Thursday, May 12, 2011

United States of Depravity

this is the text of the conclusion of Obama's remarks on the occasion of the killing of bin Laden by American military forces conducting a mission inside Pakistan:

But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it’s the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

just so there is no misunderstanding here, i am not expressing support for bin Laden in any way shape or form. i am saying i find it morally repulsive that the president said state-sanctioned killing is an example of "America can do whatever we set our mind to." that nauseating bit is followed by the unwitting hilarity of proclaiming that the US has "liberty and justice for all."

i could go on about this, but really, there's no need. think about the conjoining of these words with that event, and if you are not repulsed you should be a foam finger waving American if you know what's good for you. the rest of us will throw up in our mouths a little. i am starting to be a bit more unhappy with Obama than with Bush. Bush at least believed whatever people told him; Obama once knew better.





Friday, December 03, 2010

Only the lonely

Post things like this (originally written as a comment at balloon juice but i decided to put it up here as well):

after two years of an Obama presidency, it is past time to continue to blame the media, blame the Rs, blame everyone except the person (and his party) who, sophistry aside, began with a tremendous amount of power. the Ds, their leadership and their national chief have muffed, blown, or frittered away every advantage they gained in 2008, so much so that a bunch of buffoons had no difficulty making a campaign based on blaming the Ds for the continued destruction of post—WWII america.

it was easy for the Rs to do so, because while they lied about the why, the evidence of where true power lies was there for all to see. bankers and insurance companies made out like bandits while Obama declared himself lord high executioner and appointed “deficit commissioners” who told the working class to drop dead. the Ds found themselves unable to counter the inanity because they could not; after all, they had continued the wealth transfer the Rs started. all the Ds had was rhetoric that bore an increasingly tenuous relationship with reality, though it continued on its lofty, lonely rhetorical heights. at least the Rs could pretend they believed in a crackpot theory while the Ds were, indeed, socialists who lacked even a fig leaf of rhetoric to cover their servitude. but then, a socialistic oligarchy is not the stuff of great populist phrasemaking.

to put it a bit more precisely, on every single major issue, this administration has sided with the wealthy and the profiteers and poltroons of perpetual war and the attendant destruction of civil liberties. after this amount of time, one can continue to concoct rationalizations, or one can start to, perhaps, infer that something is amiss with this picture, namely, that the Ds don’t side with their voters, because that’s not who they represent.

it is undoubtedly difficult to come to terms with the idea that the political party you have worked in, for, and perhaps most of all, have believed in, sees you as a commodity rather than its principal. but then, why should they see you as anything other than cattle? their true principals don’t sit in smoke filled rooms, or man picket lines or call centers. they don’t even run unions, though Ds might in a few places still care about those relics. no, these commanders of the spigots of jobs and cash run board meetings and can be found at places like Aspen that are properly fenced off from the increasingly impoverished voters.

now, someone will say that this overstates the case and that of course the Ds care about their “voters”. and yes, they do. like the Rs did during Junior’s tenure, they can throw the “base” a few trinkets along the social lines so as to have something to point to. and it’s not as if their masters mind these gestures: after all, the end of DADT means more cannon fodder and coffins to sell, and it’s a hell of a lot easier to write the health insurance regulations in DC where you don’t have to deal with those pesky state regulators. just don’t even think of changing the tax rates. come to think of it, don’t even talk about it.

even assuming one considers all of the above, it’s still difficult to think about. on top of that, there’s any number of clever people, some paid, some not . . . who continue to argue that you should just ignore what has actually happened in favor of what might have happened otherwise, or how much legislation has been enacted. until this administration, i had never been alerted to the notion that quantity of legislation was more important than its substance. anyway who cares what they say because they are just negative haters. the Ds can only be failed by disloyal Ds not by their party, just as america is still a great, special nation that’s just having some problems at the moment.

perhaps here lies part of the problem. leaving the R mouthpieces, jingoes and out and out fascists aside, it’s interesting to note how the vast majority of americans are wholly unable to come to terms with the notion that perhaps the country they inhabit is, well, pretty much like every other empire has been. in a word, icky. that’s if you are a citizen of said empire. if you are not, well, you take your chances; after all, the perception of safety amongst the citizenry of the empire is much more important than your life.

it may also be true that those of us who have come to the view that the US has become something much closer to a merchant of death have been too strident about making such arguments. after all, to some extent we are talking about feelings and beliefs and ideology, despite the many clever references to policy and pragmatism. or perhaps it is just a failure of imagination on my part; i just don’t get how it’s pragmatic to kill people in other countries for domestic political reasons. perhaps those are the same folks who say it’s pragmatic to write toothless bills and champion them as “reforms”. and since nothing else could be done, this was necessarily the best of all possible outcomes. because, you see, nothing else could be done. yes.

Sunday, May 30, 2010

Memorial

It's Memorial Day weekend, and here in South Florida I was struck by the amount of gasoline being consumed both on and off the water, but mostly on. As I watched people scoot around atop the water while burning fuel that was appearing in the raw hundreds of miles away, I couldn't decide whether I was watching the equivalent of a last hurrah or playing with matches at a gas pump. Not really a surprise that humans aren't really wired for the long view; we'd never reproduce if we understood where we're driving the planet.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

upside? or upside down

there's a post over at balloon juice about how the supposed "repeal" of the homophobic "don't ask, don't tell" policy of the US military was done away with by the Obama administration. leaving aside the argument that perhaps it was really Congress getting out in front of the WH, it does seem to moi that there are perhaps more important issues afoot with the military. but then i am a crazed loon. anyway, here's my comment from there. ignore my idiotic formatting fail, as the bold shouldn't be there (boxes are quoted text from today's NYT).

it is kinda silly to posit that a decision to hand over control of the issue to the people who oppose it (the armed forces) is somehow progress.

from the NYT

It was not clear whether the deal had secured the votes necessary to pass the House and Senate, but the agreement removed the Pentagon’s objections to having Congress vote quickly on repealing the contentious 17-year-old policy, which bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed services.

House Democratic leaders were meeting Monday night and considering taking up the measure as soon as Thursday. But even if the measure passes, the policy cannot not change until after Dec. 1, when the Pentagon completes a review of its readiness to deal with the changes. Mr. Obama, his defense secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff would also be required to certify that repeal would not harm readiness.

so if you want to pretend that this is a big deal, feel free, but don’t be surprised when people like me say that most of you all seem to be as deluded as most Bush-GOP supporters were/are.

incidentally, it’s really rather telling that this is somehow a bigger deal than that the US continues to wage war against the rest of the planet. i, for one, would think that not killing people is more important but i guess in the land of permanent war that’s not the case, as long as it’s a non-discriminatory murder machine.

NYT today, again

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said.

nice to see that everyone has their priorities in place.

Thursday, May 20, 2010

history is bunk! chapter n

So apparently the latest fad is arguing for repeal of the 17th Amendment, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators. Normally I don't bother with this stuff but for some reason I got a bit exercised about it. My guess is it's because I know just enough history of the Progressive Era to be able to say this argument is based on a lie. I don't think the people who are pushing for it will care, as they seem to be ok with the notion that everything is fungible. Except of course when it isn't or when it is an idea--not a fact. It is odd that we have entered an era where theories require consistency but facts can be disposed of. I guess the thinking is that if you are high enough on Maslow's hierarchy you can believe whatever you wish because you will be immune to the consequences. Or it's just the angry white folks' version of relativism.

Anyway, here's my cranky post from Balloon Juice
sigh. another crap idea backed by crap scholarship.

i'd like to agree with the poster who suggested the Rs have been reading too much Foucault, but i think it's more likely they've been listening to too much Frank Luntz. or is it watching too many reruns of "Mad Men"?

perhaps the teabaggers would do something else to promote their faith in a non-existent past. maybe they could do something like build temples to their pretend ideology instead of playing pretend with history. dealing with this crap is like dealing with "the protocols of the elders of zion": no matter how many times you smush it, it pops up again, like a stubborn weed. i am not certain who coined the term, but "zombie argument" is apt here.

so, a brief rebuttal:

a. citing yourself does not constitute proof
the Dean piece quoted above cites to a Zywicki book review from the mid 1990s that claims that a public choice analysis demonstrates that major interests wanted the 17th to pass. guess who he cites in supporrt of this idea? Jay Bybee (yeah, that Jay Bybee) and himself.

b. for lawyers, history IS bunk
what you have here is the usual lawyer trick of pretending that history (that is the actual facts) don't matter when you have a more clever explanation as to what occurred. and if the facts don't fit, well you just ignore them in favor of your overarching theory. as an aside, never trust a lawyer's argument about history, especially when, as here, the intent is to prove a theory. see, it's just a notion to them, and being "different" is a good way to be noticed and get tenure.

c. out damned facts!
here are a couple of those pesky facts: the initiative was taken up in the states, not at the federal level, where it was initially opposed in the senate. next, for this argument to be correct it would require that all of the supporters for the thirty years before it was passed including such favorites of the plutocrats as the Populist Party were secretly working for Standard Oil. i could keep going, but you get the drift. i would be remiss if i didn't include this famous line from The Atlantic (yes, that one):
The Standard has done everything with the Pennsylvania legislature, except refine it.

d. reality bites
incidentally, the better explanation is that the move towards an expanding federal government was being made, but not that many were paying attention. those ideas would be picked up and used in the 1930s, not the 1910s (excepting some of Wilson's more reprehensible civil liberties manouvers--like Bush, he did a lot of damage whilst mouthing off about democracy).

anyway, to repeat, this is a clever lawyer trick, nothing more. it is an effort to pretend that history is bunk, in that it can be rewritten at will. an analogy would be the recurring argument that the Civil War was not about slavery.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

You Are Where You Eat aka Linkfest

Via Ethicurian, U.S. Food Policy's Google Earth display of ten sites illustrative of US agriculture practices that you probably don't know about.
What I always find fascinating about these displays are the deep complexities in policy that arise over time, growing like an incredible organism until we arrive at the end point of an incomprehensible jumble of blinkered desire, or, to be a bit less polite, greed.

Linkfest, first of ?

I've decided that someone ought to get something out of my perusing the intertubes, and that might as we be you. So, the first in well, probably a lot of links:

Steven Colbert + Glenn Greenwald= Be still, my psyche!


In re: birthers. I have always been fond of Richard Hofstadter, and used to sit in his corner in Butler Library when reading. So I was pleased to find, via LGM this link to The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

Enjoy!

Notes From All Over

Hilzoy has decided to stop blogging. Sorry to see her go; I know of no one else who has been unfailingly rigorous in her attempts to deal with the distortions passed off as accurate in the blogosphere.