions. Savage asks:

Say the GOP went to gay voters and promised to do no harm -- no FMA, no more culture war nonsense, no efforts to block gay people from becoming parents -- while at the same time pointing out that the Dems haven't done much good. That argument won't peel lefty and progressive gays and lesbians, a.k.a. the majority of gay and lesbian voters, off the Democrats. But it might convince conservative homos that they can safely vote Republican, blunting the Democrats' advantage with small-but-significant chunk of the electorate. (There are more gay and lesbian voters than Jewish voters.)

It's something the Democrats need to be considering.

The base is demoralized, feeling neglected and abused, if not outright misled. That's not good. Obama got people out because they felt they had something to vote for. That's not the case this year for Democrats. And they will pay in November if something doesn't change, and change soon.

Two types of corruption in Afghanistan

by Peter Henne

Things just keep getting more complicated in Afghanistan. Amid the furor over an Afghan official implicated in a high-level corruption scandal, a New York Times article revealed the official had CIA ties. Yesterday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai compared the short-lived arrest of this official to Soviet-era actions. Karzai has also established a council to initiate talks with the Taliban, and today's reporting indicates the United States is taking a permissive view on corruption in the country in order to gain allies against the insurgents.

In a counterinsurgency (or COIN) campaign--especially one in Afghanistan--some complication is to be expected. There is a trade-off between ensuring our partners in the country are virtuous and defeating the brutal insurgents threatening the Afghan people. Local elites--a.k.a. "warlords"--are essential in securing the countryside, but tend to favor private goods for their supporters over public ones. And as distasteful as it might be, some talks with the Taliban may be needed, as long as they do not involve compromising on human rights in the country.

It's important, though, that US leaders don't confuse pragmatic COIN strategies with an easy way out of Afghanistan. This is because there are two types of "corruption." The first is that of the warlords, who stabilize areas in order to profit from them; this can involve extracting resources from the populace in a less than savory manner, but also includes fighting off challengers for control--namely the Taliban. The other type is the corruption of central officials: Karzai and his ilk. It is the same concept, but on a larger scale; as long as Karzai is the most powerful authority in Afghanistan, he will continue reaping private goods. This, however, involves tolerating Taliban control of some areas in order to maintain his hold on the rest of the country, and undermining the power of local elites--who are potential competitors--even if this means a lack of security for the populace.

And thus the distinction. Letting Karzai's indiscretions slide will result in instability throughout Afghanistan, and possibly a Taliban safe-haven. Looking the other way concerning the warlords' problematic actions will not be ideal, but can help to stabilize regions under their control, even if the central government is not directly involved.

It is important as US COIN strategy progresses over the next few months that policymakers realize this distinction, and don't let the pragmatism of working with local elites translate into tolerance for Karzai's corruption.

Letting the terrorists win: Newt Gingrich and the "Ground Zero mosque"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Like a shark drawn to blood, Newt Gingrich, whose nature apparently is to pick at painful wounds in the body politic in order to score partisan points and, more important for him, to keep his name in the news and feed his massive sense of self-importance, is still beating the drum of bigotry in opposition to Park51, the "Ground Zero mosque" that is neither at Ground Zero nor, strictly speaking, a mosque. And, faced with a New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has been nothing short of brilliant in articulating a defence of Park51 based on a lofty sense of what America is supposed to be all about, not to mention the reality that the power-that-be have given the go-ahead for Park51 despite the uproar on the right, Gingrich is coming up with all sorts of new and stupid arguments and obstacles to block it. At TPM, Rachel Slajda has the latest:

In a radio interview today, he said he wants the national government to step in and stop the developers from building the Islamic community center by whatever means necessary.

"I think the Congress has the ability to declare the area a national battlefield memorial because I think we should think of the World Trade Center as a battlefield site; this is a war," he said, apparently thinking that if Ground Zero was a national park, Park51 would be restricted from building near it.

And if that fails, he said, the state government should step in and use its considerable power to stymie the development. 

Funny, isn't it, how the anti-government Gingrich wants the government to step in and tell a private religious organization what to do? I suppose it's okay for the government to be heavy-handedly oppressive when it comes to Muslims but not when it comes to Christians or the "free" market. Gingrich certainly wouldn't want the government interfering in his world, telling him what to do, and yet government control is a fine weapon to wield against undesirables.

The reality, of course, is that Park51 isn't at Ground Zero. It's some distance away from it. Even if Ground Zero were to be declared some sort of "battlefield site," some sort of eternally sacred area, there would still be any number of private interests -- religious, commercial, etc. -- in the area. If Park51 should move, why not, say, restaurants and sex shops, video stores and whatever else is in the neighbourhood? Because "this is a war," says Gingrich, which grossly misrepresents what is actually going on. Park 51 would be a Muslim community center, but, as President Bush himself stressed (to his credit), the U.S. isn't at war with Islam. It would be one thing if Park51 were some sort of pro-al Qaeda, pro-jihadist facility, a terrorist training camp, but of course it's not. In attacking it, and calling for it to be moved, conservatives like Gingrich are labelling all Muslims anti-American jihadists, an appallingly bigoted and disrespectful thing to do -- not least because there are many Muslims proudly serving in the U.S. military and because there were American Muslims who died on 9/11. (And, as has been noted, there's even a mosque at the Pentagon.)

Not that Gingrich cares about any of this. To him, this is merely a fantastic opportunity to keep up a visible media presence on an issue that Republicans have manufactured, with the media happy to oblige, to attack Democrats ahead of the midterms. But in portraying the "war" as both a religious and a civilizational conflict, he is playing directly, through fearmongering, to the deep-rooted nativism and ignorance of a large swathe of the American populace, not to mention of the Republican base.

I return to Bloomberg, who in contrast to Gingrich has spoken so eloquently, and so nobly:

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

I am tempted to say that Gingrich and those with him on this issue are with the terrorists -- and I will say that, because they are. In opposing Park51 they are proving to be very much like those attacked America on 9/11, not in terms of their violence but in terms of their articulation of a worldview that pits "us" against "them," that divides people instead of seeking to unite them, that clamours for war instead of working for peace, that mirrors the hatred and bigotry of our enemies with hatred and bigotry of our own. And in trying desperately to capitalize on and benefit politically from this issue, they are indeed letting the terrorists win.

America is better than this, is it not? America is better than Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and all the others who are waving the flag and pointing it menacingly at Muslims, calling for the government essentially to crack down on a specific religion just because a tiny minority of that religion attacked America, and because they so badly want this "war" to rule our lives.

Gingrich passes himself off as an intellectual, but he's really just a thug who's read a few books and can speak coherently. He basks in bigotry and ignorance on this issue, as on so many others, and, no, Americans should not stand for it.

Quote of the Day: Paul Krugman on economic policy, Obama, and the GOP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From Krugman's column in today's Times:

Next week, President Obama is scheduled to propose new measures to boost the economy. I hope they're bold and substantive, since the Republicans will oppose him regardless -- if he came out for motherhood, the G.O.P. would declare motherhood un-American. So he should put them on the spot for standing in the way of real action.

Over a year and a half into Obama's presidency, this is one of the lessons that we all should have learned but that, alas, seems to escaped notice at the White House: It really doesn't matter what the Democrats do, and it doesn't matter how much Obama tries to reach out to his opponents, Republicans have resolved to be not the loyal opposition that seeks to work with the government to advance a policy agenda to help Americans but to obstruct anything and everything that Obama and the Democrats propose to do.

There has been the occasional defection from the GOP ranks, but for the most part Republicans have remained united regardless of the issue. We saw this most notably on health-care reform, when some Republicans, like Sens. Snowe and Grassley, said they wanted to work with Obama and even seemed to engage constructively with Democrats at the committee stage, supporting early reform packages and talking compromise, but then, perhaps never genuine in their support, voted with their leadership to try to filibuster the bill, trying to block it from even coming to a vote, and then voted against it, a bill that resembled Republican reform proposals from the '90s.

Given what we have learned, there seems to be no point in trying to appease Republicans on anything. In the end, they'll be against it, just as they'll be against whatever Obama proposes for the economy next week. On this, Krugman is right. The problem is that Obama needs 60 votes in the Senate to get anything done, and that means not just winning over at least one Republican but keeping every Democrat on board, including quasi-Republicans like Nelson and Landrieu. Obama could (and perhaps should) propose "bold and "substantive" measures, but he and Reid will need to water them down a lot if they are to get them passed. And that's just in the Senate. There's also the not-insignificant matter of appeasing the various Democratic interests in the House, including Blue Dogs fighting for their political lives this fall and unlikely to fall in behind Obama on anything that smacks of government overreach.

Krugman gets this, of course:

The actual lessons of 2009-2010, then, are that scare stories about stimulus are wrong, and that stimulus works when it is applied. But it wasn't applied on a sufficient scale. And we need another round.

I know that getting that round is unlikely: Republicans and conservative Democrats won't stand for it. And if, as expected, the G.O.P. wins big in November, this will be widely regarded as a vindication of the anti-stimulus position. Mr. Obama, we'll be told, moved too far to the left, and his Keynesian economic doctrine was proved wrong.

But politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth. The economic theory behind the Obama stimulus has passed the test of recent events with flying colors; unfortunately, Mr. Obama, for whatever reason -- yes, I’m aware that there were political constraints -- initially offered a plan that was much too cautious given the scale of the economy's problems.

So, as I said, here's hoping that Mr. Obama goes big next week. If he does, he'll have the facts on his side. 

He will, and I hope he does go big at least to start with (before the necessary concessions to secure support), but what do facts mean in this political climate? Not much -- Republicans have no use for them and the public has proven receptive to conservative propaganda.

Ultimately, Obama will likely seek to do what is political expedient, not economically right (and necessary), and Democrats, fearful of losing a bloodbath in November, will likely roll over and let the Republicans win. But the result of all that will still be Republican victories across the land and an economy that continues to struggle, if not to worsen.

Coleridge: "If men could learn from history, what lessons it might teach us! But passion and party blind our eyes, and the light which experience gives is a lantern on the stern, which shines only on the waves behind us!"

Huxley: "That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."

In other words: We're doomed.

German Tea

By Capt. Fogg

"All Jews share a particular gene, Basques share a certain gene that sets them apart,"

said Thilo Sarrazin, a board member at The Bundesbank, Germany's central bank, and a former finance minister of the city state of Berlin. It's remarkable how, after all this time and all this science, Right Wingers just can't get genetics and evolution right.

It's not the first time Sarrzin has put his shiny black hobnail Stiefel in his mouth or gave geneticists cause to groan. His book, Deutschland schafft sich ab, (Germany destroys itself) which just came out, contains many gems like:

"In every European country, due to their low participation in the labour market and high claim on state welfare benefits, Muslim migrants cost the state more than they generate in added economic value. In terms of culture and civilisation, their notions of society and values are a step backwards."

Sounds familiar to me, but perhaps that's only my special Jew gene talking. You know, the gene for remembering. Is he only stating the truth despite "political correctness" or is he just another one the Inglorious Basterds missed? Depends on how much tea you drink, I guess. Of course he doesn't exist in a vacuum and there are Germans who applaud his audacity, if you can call it that. There are even Thilo T-shirts available on line.

"I don't want my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to live in a mostly Muslim country where Turkish and Arabic are widely spoken, women wear headscarves and the day's rhythm is determined by the call of the muezzin."

I guess he won't be resettling in Detroit or the Borough of Queens, but even there, it's a long way from where we are to sullying the ethnic/religious purity of the Vaterland or good old USA either. Germany of course was once a place where Jews once made great strides toward blending in socially, professionally and even religiously and we see where that got them. Its conceivable that Muslims might make the same effort to become echt Deutsch, but will they see it as being worth it with Schmutz Taschen ( if you'll pardon my calque) like Sarrazin roaming about the beer halls and board rooms? Perhaps certain Muslims of my acquaintance will re-examine their strongly held assertion that Germany wouldn't have done what they did when they did it, when the thought arises that they might be next. I doubt it though.

Of course it's not going to come to that. Germany learned a lesson Americans are still refusing even to do the homework for and Sarrazin will have to find other employment: politics, possibly. I wonder how good his English is.

(cross posted from The Swash Zone)

Socialism!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Obama-is-a-socialist tag has always been a stupid one, but it's one conservatives, and particularly those either involved with or just supportive of the Tea Party "movement," keep pushing relentlessly. Obama, we are told, is trying to overturn the capitalist system at the very heart of the American way of life. If allowed to move ahead with his reforms, we are warned, he will turn the U.S. into some sort of European social democracy, with government controlling the economy and stifling freedom and entrepreneurship. To believe this requires a deep and abiding ignorance of reality, a refusal to see things as they are. But ignorance, of course, is hardly in short supply on the right.

While Obama has sought to expand government's role somewhat, nothing that he has accomplished -- nothing that he himself seems to believe -- comes close to socialism. If anything, he has sought to rescue capitalism, as FDR did before him, from its own self-destructive tendencies. TARP was largely an effort to get the economy going again; it was decidedly not an effort to have government take control of the economy. Even health-care reform, minus the public option, was just the sort of market-oriented approach that Republicans once backed. And Wall Street reform was more about protecting Wall Street from itself than it was about radically changing what is essentially a corrupt financial system.

And this isn't about to change. As White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday, "some big, new stimulus plan is not in the offing." The economy may still be struggling, that is, but Obama won't push what is really needed most at this time, namely, large-scale government spending to get the economy going again. But if there won't be another stimulus package, there may very well be just what Republicans want, namely, tax breaks for business (if not an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy). As the WaPo is reporting, Obama is considering "a package of business tax breaks -- potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars":

Among the options under consideration are a temporary payroll-tax holiday and a permanent extension of the now-expired research-and-development tax credit, which rewards companies that conduct research into new technologies within the United States.  

Where exactly is the socialism here?

Net Neutrality and you

By Capt. Fogg

If you're reading this, you most likely have an interest in the future of the Internet and concern with the ownership thereof. Most of us assume it belongs to us, the way we once assumed the ' air waves' belonged to us -- just like the air itself. The electromagnetic spectrum now largely belongs to those who make a profit from it and the Internet may well follow suit. The phone and cable companies would certainly like to regulate what you may or may not get on line and how fast you get it as well as how much you'll have to pay.

What's at stake for them is the ability to sell you "premium" services over dedicated networks and to be able to "prioritize" or discriminate between traffic that takes up bandwidth and traffic they can make a buck on. Of course it's much more complex than this, but the outcome of FCC deliberations on Net Neutrality may very well have a huge effect on the flow of information and our assumption that everyone has a right to hear and be heard without interference; without corporate censorship.

Of course the ability of the FCC to do anything at all is in question following recent court decisions that seem to be part of the crusade against regulating anything and everything and without such an agency to provide a system of rules to protect a media that's fast replacing print and broadcast as our portal to the world, what you know, what you are able to know may well be determined by what makes the most money or most suits the interests of service providers. Indeed we've already traveled quite a distance down that path.

The FCC is now open to public comment. You can be sure that Verizon and Google, inter alia, are speaking very loudly and carrying a very big stick so if there's going to be any slim chance for the public to weigh in on Net Neutrality, your chance to be heard is now.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

The Wilding

By Carl

 

Weather is really strange.

 

There are five named storms roaming the Atlantic right now. The biggest, hurricane Earl, is about to scrape the Outer Banks of North Caolina and could even pose a threat to New York City by Friday afternoon.

 

Tropical storm Fiona looks destined to strike Bermuda. Tropical storm Gaston is foaming up the central Atlantic and a new depression that should get its name by the end of the day is beginning to percolate off Cape Verde in Africa.

 

And then there's Danielle, which has been wandering the Atlantic around Bermuda like a drunk hooker. First a tropical storm, then a hurricane, then a tropical storm and now again, a hurricane. Danielle and Fiona have both been kept away from the coast of the US by a Bermuda high that's been sitting over the northeast, which has brought its own troubles to cities like New York, Boston, and DC.

 

Earl groped his way along the edge and found a backdoor to the coast. Gaston may have an easier time of it. Soon-to-be tropical depression Hermine will be hot on the heels of Gaston.

 

The potential for a sort-of perfect storm, where Danielle, Earl, and Fiona combine, is small, but not impossible. A small shift north in the high that's deflecting Danielle would be required to squirt her westward and Fiona is already beginning to catch up to Earl. The string of low pressure areas...well, imagine three ball bearings on a sheet of rubber. The closer they get, the more likely it is they'll collide.

 

Keep in mind, September 1 is the tradition mark of the beginning of the heart of hurricane season. It gets worse before it gets better.

 

Only once in recorded weather history has the Atlantic gone clear thru the alphabet (there are no Q, X, Y, or Z names) and into Greek letters: 2005, when 28 named storms, and fifteen hurricanes including Katrina and Wilma, formed. The last tropical storm, Zeta, formed on December 30. It was not the latest storm to ever form, by six hours. 1954's Alice2 (the second hurricane with the name that season) holds that distinction.

 

Forecasts made before the hurricane season started predicted unusually heavy activity: at least 15 named storms, up to 14 of them hurricanes, with up to seven Cat3 or higher. After the start of the season, predictions were bumped up, and even then, the projectors made it clear they were understating the case.

 

Fasten your seatbelts, it looks like a bumpy night!    

 

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Will gays and lesbians turn Republican out of frustration with Obama?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Oh, please. I get that Obama hasn't done nearly enough for gay rights, and I've been deeply critical of him for not doing enough and for not being progressive enough (specifically on DADT and same-sex marriage), but there isn't about to be a mass migration of gays to the Republican Party just because a couple of somewhat high-profile Republicans, McCainiac Steve Schmidt and Bushie Ken Mehlman, the latter recently uncloseted, along with the independent-minded and barely Republican Meghan McCain, are publicly defending same-sex marriage, or because other Republicans with little profile at all are either softening their views on gay rights or daring to come out against their party's long-standing opposition not just to gay rights but to homosexuality generally.

At HuffPo, Sam Stein quotes an anonymous "prominent Democratic consultant" as saying that Obama should feel "uncomfortable" with all these Republicans to the left of him on gay rights. But what are we really talking about here? Schmidt, Mehlman, and McCain aren't exactly the movers and shakers of the GOP, nor do they really have that much public profile. McCain has greater media presence than the other two, but she doesn't have much influence, if any, on the party. "We get the bad rap as Republicans being against gay marriage," she told Fox News recently. "[Obama] isn't doing anything for the gay community." Republicans deserve the rap. This is a party, after all, that proposes putting a ban on same-sex marriage in the Constitution and that has a theocratic-oriented base that is deeply anti-gay, a party that from top to bottom espouses bigotry and that is moving further and further to the right. And while Obama hasn't done enough, it's just not true that he hasn't done anything. Earlier this year, for example, he banned visitation discrimination against gays and lesbians at any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding.

As Stein notes, "LBGT voters are not, of course, monolithic," and, while I am not gay myself, I certainly think it's fair to say that on most issues a significant majority of gays and lesbians are much closer to Obama and the Democrats than to the Republicans. Will frustration with Obama drive some of them to the GOP? Well, sure, but some heteros are turning away from Obama, too. What of it?

It seems to me that the anonymous consultant is fearmongering and that very few people are paying attention to what Schmidt, Mehlman, and a tiny minority of Republicans are up to. In contrast, the Republican position on gay rights, including same-sex marriage, is pretty clear, and there's no indication it's going to change anytime soon.

If some gays or lesbians prefer to back a party that hates them and that seeks to treat them like non- or unequal citizens, or as some hell-bound domestic enemy, well, that's their problem (and ours, to the extent that Democrats lose votes), but I suspect that most of them would rather register their displeasure and disappointment with the party that actually has a history of fighting for their rights, and seek to change that party's policy positions, than do that. With the Democrats, after all, in a party that respects difference and diversity, they can make a difference and actually secure equal rights. With the Republicans, ruled by a far-right fringe that has become the party's new mainstream, all they'll find is fear and loathing, welcomed by a few but detested by the rest. Is the choice not clear?

Credit where credit is due

By Creature

Facebook, Creep

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I can't remember if I've ever posted a movie trailer here, but the full-length trailer for The Social Network, the David Fincher-directed film about Facebook (and founder Mark Zuckerberg) is brilliant, so much so that I'm actually quite excited about seeing the movie.

The music is the cover of Radiohead's "Creep," perhaps the band's best song, by Scala, a Belgian girls' choir, and the Kolacny brothers (Stijn conducting, Steven on the piano). It's a pretty amazing cover, and, needless to say, the trailer wouldn't be the same without it. Just consider the lyrics:

I don't care if it hurts,
I wanna have control.
I want a perfect body.
I want a perfect soul.

I want you to notice.
when I'm not around.
You're so fuckin' special.
I wish I was special.

But I'm a creep.
I'm a weirdo.
What the hell am I doin' here?
I don't belong here, ohhhh, ohhhh...

(By the way, check out Scala's other work. They do interesting covers of, for example, The Police's "Every Breath You Take," U2's "With or Without You," Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit," and the Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Under the Bridge.")

As for the movie, well, there's a lot of potential: Fincher's a really good director (Seven, Zodiac, Benjamin Button) and I really like Jesse Eisenberg, one of the stars of 2009 (Adventureland, Zombieland). And it could very well turn out to be one of the defining movies of our time, a movie about our time, and about our civilization, that captures the essence of who we are, for better and for worse. (Yes, I'm highly optimistic.)

Anyway, here it is. Enjoy.

Me and Troy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Hello, my name is Michael, and I have a huge man-crush on the Pittsburgh Steelers' Troy Polamalu.

So I understand completely why his gorgeous hair is insured with Lloyd's of London for $1 million.

Though it seems a bit silly, and, if it weren't Polamalu, I might go so far as to call it a Sign of the Apocalypse -- not the hair, of course, the insurance policy, or the fact that such insurance policies are taken out at all (not by him, in this case, but by Proctor & Gamble (for whom Polamalu does ads for Head & Shoulders).

But I won't. Because he's awesome.

And because I'll be in Pittsburgh for the opening game of the regular season -- my beloved Steelers are taking on the Falcons -- and, with the team Big Ben-less (but with the great Hines Ward, if anyone can throw the ball to him), I'm really looking forward to seeing Polamalu and his (insured) flowing hair wreak havoc on Atlanta.

Them crazy Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In case it wasn't clear enough just how crazy (and how utterly divorced from reality) Republicans are:

A majority of Republicans believe that President Barack Obama "sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world," according to a survey released on Monday.

That figure, buried at the very end of a newly released Newsweek public opinion poll, reflects the extent to which a shocking bit of smear and misinformation has managed to become nearly commonplace within the GOP tent.

(Read the full poll results here.)

A full 14 percent of Republicans said that it was "definitely true" that Obama sympathized with the fundamentalists and wanted to impose Islamic law across the globe. An additional 38 percent said that it was probably true -- bringing the total percentage of believers to 52 percent. Only 33 percent of Republicans said that the "allegation" (as Newsweek put it) was "probably not true." Seven percent said it was "definitely not true." The rest (eight percent) either didn't know the answer or didn't read the question. 

And, as you might imagine, there's more:

Fifty-nine percent of Republicans, for instance, said they believed the president favored "the interests of Muslims over other groups of Americans," while only 34 percent of said he had been "generally even handed" in his approach.

Yes, the right-wing propaganda is working well, the lies spewed by the Republican smear machine, but the willful ignorance of Republicans is unfathomably enormous -- and, as this poll shows, simply appalling.

You can present them with all the evidence you have, undeniable proof that they're wrong, but there's just no reasoning with them, so much do they want nothing to do with the truth.