"First God created idiots. Then he created school boards."
-Mark Twain
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A Resurgence of Hate & White Supremacy
As these exercepts from a current NEWSWEEK article show, the election of Obama is spearing a resurgence of hate and white supremacy. (Look for the confederate flag: that's the tip-off) Hate Obama! Heil Hitler!
By Eve Conant NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 25, 2009
From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009
It's not about hate, it's about love. Love of white people. That's the message in songs, speeches and casual conversation during a weekend retreat in Zinc, Ark., sponsored by the Christian Revival Center and the Knights Party, an offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan. There's no overt threat of violence here. No cross burnings (or "lightings," as the KKK prefers to call them). The only fire at the grassy compound, located at the end of a long, rocky road circled by turkey vultures, is a bonfire for the Knights youth corps to roast their s'mores. The kids draw pictures of white-hooded Klanspeople and sing songs about the oppressed Aryan race; rousing sermons are read from Bibles decorated with Confederate flags. Aryan souvenirs are for sale, including baseball caps proclaiming IT'S LOVE, NOT HATE and advertising THE ORIGINAL BOYZ IN THE HOOD.
This would all be funny (Jon Stewart, where are you?) if it weren't so disturbing. "Do you know why people are so afraid of us?" asks Thomas Robb, the soft-spoken national director—don't call him grand wizard!—of the Knights. "Because we're so normal." In his speeches, Robb is more likely to make a joke about his short stature than he is about minorities. His Web site includes careful statements about nonviolence, green energy and women's rights. But among his ideological kin, Robb equates minorities to fleas and favors a program for "voluntary resettlement" to home countries. Illegal immigrants, as well as blacks serving time in prison, should be deported, he says. "Why is it that when a black man wants to preserve his culture and heritage it's a good thing, and when a white person wants the same thing, we're called haters?" he says.
Some of the roughly 50 attendees at the Arkansas lovefest wear Knights uniforms with Confederate flags and, along with their children, raise their arms "Heil, Hitler"–STYLE to shouts of "white power!" Robb sometimes dons his white robe and hood and doesn't see why that carries any baggage: "Why do judges wear robes? It's tradition." The Klan's past is misunderstood, he insists—no history of brutal lynchings, torture and intimidation; it's gotten a bad name from, for example, federal provocateurs who instigated violence. While Robb questions the authority of other Klan groups, he happily notes that "a rising tide lifts all ships."
It's hard to conduct accurate surveys of racists, who tend to exaggerate their strength and importance. But it's fair to say that in the Age of Obama, there's growing concern. This spring, the Southern Poverty Law Center released its annual "Year in Hate" report, which outlines that in 2008 the number of hate groups rose to 926, up 4 percent from 2007, and 54 percent since 2000. (The SPLC doesn't measure the number of members in the groups.) An April Homeland Security intelligence report states that "the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment." Home foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit "could create a fertile recruiting environment," the briefing adds, and extremist groups are aiming to "broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda." The haters are doing their best, in other words, to move out from the fringe and toward the mainstream—and they're boasting some success.
By Eve Conant NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 25, 2009
From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009
It's not about hate, it's about love. Love of white people. That's the message in songs, speeches and casual conversation during a weekend retreat in Zinc, Ark., sponsored by the Christian Revival Center and the Knights Party, an offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan. There's no overt threat of violence here. No cross burnings (or "lightings," as the KKK prefers to call them). The only fire at the grassy compound, located at the end of a long, rocky road circled by turkey vultures, is a bonfire for the Knights youth corps to roast their s'mores. The kids draw pictures of white-hooded Klanspeople and sing songs about the oppressed Aryan race; rousing sermons are read from Bibles decorated with Confederate flags. Aryan souvenirs are for sale, including baseball caps proclaiming IT'S LOVE, NOT HATE and advertising THE ORIGINAL BOYZ IN THE HOOD.
This would all be funny (Jon Stewart, where are you?) if it weren't so disturbing. "Do you know why people are so afraid of us?" asks Thomas Robb, the soft-spoken national director—don't call him grand wizard!—of the Knights. "Because we're so normal." In his speeches, Robb is more likely to make a joke about his short stature than he is about minorities. His Web site includes careful statements about nonviolence, green energy and women's rights. But among his ideological kin, Robb equates minorities to fleas and favors a program for "voluntary resettlement" to home countries. Illegal immigrants, as well as blacks serving time in prison, should be deported, he says. "Why is it that when a black man wants to preserve his culture and heritage it's a good thing, and when a white person wants the same thing, we're called haters?" he says.
Some of the roughly 50 attendees at the Arkansas lovefest wear Knights uniforms with Confederate flags and, along with their children, raise their arms "Heil, Hitler"–STYLE to shouts of "white power!" Robb sometimes dons his white robe and hood and doesn't see why that carries any baggage: "Why do judges wear robes? It's tradition." The Klan's past is misunderstood, he insists—no history of brutal lynchings, torture and intimidation; it's gotten a bad name from, for example, federal provocateurs who instigated violence. While Robb questions the authority of other Klan groups, he happily notes that "a rising tide lifts all ships."
It's hard to conduct accurate surveys of racists, who tend to exaggerate their strength and importance. But it's fair to say that in the Age of Obama, there's growing concern. This spring, the Southern Poverty Law Center released its annual "Year in Hate" report, which outlines that in 2008 the number of hate groups rose to 926, up 4 percent from 2007, and 54 percent since 2000. (The SPLC doesn't measure the number of members in the groups.) An April Homeland Security intelligence report states that "the economic downturn and the election of the first African-American president present unique drivers for right-wing radicalization and recruitment." Home foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit "could create a fertile recruiting environment," the briefing adds, and extremist groups are aiming to "broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda." The haters are doing their best, in other words, to move out from the fringe and toward the mainstream—and they're boasting some success.
At the Present Time
At the present time the Republicans are fast morphing into a regional party. It is quickly becoming a national party no more. The party is becoming isolated in the white South where its appeal is based on race, a residue of the white backlash to the civil rights movement that began in the 60's. Like Paul Krugman says, we need a viable Republican Party, but let's get a progressive agenda in place first.
As the GNOP gets smaller, it continues to enforce ideological purity, which makes it even smaller. These people don't learn, do they?
The hard right never dies in this country. It just becomes dormant like it did for a time in the 60's. The hard right is like the weeds in the lawn. They go away temporarily, but sooner or later they come back.
As the GNOP gets smaller, it continues to enforce ideological purity, which makes it even smaller. These people don't learn, do they?
The hard right never dies in this country. It just becomes dormant like it did for a time in the 60's. The hard right is like the weeds in the lawn. They go away temporarily, but sooner or later they come back.
The Republican Party in a Death Spiral?
by Paul Krugman
April 28, 2009, 12:44 pm — Updated: 12:44 pm -->
The Specter of Republican marginalization
Arlen Specter’s party switch isn’t all that startling. Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched to the Republicans right after the 1994 election, without (as far as I know) facing the same kind of primary challenge. But this switch is especially important, because once Al Franken finally gets seated it will give the Democrats the magic 60 number. The way is now open to a seriously progressive agenda.
What strikes me, however, is the extent to which this is a self-inflicted wound. If Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth weren’t so diligent about enforcing supply-side purity; if Republicans hadn’t made Rush Limbaugh the effective head of the party; Specter might still be GOP, and the Obama agenda much more limited.
Instead, though, we have a party that seems to be in a death spiral: the smaller it gets, the more it’s dominated by the hard right, which makes it even smaller. In the long run, this is not good for American democracy– we really do need two major parties in competition. But I’ll settle for getting that back after we get universal health care and cap-and-trade.
April 28, 2009, 12:44 pm — Updated: 12:44 pm -->
The Specter of Republican marginalization
Arlen Specter’s party switch isn’t all that startling. Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched to the Republicans right after the 1994 election, without (as far as I know) facing the same kind of primary challenge. But this switch is especially important, because once Al Franken finally gets seated it will give the Democrats the magic 60 number. The way is now open to a seriously progressive agenda.
What strikes me, however, is the extent to which this is a self-inflicted wound. If Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth weren’t so diligent about enforcing supply-side purity; if Republicans hadn’t made Rush Limbaugh the effective head of the party; Specter might still be GOP, and the Obama agenda much more limited.
Instead, though, we have a party that seems to be in a death spiral: the smaller it gets, the more it’s dominated by the hard right, which makes it even smaller. In the long run, this is not good for American democracy– we really do need two major parties in competition. But I’ll settle for getting that back after we get universal health care and cap-and-trade.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Big News
I am thrilled to hear that Pennsylvania Republican Senator Arlen Specter is switching to the Democratic Party. He says that he has not left the GOP but that the party has left him. The significance of this is that as the Republican Party moves further to the hard right, the Democratic Party under Obama is claiming the center of the country. Terrific!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Republicans: Masters of Disaster by Paul Krugman
Masters of disaster
So Bobby Jindal makes fun of “volcano monitoring”, and soon afterwards Mt. Redoubt erupts. Susan Collins makes sure that funds for pandemic protection are stripped from the stimulus bill, and the swine quickly attack.
What else did the right oppose recently? I just want enough information to take cover.
So Bobby Jindal makes fun of “volcano monitoring”, and soon afterwards Mt. Redoubt erupts. Susan Collins makes sure that funds for pandemic protection are stripped from the stimulus bill, and the swine quickly attack.
What else did the right oppose recently? I just want enough information to take cover.
The State of the Republicans
THE GIST OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS THE WHITE SOUTH. TAKE THAT AWAY, AND THERE'S NOTHING MUCH LEFT OF THIS PARTY. THE GOP MUST REDEFINE ITSELF BEYOND RACE AND SAYING "NO" TO MODERNITY.
By Ed Stoddard - Analysis
DALLAS (Reuters) - The Texas governor ponders secession from the United States, anti-tax "tea parties" are held and some states snub federal economic "stimulus" funds.
The U.S. Republican Party's conservative base is fired up and taking aim at the old target of "big government" as its opposition hardens to the agenda of President Barack Obama and a U.S. Congress controlled by his fellow Democrats.
But some analysts say the Republicans, after setbacks in the 2006 congressional elections and the 2008 presidential election, risk turning off more voters than they attract if they embrace the kind of populism on display lately.
The Republican Party and the conservative movement are at a crossroads as they search for a winning formula after George W. Bush left office in January as a deeply unpopular president.
"Republicans need to figure out what it means to be a Republican and a conservative in a post-Bush era," said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
And the political base -- largely white, male, Southern, evangelical Christian and rural -- appears to be shrinking.
By Ed Stoddard - Analysis
DALLAS (Reuters) - The Texas governor ponders secession from the United States, anti-tax "tea parties" are held and some states snub federal economic "stimulus" funds.
The U.S. Republican Party's conservative base is fired up and taking aim at the old target of "big government" as its opposition hardens to the agenda of President Barack Obama and a U.S. Congress controlled by his fellow Democrats.
But some analysts say the Republicans, after setbacks in the 2006 congressional elections and the 2008 presidential election, risk turning off more voters than they attract if they embrace the kind of populism on display lately.
The Republican Party and the conservative movement are at a crossroads as they search for a winning formula after George W. Bush left office in January as a deeply unpopular president.
"Republicans need to figure out what it means to be a Republican and a conservative in a post-Bush era," said Dennis Goldford, a political scientist at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
And the political base -- largely white, male, Southern, evangelical Christian and rural -- appears to be shrinking.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Ponder Heart by Eudora Welty
About Daniel Ponder of Clay, Mississippi, who relishes telling stories and being the center of attention and whose heart is so kind he gives away his possessions to everyone. Eventually, he marries Bonnie Dee Peacock, who later dies. Daniel is put on trial for her murder, but the truth of what happened to his wife is quite difficult to believe.
I did not enjoy this book, although I cannot say I do not like it. I had trouble acclimating to Welty's writing style. It sounds more like speech than writing and is too Southern and colloquial for me. Words like "britches" and "lickety-split" are used, for instance. Names include not only Bonnie Dee Peacock, but also Edna Earle (the narrator) and Williebelle Kilmichael.
However, the book can be quite amusing. The town's coroner is blind. When Bonnie Dee died, there was a terrible storm that sent a ball of fire shooting through the Ponder house: It went down the chimney, around the parlor, through the hall, and then out by the bead curtains. Also, Edna Earle gives these directions to go from Clay to Polk, where the Peacocks live:
"You start out like you were going to Monterrey, turn at the consolidated school, and bear right till you see a Baptist steeple across a field, and you just leave the gravel and head for that, if you have good tires."
Now doesn't that sound Southern?
I did not enjoy this book, although I cannot say I do not like it. I had trouble acclimating to Welty's writing style. It sounds more like speech than writing and is too Southern and colloquial for me. Words like "britches" and "lickety-split" are used, for instance. Names include not only Bonnie Dee Peacock, but also Edna Earle (the narrator) and Williebelle Kilmichael.
However, the book can be quite amusing. The town's coroner is blind. When Bonnie Dee died, there was a terrible storm that sent a ball of fire shooting through the Ponder house: It went down the chimney, around the parlor, through the hall, and then out by the bead curtains. Also, Edna Earle gives these directions to go from Clay to Polk, where the Peacocks live:
"You start out like you were going to Monterrey, turn at the consolidated school, and bear right till you see a Baptist steeple across a field, and you just leave the gravel and head for that, if you have good tires."
Now doesn't that sound Southern?
Friday, April 24, 2009
To Tweet or Not to Tweet
Maureen Dowd of the New York Times interviewed the creators of Twitter. Interestingly, one of them called it "hyper-nervousness." What an appropriate term, not only for Twitter, but also for our entire culture of connectivity.
Here is her report.
BY Maureen Dowd
21 April 2009
SAN FRANCISCO — Alfred Hitchcock would have loved the Twitter headquarters here. Birds gathering everywhere, painted on the wall in flocks, perched on the coffee table, stitched on pillows and framed on the wall with a thought bubble asking employees to please tidy up after themselves.
In a droll nod to shifting technology, there’s a British red telephone booth in the loftlike office that you are welcome to use but you’ll have to bring in your cellphone.
I was here on a simple quest: curious to know if the inventors of Twitter were as annoying as their invention. (They’re not. They’re charming.)
I sat down with Biz Stone, 35, and Evan Williams, 37, and asked them to justify themselves.
ME: You say the brevity of Twitter enhances creativity. So I wonder if you can keep your answers to 140 characters, like Twitter users must. Twitter seems like telegrams without the news. We now know that on the president’s trip to Trinidad, ABC News’s Jake Tapper’s shower was spewing brown water. Is there any thought that doesn’t need to be published?
BIZ: The one I’m thinking right now.
ME: Did you know you were designing a toy for bored celebrities and high-school girls?
BIZ: We definitely didn’t design it for that. If they want to use it for that, it’s great.
ME: I heard about a woman who tweeted her father’s funeral. Whatever happened to private pain?
EVAN: I have private pain every day.
ME: If you were out with a girl and she started twittering about it in the middle, would that be a deal-breaker or a turn-on?
BIZ (dryly): In the middle of what?
BIZ: If people are passionate about your product, whether it’s because they’re hating or loving it, those are both good scenarios. People can use it to help each other during fuel shortages or revolts or earthquakes or wildfires. That’s the exciting part of it.
ME: Why did you think the answer to e-mail was a new kind of e-mail?
ME: Don’t you get worried about being swallowed up by Google?
BIZ: They don’t swallow you up. They call you up.
ME: Why did you call the company Twitter instead of Clutter?
BIZ: We had a lot of words like “Jitter” and things that reflected a hyper-nervousness. Somebody threw “Twitter” in the hat. I thought “Oh, that’s the short trivial bursts of information that birds do.”
ME: Oprah unleashed mayhem in the Twittersphere last week when, in her first tweet, she greeted “Twitters” instead of “Twitterers.”
BIZ: I’m still kinda old-school. We’re twittering, and we’re all twitterers. And we write tweets. The only thing I don’t love is twits.
ME: Would Shakespeare have tweeted?
BIZ: Brevity’s the soul of wit, right?
ME: Was there anything in your childhood that led you to want to destroy civilization as we know it?
BIZ: You mean enhance civilization, make it even better?
ME: What’s your favorite book?
BIZ: I loved Sherlock Holmes when I was a kid.
ME: But you’ve helped destroy mystery.
BIZ: When you put more information out there, sometimes you can just put a little bit of it out, which just makes the mystery even broader.
ME: When newsprint blows away, I want a second career as a Twitter ghostwriter. Which celebrity on Twitter most needs my help?
BIZ: Definitely not Shaq. Britney, maybe.
ME: Gavin Newsom announced his candidacy for governor today on Twitter and elsewhere. Does that make you the new Larry King?
BIZ: Did he? I didn’t know.
ME: Have you thought about using even fewer than 140 characters?
BIZ: I’ve seen people twitter in haiku only. Twit-u. James Buck, the student who was thrown into an Egyptian prison, just wrote “Arrested.”
ME: I would rather be tied up to stakes in the Kalahari Desert, have honey poured over me and red ants eat out my eyes than open a Twitter account. Is there anything you can say to change my mind?
BIZ: Well, when you do find yourself in that position, you’re gonna want Twitter. You might want to type out the message “Help.”
Here is her report.
BY Maureen Dowd
21 April 2009
SAN FRANCISCO — Alfred Hitchcock would have loved the Twitter headquarters here. Birds gathering everywhere, painted on the wall in flocks, perched on the coffee table, stitched on pillows and framed on the wall with a thought bubble asking employees to please tidy up after themselves.
In a droll nod to shifting technology, there’s a British red telephone booth in the loftlike office that you are welcome to use but you’ll have to bring in your cellphone.
I was here on a simple quest: curious to know if the inventors of Twitter were as annoying as their invention. (They’re not. They’re charming.)
I sat down with Biz Stone, 35, and Evan Williams, 37, and asked them to justify themselves.
ME: You say the brevity of Twitter enhances creativity. So I wonder if you can keep your answers to 140 characters, like Twitter users must. Twitter seems like telegrams without the news. We now know that on the president’s trip to Trinidad, ABC News’s Jake Tapper’s shower was spewing brown water. Is there any thought that doesn’t need to be published?
BIZ: The one I’m thinking right now.
ME: Did you know you were designing a toy for bored celebrities and high-school girls?
BIZ: We definitely didn’t design it for that. If they want to use it for that, it’s great.
ME: I heard about a woman who tweeted her father’s funeral. Whatever happened to private pain?
EVAN: I have private pain every day.
ME: If you were out with a girl and she started twittering about it in the middle, would that be a deal-breaker or a turn-on?
BIZ (dryly): In the middle of what?
BIZ: If people are passionate about your product, whether it’s because they’re hating or loving it, those are both good scenarios. People can use it to help each other during fuel shortages or revolts or earthquakes or wildfires. That’s the exciting part of it.
ME: Why did you think the answer to e-mail was a new kind of e-mail?
ME: Don’t you get worried about being swallowed up by Google?
BIZ: They don’t swallow you up. They call you up.
ME: Why did you call the company Twitter instead of Clutter?
BIZ: We had a lot of words like “Jitter” and things that reflected a hyper-nervousness. Somebody threw “Twitter” in the hat. I thought “Oh, that’s the short trivial bursts of information that birds do.”
ME: Oprah unleashed mayhem in the Twittersphere last week when, in her first tweet, she greeted “Twitters” instead of “Twitterers.”
BIZ: I’m still kinda old-school. We’re twittering, and we’re all twitterers. And we write tweets. The only thing I don’t love is twits.
ME: Would Shakespeare have tweeted?
BIZ: Brevity’s the soul of wit, right?
ME: Was there anything in your childhood that led you to want to destroy civilization as we know it?
BIZ: You mean enhance civilization, make it even better?
ME: What’s your favorite book?
BIZ: I loved Sherlock Holmes when I was a kid.
ME: But you’ve helped destroy mystery.
BIZ: When you put more information out there, sometimes you can just put a little bit of it out, which just makes the mystery even broader.
ME: When newsprint blows away, I want a second career as a Twitter ghostwriter. Which celebrity on Twitter most needs my help?
BIZ: Definitely not Shaq. Britney, maybe.
ME: Gavin Newsom announced his candidacy for governor today on Twitter and elsewhere. Does that make you the new Larry King?
BIZ: Did he? I didn’t know.
ME: Have you thought about using even fewer than 140 characters?
BIZ: I’ve seen people twitter in haiku only. Twit-u. James Buck, the student who was thrown into an Egyptian prison, just wrote “Arrested.”
ME: I would rather be tied up to stakes in the Kalahari Desert, have honey poured over me and red ants eat out my eyes than open a Twitter account. Is there anything you can say to change my mind?
BIZ: Well, when you do find yourself in that position, you’re gonna want Twitter. You might want to type out the message “Help.”
About Mark Twain (2)
There is his famous story about the jumping frog that first put him on the literary map. I've read it 3 times and I still don't see what's funny about it.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
It's Called EVIL
From Paul Krugman
April 22, 2009, 10:01 am — Updated: 10:01 am -->
From Jonathan Landay at McClatchy, one of the few reporters to get the story right during the march to war:
The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Such information would’ve provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush’s main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and Saddam’s regime.
The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush’s quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.
Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.
There’s a word for this: it’s evil.
April 22, 2009, 10:01 am — Updated: 10:01 am -->
From Jonathan Landay at McClatchy, one of the few reporters to get the story right during the march to war:
The Bush administration put relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Such information would’ve provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush’s main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. No evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and Saddam’s regime.
The use of abusive interrogation — widely considered torture — as part of Bush’s quest for a rationale to invade Iraq came to light as the Senate issued a major report tracing the origin of the abuses and President Barack Obama opened the door to prosecuting former U.S. officials for approving them.
Let’s say this slowly: the Bush administration wanted to use 9/11 as a pretext to invade Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. So it tortured people to make them confess to the nonexistent link.
There’s a word for this: it’s evil.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Obama is Different
This is a stimulating article. Though I am not competent to comment with any authority, I do agree with the author that somehow Obama is different. He is not a traditional liberal. He is certainly not a socialist (what a joke!). I think he is more conservative by today's standards than liberal. Above all, he is different.
Liberalism's Momentby Franklin Foer and Noam ScheiberBarack Obama's new theory of the state.
The New RepublicNudge-ocracy by Franklin Foer and Noam ScheiberBarack Obama's new theory of the state.Post Date Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Barack Obama has the type of mind--orderly, analytical, well-read--that takes naturally to the study of ideas. But he's always been uncomfortable describing himself in ideological terms. Is he a liberal? During the campaign, Obama would mock those who applied the label to him: "There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics," he'd say. "There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home." Is he a moderate? Certainly not when others have suggested it: He once asked the Democratic Leadership Council to remove him from its list of rising stars.
But, when you look at the sum of Obama's early policies, you begin to see the contours of a distinctive philosophy. Unlike the Progressives or the early New Dealers, Obama has no intention of changing the nature of American capitalism. Not through old-fashioned Jeffersonian means (antitrust) or newer-fangled Hamiltonian techniques (industrial planning). His program doesn't set out to reinvent whole sectors of the economy, not even our broken banking system. And, unlike postwar liberals, he has no zeal for ramping up the regulatory state, aside from tightening the screws on financial services. But, even then, he's resisted key parts of Europe's proposal for greater controls on hedge funds.
Like the New Democrats who ultimately shaped the Clinton administration's agenda, Obama has a deep respect for the market and wants to minimize the state's footprint on it. He has little interest in fixing prices or rationing goods or reversing free-trade agreements. But, while he basically shares the New Democrats' instincts, he rejects their conclusions. Reacting against the overweening statism of their liberal ancestors, many New Democrats came to believe that if government largely got out of the way and let markets work properly, the natural result would be widely shared prosperity. You only need to view the extent of Obama's domestic agenda to know he doesn't agree.
Instead, Obama has set out to synthesize the New Democratic faith in the utility of markets with the Old Democratic emphasis on reducing inequality. In Obama's state, government never supplants the market or stifles its inner workings--the old forms of statism that didn't wash economically, and certainly not politically. But government does aggressively prod markets--by planting incentives, by stirring new competition--to achieve the results he prefers. With health care, for instance, he would make it easier for employees to tote their insurance from job to job, eliminating the disincentive for insurers to invest in preventive care. Or take his bank plan, which helps banks dispose of their toxic assets, reducing uncertainty and making the banks more attractive to private investors--a far less drastic step than nationalization. Rather than force markets to conform to his wishes, he shapes their calculus so they conclude (on their own) that their interests coincide with his wishes.
Obama is hardly the first president to grasp the appeal of manipulating incentives and altering the context in which we make decisions. In the mid-'70s, Charles Schultze, Jimmy Carter's top White House economic adviser, sketched out a version of the conceit in a book called The Public Use of Private Interest. Schultze favored "harnessing the 'base' motive of material self-interest to promote the common good"--say, by taxing rather than outlawing harmful activities. A generation later, the behavioral theorists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, both informal advisers to the Obama campaign, hatched a descendant of this approach. In their own book, Thaler and Sunstein suggested that the government inculcate desirable habits like saving and philanthropy through a series of gentle "nudges."
Given the alternatives--even greater federal involvement, even more federal dollars--such "harnessing" and "nudging" makes enormous political sense. But Obama's version also represents a huge gamble. Many countries have nationalized banks and run health care systems--and we have, at least, a good sense of how those programs would turn out. The Obama approach is largely untested on the scale he proposes, which is far greater than anything Schultze or Thaler and Sunstein imagined. His plans can be dismayingly complex; they often involve heroic assumptions about how people respond to new incentives. There's more than a hint of Ira Magaziner--the much-derided architect of Bill Clinton's 1993 health care plan. But, if it works, Obama will have truly found the Third Way Clinton grasped for a decade ago.
Liberalism's Momentby Franklin Foer and Noam ScheiberBarack Obama's new theory of the state.
The New RepublicNudge-ocracy by Franklin Foer and Noam ScheiberBarack Obama's new theory of the state.Post Date Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Barack Obama has the type of mind--orderly, analytical, well-read--that takes naturally to the study of ideas. But he's always been uncomfortable describing himself in ideological terms. Is he a liberal? During the campaign, Obama would mock those who applied the label to him: "There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics," he'd say. "There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home." Is he a moderate? Certainly not when others have suggested it: He once asked the Democratic Leadership Council to remove him from its list of rising stars.
But, when you look at the sum of Obama's early policies, you begin to see the contours of a distinctive philosophy. Unlike the Progressives or the early New Dealers, Obama has no intention of changing the nature of American capitalism. Not through old-fashioned Jeffersonian means (antitrust) or newer-fangled Hamiltonian techniques (industrial planning). His program doesn't set out to reinvent whole sectors of the economy, not even our broken banking system. And, unlike postwar liberals, he has no zeal for ramping up the regulatory state, aside from tightening the screws on financial services. But, even then, he's resisted key parts of Europe's proposal for greater controls on hedge funds.
Like the New Democrats who ultimately shaped the Clinton administration's agenda, Obama has a deep respect for the market and wants to minimize the state's footprint on it. He has little interest in fixing prices or rationing goods or reversing free-trade agreements. But, while he basically shares the New Democrats' instincts, he rejects their conclusions. Reacting against the overweening statism of their liberal ancestors, many New Democrats came to believe that if government largely got out of the way and let markets work properly, the natural result would be widely shared prosperity. You only need to view the extent of Obama's domestic agenda to know he doesn't agree.
Instead, Obama has set out to synthesize the New Democratic faith in the utility of markets with the Old Democratic emphasis on reducing inequality. In Obama's state, government never supplants the market or stifles its inner workings--the old forms of statism that didn't wash economically, and certainly not politically. But government does aggressively prod markets--by planting incentives, by stirring new competition--to achieve the results he prefers. With health care, for instance, he would make it easier for employees to tote their insurance from job to job, eliminating the disincentive for insurers to invest in preventive care. Or take his bank plan, which helps banks dispose of their toxic assets, reducing uncertainty and making the banks more attractive to private investors--a far less drastic step than nationalization. Rather than force markets to conform to his wishes, he shapes their calculus so they conclude (on their own) that their interests coincide with his wishes.
Obama is hardly the first president to grasp the appeal of manipulating incentives and altering the context in which we make decisions. In the mid-'70s, Charles Schultze, Jimmy Carter's top White House economic adviser, sketched out a version of the conceit in a book called The Public Use of Private Interest. Schultze favored "harnessing the 'base' motive of material self-interest to promote the common good"--say, by taxing rather than outlawing harmful activities. A generation later, the behavioral theorists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, both informal advisers to the Obama campaign, hatched a descendant of this approach. In their own book, Thaler and Sunstein suggested that the government inculcate desirable habits like saving and philanthropy through a series of gentle "nudges."
Given the alternatives--even greater federal involvement, even more federal dollars--such "harnessing" and "nudging" makes enormous political sense. But Obama's version also represents a huge gamble. Many countries have nationalized banks and run health care systems--and we have, at least, a good sense of how those programs would turn out. The Obama approach is largely untested on the scale he proposes, which is far greater than anything Schultze or Thaler and Sunstein imagined. His plans can be dismayingly complex; they often involve heroic assumptions about how people respond to new incentives. There's more than a hint of Ira Magaziner--the much-derided architect of Bill Clinton's 1993 health care plan. But, if it works, Obama will have truly found the Third Way Clinton grasped for a decade ago.
About Dylan
by Mark Edwards (concerning Dylan's forthcoming 33rd album)
And perhaps that’s another reason why Dylan is sticking with the style he developed on Time Out of Mind; because he has finally won back what he lost way back in 1962 — the right to just be a songwriter, not a spokesman. We still listen carefully to what he says, but, these days, it’s not because we think he knows some big secret that we don’t; it’s because, even if he’s only saying what we’re all thinking, he just says it better.
And perhaps that’s another reason why Dylan is sticking with the style he developed on Time Out of Mind; because he has finally won back what he lost way back in 1962 — the right to just be a songwriter, not a spokesman. We still listen carefully to what he says, but, these days, it’s not because we think he knows some big secret that we don’t; it’s because, even if he’s only saying what we’re all thinking, he just says it better.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
About Mark Twain
I continue to read about Mark Twain. Again, it is Twain the person and his influence on the 19th century that interests me, not his writing. In whole, I think his writing is turgid, prolix, and too exhaustive. I would hate to have to read Twain all the way thru.
Friday, April 17, 2009
The Truth about the "Tea Parties"
The truth about the "tea parties" is that it's all Anti-Obama. Where were these right-wing idiots when Bush came into office with budget surpluses and promptly turned them into huge deficits? These people have no principles except that they hate Barach Obama. If Bush were doing everything Obama is doing, you wouldn't hear a peep out of these cretins. Ideology and race. That's all these people are about.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Mark Twain by Ron Powers
I am reading this recent biography of Twain. My main interest is in Twain as a significant figure of the 19th century rather than an interest in his writing. I am not a great fan of Twain's work. However, he was certainly one of the leading figures of the late 19th century, and I am a student of the 19th century.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
REPORT: "Fair and balanced" Fox News aggressively promotes "tea party" protests
The following excerpt analyzes Fox News' bogus claim to fairly and accurately report news. Fox News, I think, makes a mockery of journalism. It is a shame that channel is allowed to stink up our airwaves.
Summary: Despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. Media Matters has compiled an analysis of Fox News' promotion of these events...
While discussing the April 15 protests on his April 6 program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties."
TaxDayTeaParty.com lists Fox News contributors Michelle Malkin and Tammy Bruce as "Tea Party Sponsors." The sponsors section also lists American Solutions for Winning the Future, whose general chairman is Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich. Gingrich filmed a video "invitation" to attend the April 15 protests. According to TaxDayTeaParty.com, "Gingrich will be a featured speaker" at the April 15 protest in New York City.
Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. For instance, the Sacramento Tea Party website uses Cavuto's image at the top of its home page...
The website AtlantaTeaParty.net states of Sean Hannity's appearance at its Atlanta protest...
Summary: Despite its repeated insistence that its coverage is "fair and balanced" and its invitation to viewers to "say 'no' to biased media," Fox News has frequently aired segments encouraging viewers to get involved with "tea party" protests across the country, which the channel has described as primarily a response to President Obama's fiscal policies. Media Matters has compiled an analysis of Fox News' promotion of these events...
While discussing the April 15 protests on his April 6 program, Glenn Beck suggested that viewers could "[c]elebrate with Fox News" by either attending a protest or watching it on Fox News. Beck stated that in addition to himself, hosts Neil Cavuto, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity would be "live" at different protests. While Beck spoke, on-screen text labeled those protests as "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties."
TaxDayTeaParty.com lists Fox News contributors Michelle Malkin and Tammy Bruce as "Tea Party Sponsors." The sponsors section also lists American Solutions for Winning the Future, whose general chairman is Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich. Gingrich filmed a video "invitation" to attend the April 15 protests. According to TaxDayTeaParty.com, "Gingrich will be a featured speaker" at the April 15 protest in New York City.
Tea-party organizers have used the planned attendance of the Fox News hosts to promote their protests. For instance, the Sacramento Tea Party website uses Cavuto's image at the top of its home page...
The website AtlantaTeaParty.net states of Sean Hannity's appearance at its Atlanta protest...
Glenn Beck Gets Ready To Tea Bag
BY Matthew Filipowicz
April 14, 2009
Well, Americans, our day is almost here! As you know April 15th is National Tea Party Day! Or if you want to go by it's full title, it's Fox News Channel presents a Freedom Works Production based on the short rant of Rick Santelli of Tax Day Tea Parties starring Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and the Fox News Dancers.
And of all the teabaggers, none is more hyped up and ready to be dipped than Mr. Glenn Beck...
As others have noted, Glenn is getting harder and harder to satirize. I mean really, is it that far off to imagine him dressing up in a tea bag? This is the same man who just in the last week has pretended to be President Obama dousing a man in gasoline. He had an actor pretend to be Thomas Paine to promote the Fox News teabagging. Hell, a man fainted on his set, and people thought it was just part of the act. You know, Glenn being Glenn. And this is just in the last week!
Oh, and he's going on a stand up comedy tour. I've seen his act, and it's pretty good. However, it is a bit of a Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck" rip off. See, Glenn goes on stage and says things like...
"If you randomly burst into tears at highly inopportune moments, like a four year old who hasn't had his nap... you might be a Glenn Beck."
"If instead of canned goods, your fallout shelter is full of unsold copies of A Christmas Sweater... you might be a Glenn Beck."
"If you're constantly using words you don't know the meaning of... like socialist, communist, fascist, and populist... you might be a Glenn Beck."
April 14, 2009
Well, Americans, our day is almost here! As you know April 15th is National Tea Party Day! Or if you want to go by it's full title, it's Fox News Channel presents a Freedom Works Production based on the short rant of Rick Santelli of Tax Day Tea Parties starring Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity and the Fox News Dancers.
And of all the teabaggers, none is more hyped up and ready to be dipped than Mr. Glenn Beck...
As others have noted, Glenn is getting harder and harder to satirize. I mean really, is it that far off to imagine him dressing up in a tea bag? This is the same man who just in the last week has pretended to be President Obama dousing a man in gasoline. He had an actor pretend to be Thomas Paine to promote the Fox News teabagging. Hell, a man fainted on his set, and people thought it was just part of the act. You know, Glenn being Glenn. And this is just in the last week!
Oh, and he's going on a stand up comedy tour. I've seen his act, and it's pretty good. However, it is a bit of a Jeff Foxworthy "you might be a redneck" rip off. See, Glenn goes on stage and says things like...
"If you randomly burst into tears at highly inopportune moments, like a four year old who hasn't had his nap... you might be a Glenn Beck."
"If instead of canned goods, your fallout shelter is full of unsold copies of A Christmas Sweater... you might be a Glenn Beck."
"If you're constantly using words you don't know the meaning of... like socialist, communist, fascist, and populist... you might be a Glenn Beck."
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A False Distinction
by Alan Wolfe (from The New Republic)
13.04.2009
On a recent trip to the Twin Cities to give a lecture, I was invited to write something by the editors of Contexts, a snappy journal associated with the American Sociological Association designed to bring sociological knowledge to the informed reading public. The magazine runs a feature called "One Thing I Know." Tell us one thing you know, the editors asked.
Accepting their invitation, the one thing I claimed to know is that there is no such thing as a distinction between "classical" and "modern" liberalism. I felt I needed to say as much because everywhere I go, the moment I tell people that I have written a book about liberalism, I am invariably asked which of the two I mean. Classical liberalism, my interlocutors patiently explain to me, is that wonderful notion of the free market elucidated by Adam Smith that worships the idea of freedom. The modern version, by contrast, is committed to expansion of the state and, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to slavery. One must choose one or the other. There really is no such thing, therefore, as modern liberalism. If you opt for the market, you are a libertarian. If you choose government, you are a socialist or, in more recent times, a fascist.
I try to explain to people that in my book I reject any such distinction and argue instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. But so foreign is this idea to them that they stare at me in utter disbelief. How could I have possibly written a book on liberalism, I can almost hear them thinking, when this guy doesn't know a thing about it?
The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy. To me, perhaps because so little of the means of production lies under my control, this is a remarkably uninteresting subject. I think of the whole question of governmental intervention as a matter of technique.
Sometimes the market does pretty well and it pays to rely on it. Sometimes it runs into very rough patches and then you need government to regulate it and correct its course. No matters of deep philosophy or religious meaning are at stake when we discuss such matters. A society simply does what it has to do.
When instead we do discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.
The liberal tradition is about far more than questions of economics, as important as those questions are. Modern liberalism did not start with the New Deal and end with The War on Poverty. What my critics call modern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism. That is why Adam Smith is a liberal and twentieth century libertarians such as Hayek are not. The latter seek to straighten out the crooked timber of humanity by forcing everyone into a mold established by the market. We know what Keynes thought of such an idea. I am certain that Smith, had he seen what contemporary Smithians are about, would have agreed with him.
13.04.2009
On a recent trip to the Twin Cities to give a lecture, I was invited to write something by the editors of Contexts, a snappy journal associated with the American Sociological Association designed to bring sociological knowledge to the informed reading public. The magazine runs a feature called "One Thing I Know." Tell us one thing you know, the editors asked.
Accepting their invitation, the one thing I claimed to know is that there is no such thing as a distinction between "classical" and "modern" liberalism. I felt I needed to say as much because everywhere I go, the moment I tell people that I have written a book about liberalism, I am invariably asked which of the two I mean. Classical liberalism, my interlocutors patiently explain to me, is that wonderful notion of the free market elucidated by Adam Smith that worships the idea of freedom. The modern version, by contrast, is committed to expansion of the state and, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to slavery. One must choose one or the other. There really is no such thing, therefore, as modern liberalism. If you opt for the market, you are a libertarian. If you choose government, you are a socialist or, in more recent times, a fascist.
I try to explain to people that in my book I reject any such distinction and argue instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. But so foreign is this idea to them that they stare at me in utter disbelief. How could I have possibly written a book on liberalism, I can almost hear them thinking, when this guy doesn't know a thing about it?
The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy. To me, perhaps because so little of the means of production lies under my control, this is a remarkably uninteresting subject. I think of the whole question of governmental intervention as a matter of technique.
Sometimes the market does pretty well and it pays to rely on it. Sometimes it runs into very rough patches and then you need government to regulate it and correct its course. No matters of deep philosophy or religious meaning are at stake when we discuss such matters. A society simply does what it has to do.
When instead we do discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.
The liberal tradition is about far more than questions of economics, as important as those questions are. Modern liberalism did not start with the New Deal and end with The War on Poverty. What my critics call modern liberalism is instead the logical and sociological outcome of classical liberalism. That is why Adam Smith is a liberal and twentieth century libertarians such as Hayek are not. The latter seek to straighten out the crooked timber of humanity by forcing everyone into a mold established by the market. We know what Keynes thought of such an idea. I am certain that Smith, had he seen what contemporary Smithians are about, would have agreed with him.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Republican Looney Tunes
REPUBLICANS TURN TO "SOCIALISTS" BECAUSE 'LIBERALS" HAS LOST ITS PUNCH. IT'S STILL THE SAME OLD BRAIN-DEAD CLAPTRAP.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 12, 2009
This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.
Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.
Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people. Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.
But here’s the thing: the G.O.P. looked as crazy 10 or 15 years ago as it does now. That didn’t stop Republicans from taking control of both Congress and the White House. And they could return to power if the Democrats stumble. So it behooves us to look closely at the state of what is, after all, one of our nation’s two great political parties.
One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday. These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.
But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party.
Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.
But the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to. And if you go back just a few years, you find top Republican figures making equally bizarre claims about what liberals were up to. Remember when Karl Rove declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to the 9/11 terrorists?
Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh.
Speaking of Mr. Limbaugh: the most impressive thing about his role right now is the fealty he is able to demand from the rest of the right. The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials. But while it’s new to have a talk-radio host in that role, ferocious party discipline has been the norm since the 1990s, when Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, became known as “The Hammer” in part because of the way he took political retribution on opponents.
Going back to those tea parties, Mr. DeLay, a fierce opponent of the theory of evolution — he famously suggested that the teaching of evolution led to the Columbine school massacre — also foreshadowed the denunciations of evolution that have emerged at some of the parties.
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
But that’s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the “spontaneous” riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
So what’s the implication of the fact that Republicans are refusing to grow up, the fact that they are still behaving the same way they did when history seemed to be on their side? I’d say that it’s good for Democrats, at least in the short run — but it’s bad for the country.
For now, the Obama administration gains a substantial advantage from the fact that it has no credible opposition, especially on economic policy, where the Republicans seem particularly clueless.
But as I said, the G.O.P. remains one of America’s great parties, and events could still put that party back in power. We can only hope that Republicans have moved on by the time that happens.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 12, 2009
This is a column about Republicans — and I’m not sure I should even be writing it.
Today’s G.O.P. is, after all, very much a minority party. It retains some limited ability to obstruct the Democrats, but has no ability to make or even significantly shape policy.
Beyond that, Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people. Better, perhaps, to focus on the real policy debates, which are all among Democrats.
But here’s the thing: the G.O.P. looked as crazy 10 or 15 years ago as it does now. That didn’t stop Republicans from taking control of both Congress and the White House. And they could return to power if the Democrats stumble. So it behooves us to look closely at the state of what is, after all, one of our nation’s two great political parties.
One way to get a good sense of the current state of the G.O.P., and also to see how little has really changed, is to look at the “tea parties” that have been held in a number of places already, and will be held across the country on Wednesday. These parties — antitaxation demonstrations that are supposed to evoke the memory of the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution — have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so.
But everything that critics mock about these parties has long been standard practice within the Republican Party.
Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.
But the charge of socialism is being thrown around only because “liberal” doesn’t seem to carry the punch it used to. And if you go back just a few years, you find top Republican figures making equally bizarre claims about what liberals were up to. Remember when Karl Rove declared that liberals wanted to offer “therapy and understanding” to the 9/11 terrorists?
Then there are the claims made at some recent tea-party events that Mr. Obama wasn’t born in America, which follow on earlier claims that he is a secret Muslim. Crazy stuff — but nowhere near as crazy as the claims, during the last Democratic administration, that the Clintons were murderers, claims that were supported by a campaign of innuendo on the part of big-league conservative media outlets and figures, especially Rush Limbaugh.
Speaking of Mr. Limbaugh: the most impressive thing about his role right now is the fealty he is able to demand from the rest of the right. The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials. But while it’s new to have a talk-radio host in that role, ferocious party discipline has been the norm since the 1990s, when Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, became known as “The Hammer” in part because of the way he took political retribution on opponents.
Going back to those tea parties, Mr. DeLay, a fierce opponent of the theory of evolution — he famously suggested that the teaching of evolution led to the Columbine school massacre — also foreshadowed the denunciations of evolution that have emerged at some of the parties.
Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.
But that’s nothing new, and AstroTurf has worked well for Republicans in the past. The most notable example was the “spontaneous” riot back in 2000 — actually orchestrated by G.O.P. strategists — that shut down the presidential vote recount in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
So what’s the implication of the fact that Republicans are refusing to grow up, the fact that they are still behaving the same way they did when history seemed to be on their side? I’d say that it’s good for Democrats, at least in the short run — but it’s bad for the country.
For now, the Obama administration gains a substantial advantage from the fact that it has no credible opposition, especially on economic policy, where the Republicans seem particularly clueless.
But as I said, the G.O.P. remains one of America’s great parties, and events could still put that party back in power. We can only hope that Republicans have moved on by the time that happens.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Republican Book Burning
It seems that the Republicans are organizing "tea parties" in which they are planning book burnings. Is this UNBELIEVABLE or what?
Tea Party Insanity: "Burn The Books!" (VIDEO)
Tea Party Insanity: "Burn The Books!" (VIDEO)
The Obamaphobes
The salivating, slobbering, racist, Obamaphobes are running around like ants on an anthill, their rhetoric getting sillier and sillier, darker and darker in their desperation. Just like ants on a disturbed anthill, they all look and act the same.
Republican Irresponsibility
Glenn Beck and The Consequences of Crazy Talk
Bob Cesca, 04.08.2009
Political Author, Blogger, and New Media Producer
Broadcasters like Beck ought to take responsibility for some of their more incendiary remarks -- remarks which appear to be ginning up the darker, uglier, fanatical tendencies in an already militaristic, jingoistic, reactionary audience.
Bob Cesca, 04.08.2009
Political Author, Blogger, and New Media Producer
Broadcasters like Beck ought to take responsibility for some of their more incendiary remarks -- remarks which appear to be ginning up the darker, uglier, fanatical tendencies in an already militaristic, jingoistic, reactionary audience.
Republican Madness
It would be unendingly funny if it were not so serious.
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
This week, the Grand Old Party continued its march into madness -- and irrelevancy. Rep. Spencer Bachus pegged the number of Congressional socialists at 17. Rep. Michele Bachmann said she fears the Obama administration will use "volunteerism" to create "re-education camps for young people." Sen. James Inhofe responded to news that Obama plans to increase military spending by $31 billion dollars by claiming the president "is disarming America." And Rick Santorum penned an op-ed accusing Obama of having "disdain for American values." Elsewhere, proving that stupid has no borders, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said the 17,000 survivors of Italy's deadly earthquake "should see it like a weekend of camping" -- a lovely companion to Barbara Bush's memorable observation that Katrina victims housed at a relocation center in Texas "were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Happy Easter, HuffPosters.
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
This week, the Grand Old Party continued its march into madness -- and irrelevancy. Rep. Spencer Bachus pegged the number of Congressional socialists at 17. Rep. Michele Bachmann said she fears the Obama administration will use "volunteerism" to create "re-education camps for young people." Sen. James Inhofe responded to news that Obama plans to increase military spending by $31 billion dollars by claiming the president "is disarming America." And Rick Santorum penned an op-ed accusing Obama of having "disdain for American values." Elsewhere, proving that stupid has no borders, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said the 17,000 survivors of Italy's deadly earthquake "should see it like a weekend of camping" -- a lovely companion to Barbara Bush's memorable observation that Katrina victims housed at a relocation center in Texas "were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Happy Easter, HuffPosters.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
G.O.P.: R.I.P.
BY Steven Weber
April 11, 2009
So there it stands: a naked, pigeon-chested old man, random strands of white hair on its boney shoulders; its swollen-knuckled hands clasped over its dead genitals, looking at once forlorn and menacing, shivering with self-loathing and xenophobia, raging pathetically at its timely and appropriate defeat at the hands of Reason.
Ladies and gentlemen: The Republican Party.
With every passing day, the people who stubbornly, maddeningly cling to an obsolete ideal and who stand in the way of the cultural advancement of this country, this America, spew the base reality of their caustic ideology into the air.
The Republican Party is like a dying tyrant, mad with syphilis, ironically like that very Stalin they would accuse their enemies of associating with. How else to account for their desperation to resurrect the wraith of Joseph McCarthy; the hammy and baffling utterances from high level party officials like Boehner and McConnell; the blatant desire on their part to let the country fail out of sheer resentment... ranging from the quasi Madame Defarge Michele Bachmann to the porcine, pill-popping porcine propagandist Rush Limbaugh?
It is an all out assault on reason, on progress, on truth. What is the difference between the Republican Party and, say, the Taliban? A rogue by any other name would smell as rank. Their frantic accusations all churned out in a futile effort to explain their current pariah status is as pathetic and draconian as stoning a woman in the street.
I feel I must apologize for my own particularly febrile anger. It's unseemly and ugly. But finally, the enemy is clearly outlined. We can see it for what it is and what it always has been. It exists not in myth but in a reality which has plagued humanity for millennia: utter, hateful ignorance born from a fear of truth, indeed a fear of life itself; a mad and impotent pursuit of some long-forgotten ecstasy having spawned generations of paranoid power addicts who chase the past at the expense of the future, cloaking their real intentions in perfumed patriotism and the seductive swoon of religion.
It's so fitting that we are living in an age where beheadings, torture, piracy and now unbridled power mongering are all common place. Perhaps that element of humanity is going back into hibernation and is snapping at any and everything before its eyes finally close. In our lifetime the choice has never been so stark.
Don't be intimidated by that naked, pigeon-chested old man. His party's over.
April 11, 2009
So there it stands: a naked, pigeon-chested old man, random strands of white hair on its boney shoulders; its swollen-knuckled hands clasped over its dead genitals, looking at once forlorn and menacing, shivering with self-loathing and xenophobia, raging pathetically at its timely and appropriate defeat at the hands of Reason.
Ladies and gentlemen: The Republican Party.
With every passing day, the people who stubbornly, maddeningly cling to an obsolete ideal and who stand in the way of the cultural advancement of this country, this America, spew the base reality of their caustic ideology into the air.
The Republican Party is like a dying tyrant, mad with syphilis, ironically like that very Stalin they would accuse their enemies of associating with. How else to account for their desperation to resurrect the wraith of Joseph McCarthy; the hammy and baffling utterances from high level party officials like Boehner and McConnell; the blatant desire on their part to let the country fail out of sheer resentment... ranging from the quasi Madame Defarge Michele Bachmann to the porcine, pill-popping porcine propagandist Rush Limbaugh?
It is an all out assault on reason, on progress, on truth. What is the difference between the Republican Party and, say, the Taliban? A rogue by any other name would smell as rank. Their frantic accusations all churned out in a futile effort to explain their current pariah status is as pathetic and draconian as stoning a woman in the street.
I feel I must apologize for my own particularly febrile anger. It's unseemly and ugly. But finally, the enemy is clearly outlined. We can see it for what it is and what it always has been. It exists not in myth but in a reality which has plagued humanity for millennia: utter, hateful ignorance born from a fear of truth, indeed a fear of life itself; a mad and impotent pursuit of some long-forgotten ecstasy having spawned generations of paranoid power addicts who chase the past at the expense of the future, cloaking their real intentions in perfumed patriotism and the seductive swoon of religion.
It's so fitting that we are living in an age where beheadings, torture, piracy and now unbridled power mongering are all common place. Perhaps that element of humanity is going back into hibernation and is snapping at any and everything before its eyes finally close. In our lifetime the choice has never been so stark.
Don't be intimidated by that naked, pigeon-chested old man. His party's over.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Spencer Bachus
I have tried to keep this blog on literary topics and away from politics, but I cannot help but comment on this. Driving back into town today from Troy, I hear on CNN (satelite radio) that MY congressman, Spencer Bachus, is claiming that he has a list of 17 socialists in the Congress. CNN has contacted both his Washington and Birmingham offices for an explanation, but, of course, they have not received a response.
First of all, Spencer Bachus wouldn't know a "socialist" if one hit him upside the head. Secondly, he will never release such a list because he has no list. This is just classic Republican red-baiting that goes back to Joe McCarthy in the 50's.
Spencer Bachus is a Class A idiot. I say this reluctantly since he is an Auburn graduate. I suppose not all AU grads are smart.
First of all, Spencer Bachus wouldn't know a "socialist" if one hit him upside the head. Secondly, he will never release such a list because he has no list. This is just classic Republican red-baiting that goes back to Joe McCarthy in the 50's.
Spencer Bachus is a Class A idiot. I say this reluctantly since he is an Auburn graduate. I suppose not all AU grads are smart.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The Politics of Rage by Dan T. Carter
I discovered this magnificent biography of George Wallace by accident at a local bookstore and what a great reading experience it was! No one who grew up in Alabama the 50's, 60's, & 70's can fail to come to terms with George C. Wallace. Like him or hate him, and I am in the latter category, you have to deal with this man.
I can still remember Wallace speaking in Winfield during his first run for Governor in 1958. Wallace would lose that race to John Patterson, but he would never lose a race for Governor again.
Wallace would go on to serve as our state's Governor for 16 years and his first wife Lurleen served 2 years before dying in office of cancer in 1968. So Wallace controlled this state for 18 years.
He was the precursor of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the politics of the white backlash to the modern civil rights movement. These people, mainly Wallace, always tried to insist that their politics was about states rights and getting the federal government out of our lives, but it was always about race, and everybody knew it.
Wallace's politics was blatantly racist; that of Nixon and Reagan had to be muted and coded, but it was there nonetheless. Wallace was the first and the greatest of the modern day racist demogogues.
I can still remember Wallace speaking in Winfield during his first run for Governor in 1958. Wallace would lose that race to John Patterson, but he would never lose a race for Governor again.
Wallace would go on to serve as our state's Governor for 16 years and his first wife Lurleen served 2 years before dying in office of cancer in 1968. So Wallace controlled this state for 18 years.
He was the precursor of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the politics of the white backlash to the modern civil rights movement. These people, mainly Wallace, always tried to insist that their politics was about states rights and getting the federal government out of our lives, but it was always about race, and everybody knew it.
Wallace's politics was blatantly racist; that of Nixon and Reagan had to be muted and coded, but it was there nonetheless. Wallace was the first and the greatest of the modern day racist demogogues.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
The Economy
We've had the recent upsurge in the stock market. Is this the beginning of an improving economy (the economy improved in 1931 and President Hoover mistakenly said that the worst was over) or is Wall Street playing us for suckers?
The G-20 meeting in London resulted in concrete plans from the world's leading economies. Do we have reason for optimism or is this economic situation worse than we are realizing? Is what the G-20 is planning enough?
One thing is for sure: nobody knows for sure.
The G-20 meeting in London resulted in concrete plans from the world's leading economies. Do we have reason for optimism or is this economic situation worse than we are realizing? Is what the G-20 is planning enough?
One thing is for sure: nobody knows for sure.
Literary Term of the Week (2)
IRONY - A figure of speech in which the actual intent is expressed in words which carry the opposite meaning. Irony is often confused with sarcasm but it differs from sarcasm in that it is usually lighter, less in its wording though in effect probably more cutting because of its indirectness. It bears, too, a relationship with innuendo. The ability to recognize irony is one of the surest tests of intelligence and sophistication.
Jonathan Swift is a great ironist; his "Modest Proposal" for saving a starving Ireland by suggesting that the Irish sell their babies to the English landords is probably the most supreme example of savage irony in the English language.
From A Handbook to Literature by Thrall, Hibbard, and Holman
Jonathan Swift is a great ironist; his "Modest Proposal" for saving a starving Ireland by suggesting that the Irish sell their babies to the English landords is probably the most supreme example of savage irony in the English language.
From A Handbook to Literature by Thrall, Hibbard, and Holman
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Quasi Luddite
I consider myself a quasi Luddite. Since I was not raised in the digital world, I like to think I know how to live properly in these technological times.
First of all, I've decided to have at least one off-day per week: one day in which I do not look at a computer screen. At least one day a week I say STOP THE INTERNET: I WANT TO GET OFF! So far it's done me a lot of good. My focus is better. My disposition is better. My mood has stablized.
I do not Twitter and will never Twitter.
I recently joined Facebook and though I like it, I've discovered it's mostly the same people posting trivial stuff day after day. It gets tedious after a while. It is mostly superficial.
I do not own an iPhone, an iPod, or a Blackberry nor do I ever intend to own any of these items. I believe I can be a happy and productive person without any of these electronic toys.
The virtual world is not the real world. The real world is family, home, work with real people, and flesh and blood friends in my physical presence.
So far I like the way I am living, properly balancing the virtual and what I call the real world.
First of all, I've decided to have at least one off-day per week: one day in which I do not look at a computer screen. At least one day a week I say STOP THE INTERNET: I WANT TO GET OFF! So far it's done me a lot of good. My focus is better. My disposition is better. My mood has stablized.
I do not Twitter and will never Twitter.
I recently joined Facebook and though I like it, I've discovered it's mostly the same people posting trivial stuff day after day. It gets tedious after a while. It is mostly superficial.
I do not own an iPhone, an iPod, or a Blackberry nor do I ever intend to own any of these items. I believe I can be a happy and productive person without any of these electronic toys.
The virtual world is not the real world. The real world is family, home, work with real people, and flesh and blood friends in my physical presence.
So far I like the way I am living, properly balancing the virtual and what I call the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)