This is what met the Westboro Baptist Church at their most recent protest.
Saturday, March 22, 2014
This Is What Winning Looks Like
This is what met the Westboro Baptist Church at their most recent protest.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Politics Is Depressing
It is the age of Yeats.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Time for a personal day.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Time for a personal day.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Winners And Losers
I was reading an article about China being the real winner of the Ukraine-Crimea crisis/standoff, and it occurred to me that we need a new language to describe a multi-polar world. Both the "Great Game" of the late 19th century and Containment strategy of the Cold War created a framework of "winners and losers." If Russia advanced into Afghanistan, that was - de facto - a loss for the West. As you can see from that example, there are problems with this framework already. America "gained" Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, but few people seriously argue that "winning" those wars created a gain for the US. In fact, the "winner" in Iraq was Iran. Except Iran continues to struggle under sanctions and a decaying, kleptocratic economy. So what does winning mean?
It is clear that there are losers in international affairs. The US lost prestige, moral authority and military readiness in Iraq. But Islamic terrorist groups also lost. As did the Iraqi people who died, were maimed or uprooted.
Finding losers is easy.
But finding winners is tricky. Because the parameters of victory change over time. The US "lost" Vietnam, but "won" the Cold War. Could the US have "won" the Cold War without going into Vietnam? Or was Vietnam the price we paid for containment and keeping the Russian economy on a war footing it could not sustain?
Winning and losing is binary. As noted logician, Ricky Bobby, has noted, "If you're not first, you're last." And as his biological father notes: "That doesn't make any sense." This is the logic that makes an Olympic silver medalist a "loser."
The obsession with winning and losing makes foreign policy somewhat hysterical. McCain and Graham are typical of this manic obsession with "winning and losing" that typifies the foreign policy "thinking" that passes for elder statesman status in DC.
Washington has been called Hollywood for ugly people, but I think we can also call it Thunderdome for cowards. (Not McCain, but Graham, Kristol et al) There is a need to swagger and overcompensate and posture that is entirely wrapped up in this fallacy of winning and losing.
Putin "won" in Crimea. Yet he is delivering a blow to a fragile, top-heavy resource-based economy whose weakness is already denting his domestic popularity. The US "lost" because... I don't know exactly why the US "lost" except that Putin "won". In fact, economically sidelining Putin in the G-8 could redound to the West's benefit. Maybe it pushes Ukraine closer to the West, which allows them to sideline their neo-fascist factions?
Who knows?
In free trade circles, it is understood that both countries "win" with free trade. With NAFTA, the US gets cheap consumer goods and Mexico gets a wider industrial base and higher wages. This does not obscure that industrial workers in the US and farmers in Mexico lose, but the economies of both countries purportedly win.
Until we can embrace some nuance and subtlety in our understanding of internatioal affairs, we are going to be constantly and maniacally ping ponging from one "crisis" to the next.
Ironically, the mass of Americans - who don't give a shit about Crimea - already seem to understand this.
It is clear that there are losers in international affairs. The US lost prestige, moral authority and military readiness in Iraq. But Islamic terrorist groups also lost. As did the Iraqi people who died, were maimed or uprooted.
Finding losers is easy.
But finding winners is tricky. Because the parameters of victory change over time. The US "lost" Vietnam, but "won" the Cold War. Could the US have "won" the Cold War without going into Vietnam? Or was Vietnam the price we paid for containment and keeping the Russian economy on a war footing it could not sustain?
Winning and losing is binary. As noted logician, Ricky Bobby, has noted, "If you're not first, you're last." And as his biological father notes: "That doesn't make any sense." This is the logic that makes an Olympic silver medalist a "loser."
The obsession with winning and losing makes foreign policy somewhat hysterical. McCain and Graham are typical of this manic obsession with "winning and losing" that typifies the foreign policy "thinking" that passes for elder statesman status in DC.
Washington has been called Hollywood for ugly people, but I think we can also call it Thunderdome for cowards. (Not McCain, but Graham, Kristol et al) There is a need to swagger and overcompensate and posture that is entirely wrapped up in this fallacy of winning and losing.
Putin "won" in Crimea. Yet he is delivering a blow to a fragile, top-heavy resource-based economy whose weakness is already denting his domestic popularity. The US "lost" because... I don't know exactly why the US "lost" except that Putin "won". In fact, economically sidelining Putin in the G-8 could redound to the West's benefit. Maybe it pushes Ukraine closer to the West, which allows them to sideline their neo-fascist factions?
Who knows?
In free trade circles, it is understood that both countries "win" with free trade. With NAFTA, the US gets cheap consumer goods and Mexico gets a wider industrial base and higher wages. This does not obscure that industrial workers in the US and farmers in Mexico lose, but the economies of both countries purportedly win.
Until we can embrace some nuance and subtlety in our understanding of internatioal affairs, we are going to be constantly and maniacally ping ponging from one "crisis" to the next.
Ironically, the mass of Americans - who don't give a shit about Crimea - already seem to understand this.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Florida
Do all the crazy people settle to the south of the country, with the especially crazy people settling deepest into Florida?
Because... Damn!
(Don't click through if you're sensitive.)
Because... Damn!
(Don't click through if you're sensitive.)
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Hippy Punching
There's a lot of hippie punching going on on the internets today.
TBogg has some. Booman's thread has become one.
I don't usually comment on blogs, because it's mostly shouting at the wind. But I feel strangely compelled to address the Purity Progressives.
I don't think TBogg is right that holier than thou Naderites cost Democrats elections by staying home. But they may contribute to the fallacy that both parties are to blame, so there is that. If you honestly believe that there isn't much difference between the two parties, then you are either ignorant or your perspective has shifted so far to the left or right that the parties seem identical from that distance.
So Purity Progs scream and yell about drones and the NSA, as if they are the same things as Iraq and TIA. They aren't. In type they are roughly similar, but in degree they are widely disparate.
And change rarely happens in the quick, clean way that Purity Progs seem to desire. The US system relies on evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. So we get ACA without a public option. I would be surprised if we didn't have a public option in 15-20 years. And I think we will see an increasing number of Americans insured by the government. By the time my own actuarial table expires, I expect America will have something similar to single payer, though with private features.
Now, the "hippies" are important because they keep agitating for a public option and increasing numbers of Americans covered by Medicaid and Medicare. The role of the Left is to draw the parameters of the debate in the direction they wish to see it go.
But if you get all pouty and petulant because Obama killed Anwar al Awlaki with a drone, then you are missing the broader historical significance of what he is trying to do.
Part of the real success of the GOP is that they have managed for years to pander to their Right Wing with rhetoric, while only fulfilling the economic aspects of the Rightist agenda. True, they will appoint judges that uphold social conservative positions, but Bush didn't pass a law to outlaw abortion.
The GOP could be headed for a fracture, because that right wing - the Tea Party - is tired of feeling dissed. And the very inelectability of a national Republican right now is because they have to campaign from the Right before they can campaign Center-Right.
If Democrats were to stake out positions on the Far Left, some would be popular: raising the minimum wage, a public option, leaving Afghanistan yesterday. But there are also some that would be toxic: large scale disarmament, a heavier tax load that would allow for more redistribution, a ban on domestic hydrocarbon production. It is worth noting that Obama has started to stake out more left wing economic positions.
The job of the "extreme" wings of the party is to influence policy, with the understanding that that influence can take a generation to pay off. That's the only way change works in America.
It has taken a generation for same sex marriage to go from being a small minority position to being a marginally majority position, on its way to become a sizable majority position. In 1994, this was a far-out position; in 2004, it was a wedge issue benefiting Republicans; in 2014 it's on its way to being the law of the land. LGBT activists pushed this issue, but didn't sit out 2008, because Obama only embraced civil unions. They voted for him, kept pushing and he "evolved".
That's how you change American politics and policies. You play the long game.
Otherwise, you're as naive as a child.
TBogg has some. Booman's thread has become one.
I don't usually comment on blogs, because it's mostly shouting at the wind. But I feel strangely compelled to address the Purity Progressives.
I don't think TBogg is right that holier than thou Naderites cost Democrats elections by staying home. But they may contribute to the fallacy that both parties are to blame, so there is that. If you honestly believe that there isn't much difference between the two parties, then you are either ignorant or your perspective has shifted so far to the left or right that the parties seem identical from that distance.
So Purity Progs scream and yell about drones and the NSA, as if they are the same things as Iraq and TIA. They aren't. In type they are roughly similar, but in degree they are widely disparate.
And change rarely happens in the quick, clean way that Purity Progs seem to desire. The US system relies on evolutionary, not revolutionary, change. So we get ACA without a public option. I would be surprised if we didn't have a public option in 15-20 years. And I think we will see an increasing number of Americans insured by the government. By the time my own actuarial table expires, I expect America will have something similar to single payer, though with private features.
Now, the "hippies" are important because they keep agitating for a public option and increasing numbers of Americans covered by Medicaid and Medicare. The role of the Left is to draw the parameters of the debate in the direction they wish to see it go.
But if you get all pouty and petulant because Obama killed Anwar al Awlaki with a drone, then you are missing the broader historical significance of what he is trying to do.
Part of the real success of the GOP is that they have managed for years to pander to their Right Wing with rhetoric, while only fulfilling the economic aspects of the Rightist agenda. True, they will appoint judges that uphold social conservative positions, but Bush didn't pass a law to outlaw abortion.
The GOP could be headed for a fracture, because that right wing - the Tea Party - is tired of feeling dissed. And the very inelectability of a national Republican right now is because they have to campaign from the Right before they can campaign Center-Right.
If Democrats were to stake out positions on the Far Left, some would be popular: raising the minimum wage, a public option, leaving Afghanistan yesterday. But there are also some that would be toxic: large scale disarmament, a heavier tax load that would allow for more redistribution, a ban on domestic hydrocarbon production. It is worth noting that Obama has started to stake out more left wing economic positions.
The job of the "extreme" wings of the party is to influence policy, with the understanding that that influence can take a generation to pay off. That's the only way change works in America.
It has taken a generation for same sex marriage to go from being a small minority position to being a marginally majority position, on its way to become a sizable majority position. In 1994, this was a far-out position; in 2004, it was a wedge issue benefiting Republicans; in 2014 it's on its way to being the law of the land. LGBT activists pushed this issue, but didn't sit out 2008, because Obama only embraced civil unions. They voted for him, kept pushing and he "evolved".
That's how you change American politics and policies. You play the long game.
Otherwise, you're as naive as a child.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Crimea
Apparently the Russians are back to operating under Pravda rules.
Under the Soviets, the Politburo controlled everything. Now it is Putin and the siloviki. With any closed group of powerful men, you run the risk of them believing their own bullshit. That's what got us into Iraq after all.
As for Russia annexing Crimea, it's tough to say whether the election was fraudulent. While there was undoubtedly some fraud and intimidation, the fact is Crimea is overwhelmingly Russian.
Now the Turkish foreign minister has suggested that changing the borders of Ukraine could trigger a wave of similar actions across Eurasia.
The examples given are interesting ones. First, the secession movements of Western Europe are really not comparable. If Catalan, Basque and Scottish independence movements DO succeed, you're inevitably left with the question: So what? An independent Scotland would mean very little in an integrated Europe. Spain would obviously be aggrieved at losing a substantial part of its territory (and tax base), but with no passport or trade issues, you're talking about a loss of sovereignty over those areas, but no real change in commerce, culture or travel.
The Kurdish example - no doubt foremost in the minds of the Turks - is different. First, the Kurds SHOULD have their own state. They got robbed of the opportunity the first time around in 1921. With Kurdish Iraq and Kurdish Syria effectively severed from their previous (dysfunctional) countries, a Kurdish state exists now in all but name.
Turkey's worry that Turkish Kurds might forcibly secede from Turkey could be easily remedied. Simply arrange for any Kurd to repatriate to the new Kurdistan. Population flows to Kurdistan and Turkey becomes more Turkish. The Kurdish separatists within Turkey are kneecapped by the presence of a viable Kurdish state.
The persistence of illogical borders is an artifact of imperialism that still exists in the fringes of Europe. The British, Russian and Ottoman empires still distort the map and force people to live in some cases under governments not of their own choosing.
National sovereignty once meant something when governments depended on tariffs for revenue and interstate wars were common. But in an increasingly integrated world, those necessities should give way to people's desire to choose their own government.
And if Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi want to give secession another try, I'm cool with that, too.
Under the Soviets, the Politburo controlled everything. Now it is Putin and the siloviki. With any closed group of powerful men, you run the risk of them believing their own bullshit. That's what got us into Iraq after all.
As for Russia annexing Crimea, it's tough to say whether the election was fraudulent. While there was undoubtedly some fraud and intimidation, the fact is Crimea is overwhelmingly Russian.
Now the Turkish foreign minister has suggested that changing the borders of Ukraine could trigger a wave of similar actions across Eurasia.
The examples given are interesting ones. First, the secession movements of Western Europe are really not comparable. If Catalan, Basque and Scottish independence movements DO succeed, you're inevitably left with the question: So what? An independent Scotland would mean very little in an integrated Europe. Spain would obviously be aggrieved at losing a substantial part of its territory (and tax base), but with no passport or trade issues, you're talking about a loss of sovereignty over those areas, but no real change in commerce, culture or travel.
The Kurdish example - no doubt foremost in the minds of the Turks - is different. First, the Kurds SHOULD have their own state. They got robbed of the opportunity the first time around in 1921. With Kurdish Iraq and Kurdish Syria effectively severed from their previous (dysfunctional) countries, a Kurdish state exists now in all but name.
Turkey's worry that Turkish Kurds might forcibly secede from Turkey could be easily remedied. Simply arrange for any Kurd to repatriate to the new Kurdistan. Population flows to Kurdistan and Turkey becomes more Turkish. The Kurdish separatists within Turkey are kneecapped by the presence of a viable Kurdish state.
The persistence of illogical borders is an artifact of imperialism that still exists in the fringes of Europe. The British, Russian and Ottoman empires still distort the map and force people to live in some cases under governments not of their own choosing.
National sovereignty once meant something when governments depended on tariffs for revenue and interstate wars were common. But in an increasingly integrated world, those necessities should give way to people's desire to choose their own government.
And if Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi want to give secession another try, I'm cool with that, too.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Inside Llewyn Davis
I finally got to see the latest Coen Brothers' film, Inside Llewyn Davis.
It might be the most accurate depiction of the intersection of creative arts and the entertainment industry that I've ever seen.
I mean, it's depressing, but, you know, exactly.
It might be the most accurate depiction of the intersection of creative arts and the entertainment industry that I've ever seen.
I mean, it's depressing, but, you know, exactly.
The CIA And Dianne Feinstein
It takes a lot to get Senator Feinstein upset with the intelligence "community". Spying on her apparently did the trick. Obama is apparently stuck between Feinstein and Brennan, but I don't see why.
I get that Obama is an "above the fray" type of leader; he's not going to react to every glitch and every headline.
But he ran quite pointedly against the Bush torture regimen in 2008. He very much disappointed his base by not pursuing prosecutions against those responsible for bringing into being this national disgrace. I would guess every Democrat in the country (do we still count Lieberman as a Democrat?) wanted to see Dick Cheney in the stocks.
Ending it was not enough. There should have been a reckoning.
(In fact, Obama's refusal to throw a few banksters in jail also didn't work either, as they are still jobbing the economy to their benefit and hate him more than ever, despite the bull market.)
Now, we have what appears to be a clear-cut case of the CIA engaged in illegal activities on American soil against the US Freaking Congress.
Obama now has an opportunity to clean house. He doesn't have to worry about re-election and doing something on this requires not an iota of assistance from the recalcitrant House.
It is time America had a reckoning for its torture regime. Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is scattered and ineffectual. The CIA has engaged in criminal obstruction of justice and domestic spying.
Clean house, Mr. President. Now is the time, and this is the opportunity.
I get that Obama is an "above the fray" type of leader; he's not going to react to every glitch and every headline.
But he ran quite pointedly against the Bush torture regimen in 2008. He very much disappointed his base by not pursuing prosecutions against those responsible for bringing into being this national disgrace. I would guess every Democrat in the country (do we still count Lieberman as a Democrat?) wanted to see Dick Cheney in the stocks.
Ending it was not enough. There should have been a reckoning.
(In fact, Obama's refusal to throw a few banksters in jail also didn't work either, as they are still jobbing the economy to their benefit and hate him more than ever, despite the bull market.)
Now, we have what appears to be a clear-cut case of the CIA engaged in illegal activities on American soil against the US Freaking Congress.
Obama now has an opportunity to clean house. He doesn't have to worry about re-election and doing something on this requires not an iota of assistance from the recalcitrant House.
It is time America had a reckoning for its torture regime. Bin Laden is dead. Al Qaeda is scattered and ineffectual. The CIA has engaged in criminal obstruction of justice and domestic spying.
Clean house, Mr. President. Now is the time, and this is the opportunity.
Friday, March 14, 2014
Paul Ryan's Outreach
So, the Zombie Eyed Granny Starver is at it again.
Recently - I think at CPAC - Paul Ryan made comments about poverty being linked to urban culture. Urban, for those of you not paying attention to post WW II America, means "black". To be fair, it might also mean "brown". What it does not mean is "white".
People responded poorly to this, and Ryan said he was misunderstood and articulated his points poorly.
But as Josh Marshall points out, the problem is that Ryan was basing his remarks on the work Charles Murray. Murray has argued in the past that blacks lag behind whites because they are genetically inferior. He made this point in The Bell Curve, which came out in 1994. In case you were wondering, arguing that one group is racially inferior based on genetics is kind of the definition of racism.
Ryan's problems are indicative of the broader issues in conservatism, and they are linked to more than just Charles Murray. Ryan is also a devotee of Ayn Rand. And Objectivism is just as odious and corrosive as the ideas of Charles Murray.
If there is a common theme to Rand and Murray's work it is the idea of "I've got mine, screw you," which is at the heart of modern conservatism. This is the philosophy - obviously - of the 1%, but also of the older, white middle class voters that make of the GOP base. It is a philosophy that justifies doing nothing to help others who might need them. It justifies everything from banning paramedics from carrying Narcon to cutting school lunches to refusing the need for a public works project to climate change denialism.
And Ryan is a wonderful avatar of this movement, because he himself benefited from the "welfare state" when he used Social Security survivor benefits to go to college. In short, he got his, so screw the rest of you.
But I do sense that Ryan does have some understanding of his hypocrisy. I sense that he "gets" that the GOP can't just go around saying "I got mine, screw you." That's why he stages ridiculous photo ops in soup kitchens and packages his latest round of cuts in spending as "helping the poor." Ryan is a Catholic and has a dim understanding that as a Christian, you can't write off your neighbor. (This makes his embrace of Randian Objectivism all the more paradoxical, since Rand explicitly chastised Christianity for embracing compassion for the poor.)
So Ryan the Politician understands the toxicity of going around saying, "Screw you, I got mine" but Ryan the Policy Maker is philosophically wedded to a bunch of ideas (Rand's, Murray's) that lead in no other direction.
The GOP remains a formidable "vote getter" because their base votes. Rain or shine, they show up. But they also remain incapable of governance. Witness the body Paul Ryan helps lead; the GOP House is least productive legislative body in modern history.
Both their appeal to the electorate and their incompetence in governing are linked to the basic philosophy of "Screw you, I got mine." This is why the angry old coots don't want the government messing around in their Medicare and Social Security.
The problem is that 8 years of Obama (and 8 years of Bush for that matter) have created responses that have painted them into a corner. Bush's incompetence and Obama's mere presence have made them embrace ever more radical ideas and policies. They have wrapped themselves ever more tightly around "Screw you" all the while losing more and more of the country's electoral future.
So Poor Paul Ryan, who no doubt sees himself as a compassionate, Christian man, is left impaled between the horns of Rand and Murray on one side and Jesus Christ and Pope Francis on the other.
No wonder he's inarticulate.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
OTOH, This IS A Nice Thing
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/03/11/obama-and-galifianakis/#comment-4910666
"How does it feel to be the last black President?"
"What should we do about North Ikea?"
"How does it feel to be the last black President?"
"What should we do about North Ikea?"
This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/03/republican-refuses-to-believe-aca-wont-kill-her.html
This has always been the thing about modern conservatives (and not a few conservatives from the past). They have a steadfast refusal to consider evidence contradictory to their deeply held beliefs. I realize that this is a consistent human feature. We tend to cling to beliefs over evidence, but it especially true of conservatives. And what's more, it's true when it directly applies to their lives.
Baffling.
This has always been the thing about modern conservatives (and not a few conservatives from the past). They have a steadfast refusal to consider evidence contradictory to their deeply held beliefs. I realize that this is a consistent human feature. We tend to cling to beliefs over evidence, but it especially true of conservatives. And what's more, it's true when it directly applies to their lives.
Baffling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)