The drums of the Middle East keep on pounding away, far off in the distance, but routed direct through television to the living room of our homes. Year by year, month by month...right down to moment by moment, the twisting turns and sinuous paths of those vibrations are changed to meet the behavioral control needs of a very few. We, those of us who think of ourselves as intelligent interpreters of this jumbled mess of communication, are nearly as stumped as the rest of the population, as to who those few are. We are not sure, either, of what real direction they are caging us to follow. Is the combined power of the media really simply the beast of finance? Does it only respond to what makes it money? Or are there other motivations as to the messages channeled so personally into the heart of our very lives? And where, among all these messages, across all the mediums, is there any truth at all? We watch the network news, looking for clues (or maybe just laying there...senseless after a very hard day's work for too little pay), then move to the cable channels for more. Some of us listen to the radio, attempting to 'true up' any of what we have received from the other sources. Near the end, there are the newspapers. All those sources of supposed news contain 'vetted' stories, which means that someone has looked them over and checked them out to make sure they have some semblance of truth in them. Finally, there is the internet. From blogs to YouTube, and then down into the Facebook and Twitter stuff. And what are we to make of it all?
Iran has had an election. Some kind of election. We are never sure of any of that anymore. We have such deep suspicions about our own elections to the point that now, when we see or hear the word 'election,' we take the information in with a skeptical, barely contained, sneer of disdain. The message streaming from almost every source tells us that the current leader of Iran has stolen his re-election bid. The loser really won. We are given no figures because we have nobody, at all, in Iran (from any part of the mass media). The few that were there merely filmed what they could from hotel windows before they fled to the airport and got the hell out of there. Since Iran is connected to the internet, we have gotten YouTube footage and Twitter reports. But what can we make of them? Anybody can say or do anything on the internet, using video as well, if they are schooled in the technology of its use.
But lets look at the overall message we are getting from almost all sources. Iran's leader is bad. He stole the election. People are protesting. The runner-up should be crowned leader. Iran's leader should step down. All peoples everywhere have the right to peaceful assembly and protest.
Now re-read that paragraph. What is the message we are supposed to be getting? Maybe we should get more elemental than that. Okay, let's ask a more elemental question. Why should we care one whit? The current leader of Iran is just as big a hater of America as the runner-up! Yeah, the other guy was running around with that same screwy Iman who spear-headed the whole hostage crisis which catapulted Reagan into office. And the peaceful protest garbage! What is that? We don't have the right to protest here in the U.S.! Have you not noticed? Our cops and Secret Service have carte blanche to arrest and incarcerate anyone who assembles to protest, if that protest is anywhere near any of our big leaders. At the presidential conventions last year the protestors at both events were relegated to cages specially built to hold them, miles from the actual events! And this is in America! There is no right to peaceful protest of big leaders anywhere in the world. So what the hell is going on? This nonsensical 'reporting' is just like the idiocy that gets printed about torture. We decry all forms of torture...except the torture we commit as a nation. Yes, your nation and in your name.
We hate the Arabs. As a culture we hate them. We don't really want to, but we do. We hate Iran, Iraq, Libya and even Afghanistan. We are scared crapless of islam and everyone over there who follows its teachings. If they come here, to our country, we accept them...conditionally. But not over there. We have given Israel (now there is a bunch of cool-headed clever dudes living in a desert oasis!) nuclear weapons and every bit of high tech weaponry we can make. That is how scared we are. And so our news reflects this fact. There were supposed to be tons of YouTube tapes and Twitter comments about the riots in Iran. Those did not materialize after they were predicted. What do you suppose our vaunted mass media had to say about that? They said that Iran had gotten really good at internet suppression! All those Youtubes and Tweets were there, but suppressed by the brilliant internet hackers from under the sand in Iran. Oh please.
What humor, if you sit back and look at it. There were no YouTube tapes or Tweets because there were no real riots of any kind. I think you can pretty much take that to the bank (well, a bank in the Channel Islands, if you have connections and are smart). Oh sure, there was some demonstrating and crowd interaction. But that was it. And we are not even sure what any of that was about because our own media high-tailed it the hell out of there.
We believe the the Persian's hate us. And we keep asking the question about why they do. The question is meaningless because the premise is bogus. They do not hate us. They are frightened to death of us! How would you feel if a monster country, possessing more nuclear weapons than any combination of countries in the world, hated you? A monster country that has proven it will indeed use nuclear weapons if it fears and hates you enough? We need, as a culture, to begin asking the right questions. Why do we hate them? What exactly is it about them that we are so abominated by? Why do we fear these small groups of strange believing peoples living in awful desert conditions so very much? If we can't even ask ourselves those things then what are we to do? Wait for just the right opportunity to blow them all into oblivion? Is that any kind of answer at all?
Osama Bin Laden. There are all kinds of small groups around the world who want power. Individuals crave it. We are hard-wired by sociobiology to crave it. The leaders get to impregnate more females (if they are male) or secure a quality future for their spawn (if they are female). Just look at Michael Jackson as an example. He was one miserable human being. I don't think that that can be denied. His personal life did not exist. But he craved public attention right up to the end. Osama does too. Cheney does too. These people never go away, unless it is to 'write' another book and then return. Or make another video. We must understand, as a culture, that this will always be the case. There will always be an opposition party. There will always be militia groups and terrorist outfits. It is hard-wired into our genetics. Evolution will only allow that to change if 'survival of the fittest' no longer includes getting rid of those presumed to be weaker. I, personally hoped, when I was younger, that technology would eventually allow us to vault up from the murder pit of amoral evolutionary expedition. As I age, I wonder, and the wondering is not a good thing.
We are so hurtfully directed to success. We are driven by fears so deep and dark that we cannot ever discuss them. If they are revealed by others we deny them and put down those others or label them losers or the weak. Only success matters. It permeates our financial sector, our trading mercantile sectors, our sports and even our television shows. It is all, and only, about winning. And it means that most people have to be losers. Do the math. "There can only be one Highlander," is a favorite expression of mine.
We must all be of Persian Persuasion in order to stop hating them. We must know them to care for them and about them. It is applied anthropology. Anthro, closely followed by history, is one of those disciplines, however, which interests many but is practiced by only a few, and almost none of the few are leaders of any sort. If we had paid attention to the anthropology of Iraq we would not be there. If we had paid attention, right after WWII to anthropology, Iraq would never have existed as a country for us to attack. Anthropology is about understanding other cultures. Amazingly, once you understand other cultures, guess what? You come to like them. So, in reality, our problems with the Middle East are all about schooling. We don't teach the right things in our educations system here, and then the media fails miserably to educate when we are done with that formal system.
This internet 'cloud' phenomenon, as some are terming it today, may be our only hope. Only here can words be written and read everywhere. They are not read everywhere for most of us who write here, however. There is just no easy or simple way to get people's attention to be read. That attention is being consumed by the famous. The Krugmans, Krauthammers, Coulters and Limbaughs gather the people in, but in becoming famous, they surrender telling the truth about what they are communicating. They communicate to stay famous and become more famous. Until they too are ready for their last shot of Demerol. But then, maybe, it only takes a few thinking human beings to influence the course of events. I pray that is so.
http://www.jamesstraussauthor.com
http://www.themastodons.com
http://www.from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com
Tea Parties Forever By PAUL KRUGMANPublished: 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.
Tea Parties Forever
By PAUL KRUGMANPublished: 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.
Henry M
I know.... We get a little ahead of ourselves! But it is encouraging that the Nobel Prize in Economics has just gone to someone who has long and accurately condemned the economic policy and practices of Bush: economist, Princeton professor and the New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman.
Has the Obama campaign sought alliance with and or guidance from him in the past or have plans to do so in future? He is a link that would help bolster Obama's already excellent economic stature and be seen as a serious improvement over the unconvincing and fumbling Paulson.
It is encouaging that Barack Obama is dealing with the issues by presenting an excellent economic plan as so many of us have requested. In so doing, Obama is seen as rising above the slime-throwing tactics of his opponent, focusing his sights on solving the problems worrying us all so deeply. This will not go unnoticed by the thoughtful voter.
I am still concerned about the not-so-thoughtful voter who has been encited by the McCain approach. McCain succeeded in stirring up doubt and suspicion, roiling the rage of the "Joe six-pack" crowd who can't be bothered with the facts, cashing in on their mindless prejudices and ignorance. While it shows McCain's desperation, it also shows a severe lack of character offset very little by his recent grudging retreat to decency.
McCain, Cheney, and Bush are all over the response to Gustav. Cancelling convention speeches, monitoring storm paths, making sure the evacuation is occuring as planned. It's interesting that when there is some political gain McCain and Bush use the power of the government to support our fellow citizens. Unfortunatley for them I remember what their calculation was three years ago (on the runway celebrating McCain's birthday) and what their rhetoric is in general about government.
In his commentary piece, Paul Krugman writes "What we really need is a government that works, because it's run by people who understand that sometimes government is the solution, after all. And that seems to be something undreamed of in either Mr. Bush's or Mr. McCain's philosophy."
I like the idea of the compassionate conservative. Unfortunately it's an oxymoron. What we have instead are a bunch of passionate conservatives... in the extreme.
Top liberal bloggers are supporting the following candidates:
Obama: Josh Marshall (TPM), Markos Zúniga (Daily Kos), Ariana Huffington (Huff. Post)
Clinton: Jerome Armstrong (MyDD) Newspaper columnists tend not to do endorsements. But their columns generally lean in one direction, and again the trend is clear among progressives: Obama: Frank Rich (NYT), Maureen Dowd (NYT). E.J. Dionne (Wash. Post), Eugene Robinson (Wash. Post), Bob Herbert (NYT), Nicolas Kristof (NYT)
Clinton: Paul Krugman (NYT)
Obviously I haven't listed every major liberal blogger or columnist, but I've got many of the most influential here. And as with elected delegates, the popular vote, and the number states, the majority favor Obama.
(Cross posted on Latte.)
I almost hate to entitle this entry "paradigm shift" as it seems that such expression has almost become a cliche' of it's former intent. Nonetheless, with this being the first campaign in 40 years in which neither an incumbent nor vice president of an incumbent is standing for office, it is one of those infrequent-in-a-lifetime changes. And certainly one could argue that the "Democrats left standing" are both a woman and African-American man do in that simple result define a paradigm shift in the view of electability from the previous white men only model. So perhaps it is a useful title after all.
So in this context of the potential for radical political change, it is worth considering what the pundits will offer on this point. A case in, for example, columnist Paul Krugman writes in his opinion piece Deliverance or Diversion? that he expected a more "typical campaign" against the Republicans which would have a "central theme of the Democratic campaign to be 'throw the bums out'." Given the perceived excesses of the Bush administration, that such pundits should be expecting the usual is not surprising.
What did surprise me was Mr. Krugman's assertion, "Now, nobody would mistake Mr. Obama for a Republican — although contrary to claims by both supporters and opponents, his voting record places him, with Senator Clinton, more or less in the center of the Democratic Party, rather than in its progressive wing." This may well explain why Ralph Nader has re-emerged from his cave to court the far Progressive Left.
The fact that Senator Obama has been anyting but 'typical,' "Mr. Obama, instead of emphasizing the harm done by the other party’s rule, likes to blame both sides for our sorry political state. And in his speeches he promises not a rejection of Republicanism but an era of postpartisan unity," Krugman continues. What this shows is that Obama is delivering a whole new paradigm of realizing that for all the ills that the Republicans may have engendered, the Democrats share at least partial complicity and therefore partial responsibility. And the fact then that it is going to take true bipartisanship to take responsibility to fix that which has broken.
Mr. Krugman then worries not only at the idea of Sen. Obama actually being elected compared to Senator McCain, but how "If Mr. Obama does make it to the White House, will he actually deliver the transformational politics he promises? Like the faith that he can win an overwhelming electoral victory, the faith that he can overcome bitter conservative opposition to progressive legislation rests on very little evidence..." So it would seem to me from Mr. Krugman's fear, uncertainty and doubt, that we would be better off not even trying. We can trust Hillary, even though she promised New Yorkers that she was running again and would complete her Senate term and not run for President. Nevermind everything else about her that's been coming up to the surface over the course of the campaign. I don't know if Mr. Krugman is part of the committee of the NY Times that endorsed Hillary or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is. They made the call and therefore have the agenda to keep.
To which I say BS! What is the real question before the electorate that will determine the very future of American Democracy? This real question is such: Do we want to continue down the path we've been on for the last twenty years of moving away from representational executive office as defined in the Constitution and acted upon by the changing of people in the Executive Branch, or do we continue down this path of dynastic succession at the hand of an oligarchy far removed from real people? THAT, in my opinion is the real question to put before the voters. Not whether Hillary is more qualified than Barack, not who will be "more ready" on "Day One," not who's experience is better than new ideas. Who represents the paradigm shift, the real change, and who represents the status quo?
WE already know the answer - we just need to get it out to everyone else. And Thank you for doing so!!
Here's a great post that sums up a lot of my feelings, from Robert Creamer:
It's one thing for supporters of Hillary Clinton to make the case that her experience in Washington politics would make her a better president than Barack Obama. But it's quite another to actually vilify Obama's ability to inspire as a "cult of the personality" or "nothing but words."
It is particularly disturbing when serious progressive writers who should know better repeat this attack on Obama's inspirational abilities. It demonstrates a failure to grasp the principal lesson of the last thirty years of American politics.
In fact, it is precisely the absence of inspiration in progressive politics that has kept Progressives on the political defensive for decades.
That's because to inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to something much more important than endless lists of policies and programs. To inspire people, Progressives have to appeal to our values and to our vision for the future.
Yesterday I read Paul Krugman's Hate Springs Eternal and then I read the reaction to it. Krugman is wrong, as many in the reaction piece point out. Obama supporters are not evil, vindictive cultists. We simply believe that HRC is a divisive, polarizing candidate whose mere presence in the white house will bring the right-wing rabid dogs out every day and cause four (or eight) more years of partisan bickering and stalemates in government. HRC won't be at fault. She is a good and decent person, and would be a good leader for the country. BUT, she is hated by republicans (and even some democrats, but for different reasons).
Here is another thing to consider: The incoming POTUS will surround him/herself with a huge staff of appointed positions (cabinet and otherwise). HRC will appoint all the old, familiar (and polarizing) Democrats of the 90s. She owes them.
My response to this column.
I’m afraid it is Mr. Krugman who comes off sounding naieve in his recent column (“Big Table Fantasies,” Op-Ed, December 17, 2007). While it may be satisfying to rail, Howard Beale-like, against the corporate powers that be, it is neither an effective tact for legislating, nor what Franklin Roosevelt did in creating the New Deal.
I think Barack Obama is absolutely correct in his judgement. You negotiate in good faith with the stakeholders who have the most to lose. Then, if they begin to lie, distort, and obstruct in order to get what they want, you have the moral high ground, and with it, stronger public support.
We cannot afford a return to Clintonian triangulation, which all but gave away the store to corporate interests, but it is also unrealistic to believe that simply raising a voice in fury, and fighting conventional partisan warfare, will get anything meaningful done.
And who best to blast this conservative idea:
"The individual mandates create some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system." - HRC, 1993
However in 2007:
"In our interview, Clinton said the models for her current proposal were the 1993 Republican plan and the individual-mandate plan passed in Massachusetts by former Governor Mitt Romney."
This is what appeasers learn while they stay in Washington DC.
For more info http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/10/116/99540
You can email Krugman, the columnist of the NYTimes who started this debate here.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?8qa
Click write to Krugman
