Tea Party Movement and Trust in Government

Not surprising given attitudes on taxes, the countries trust in government has been trending downward for the better part of 50 years. Pew, in fact, finds that only one in five Americans trust the government today: http://slatest.slate.com/id/2251257/?wpisrc=newsletter. In the late 50s, almost 70 percent trusted the government, and even during he Nixon years, trust remained high. But since Watergate and the ascendancy of conservatives, trust has declined precipitously and has not improved under Obama. This seems to lend support to the argument that the Tea Party is reflecting the interests of the American people. And yet an article in The New Republic challenges the idea that they represents the "real America" at all. In fact, The New York Times and CBS News conducted a careful study of the group last week and found that they are more conservative than the average American, older, more affluent, Whiter and, not surprisingly, more racist (www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-populism-the-privileged?utm_source=TNR+Daily&utm_campaign=a691feb8b2-TNR_Daily_041910&utm_medium=email). So while trust is low, it is not clear that the average American does not want the government to step in and address some of the social and economic problems that plague us today. Yet the media has incessantly focused on this vituperative 20 percent and thus kept the focus away from the popular will. What a surprise!

News Alert: Americans Hate Taxes!

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that most Americans think "most taxes" are wasted. A surprising 74% of respondents felt that the government wasted most of their tax dollars and another 23 percent said they believed some of their tax dollars were wasted. There were, of course, differences between Republicans and Democrats: with nearly half of the former saying they were angry with the taxes they pay while only 29 percent of Dems feel that way (and 44 percent of Independents). It is interesting to contemplate these numbers in relation to the election of Obama. It appears that people want the government to solve their problems, but without the money necessary to do so. It also appears most people have not taken macroeconomics, which teaches us that government spending tends to have a multiplier effect (a dollar spent by the government adds more than a dollar to the economy). Of course, with all the talk of the deficit, it is not surprising that people think government is wasting money. But the larger issue of the notion that government is largely wasteful shows the power of conservative discourse from Reagan forward to lead people to believe that government is bad and markets implicitly good. While many see the partial lie in the later, their short lived faith in government after 911 (and arguably when voting for Obama) has been supplanted by the dominant conventional wisdom for the past 30 years. The most surprising aspect of this finding is the fact that people generally demand government intervention in bad times and expect a more laissez-faire approach when times are good -- but seem unwilling to count on the government even now to solve our persistent economic troubles.

It's a Bird, It's a Plane, it's . . .

Lehman Brothers screwing their investors by hiding its riskier investments through its undisclosed subsidiary Hudson Castle: www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/business/13lehman.html?hp. Like Enron before them, investment firms often use these shadow organizations that: "enable banks to exchange investments for cash to finance their operations and, at times, make their finances look stronger than they are." It's a perfect postmodern tool that allows companies to hide their true financial situation and keep overly nervous investors calm and happy. Content, that is, until the firm collapses, right after the board and execs sell their shares, and they help start a worldwide financial crisis. But hey, it's a small price to pay to keep banks solvent (at least in the short run) and money flowing into the hedge funds so important to our long term economic growth. Though this has never been satisfactorily explained to the public, it has to be true. Markets are always better than government, right? Healthcare reform will destroy the economy, won't it? Sadaam Hussein planned 911, didn't he? And global warming is a farce constructed by nefarious scientists to destroy oil companies and make the world a much safer place. What will those bastards do next?

Postmodern Art

A couple of weeks ago, I went to see the new exhibit at the Guggenheim. It provided a sometimes interesting engagement with the evolution of photography and video, and their strong relationship to the past: www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/on-view-now/haunted-contemporary-photography-video-performance. What interested me most about the exhibit was a subject I have been discussing with an MFA student who is doing an independent study with me this semester: the necessity of mediation in much postmodern art. Picasso once said that art is a lie that tells the truth. Yet modern art, though sometimes difficult to decipher, attempted to tell that truth without the necessity of additional mediation. Since the 60s, and definitely more recently, that need for mediation has seemed to increase. Art in galleries, museums and that sold to collectors have always had different goals and different audiences. But one trend that seems much more pervasive is the necessity of explanation to make the art understandable to audiences not "in the know" (and even some in it). In other words, the producers of art, who are generally influenced by the audience they are doing the art for (though arguably more in recent decades), are taking a more active role in attempting to influence not only the way we see and be in the world but how we see their art.

Art has always been about new ways to see the world, offering re-presentations of reality that reflect different perspectives, views, languages and the like. As Marcuse argued, art can be seen as a form of the "great refusal" -- an instrument to step outside the dominant discourse and rationality of a given epoch. Yet much PM art is about deconstructing perception itself, the production of art and how it is produced and received. Much of the language employed toward that end revolves around irony and self-reflexivity. As many have argued, this has lent it a more elitist stance toward the world, where experts/critics are the main arbitors of quality and the public needs the aforementioned mediation to understand it. What is gained and lost in this process? I think one thing is the ability to contemplate art as it is -- without that mediation. We lose our space of receptive autonomy, as we are oriented toward the prescribed meaning, or at least the assumed meaning of the interpretors (in the case of museums). It seems to follow a larger trend in society to expect and almost require that mediation. Something is not real until it is instantiated within the media culture and given form that is manipulated by the delivery vehicle (e.g., film, television, commentators, etc.) Art seems to be increasingly following this trend and it may be a further point of concern for those worried about creativity and critical thinking. There is still a large fount of creativity and critical thinking among the creative class, but what of everyone else. It is clear that we have expanded the ability to be creative for larger audiences (through the Internet) and to expand those involved in defining what quality work is (ala YouTube and so many other sites). Yet is creativity called into question when art becomes too self-reflective and when audiences come to expect an explanation of what they are seeing or hearing?

Many sites are poping up these days to give the public access to contemporary art online. Here is one: http://www.sightunseen.com/.

Great Book: The Manual of Detection

There have been some impressive debut novels in recent years, including Gary Schtyngart's The Russian Debutante's Handbook and Jonathon Saffron Froer's Everything is Illuminated. And I just picked up another worthy of the praise it has received -- The Manual of Detection by Jedediah Berry. I have always been a fan of mystery -- going through everything Agatha Christie and Rex Stout wrote by the end of high school, moving on to Patricia Highsmith, Dashielle Hammett and Ray Chandler among countless others and seeing anything and everything that even skates on the edge of noir. Here Berry revives the old crime drama, but with a postmodern flair that is truly inspired. The plot circles around and comes together wonderfully, the writing is crisp and clear and the outlandish plot begs some broader questions about a society under constant surveillance. There are plenty of unexpected plot twists, fascinatingly odd characters and riveting action, intermingled with a flair for description and some very funny moments. The main character is a clerk at a large detective agency who suddenly finds himself at the center of a plot involving the disappearance of a famous detective he has written reports for for 20 years. As the plot unfolds, we are drawn deeper into a bizarre world where mystical figures have mastered a way to insinuate themselves into your dreams and a cast of carnival characters and agency detectives fight a battle over the heart of the city and its denizens. If you want a great read that will keep your nose in the book, grab a copy of this book and enjoy!

The Optimist

David Brooks used to be a conservative I could occasionally look up to. When he was on PBS, he seemed to be reasonable and often had interesting, incisive things to say about politics. Since becoming a regular on the Op Ed pages of the New York Times, however, I have found him to be a relatively insipid public intellectual largely out of touch with the America he often claims to speak for. Today, in is column "Relax, We'll be Fine," he offers "great luscious orgy of optimism" in the face of America's ongoing crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/opinion/06brooks.html?pagewanted=print. After regaling us with his claim that America will grow by 100 million people in the next 40 years and that we are especially adept at "assimilating immigrants" (a claim many immigrants, including the Mexicans, might disagree with), he claims that self-sufficent suburban villages like Fargo, Dubuque and Boise will be the hotbeds of American renewal. Huh? He then goes on to say, "The United States already measures at the top or close to the top of nearly every global measure of economic competitiveness." While we do have the second highest GDP per capita there are a lot of numbers that are quite troubling. For example, we have the largest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized country, among the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancy, work longer hours than europe (almost four extra weeks a year) and have an education system that ranks near the bottom of developed nations. But what comes next is the truly absurd. Brooks claims that America will rise again because of our acumen at providing "emotional experiences." This is because "educated Americans" grow up in a "culture of moral materialism." What is moral materialism? Apparently shows like The Sopranos, The Wire and Mad Men. All three are good shows, but are they moral? They appear to provide pretty strong critiques of the greed, violence, general discontent and unhappiness, corruption and poverty so endemic to American society. And this is the problem with the argument. It is quite plausible that America will restore itself as the super power in the world. But what is real progress? How should we measure ourselves as a society? I would say the general happiness of the people should matter. And this is missing from Brooks, just as it is missing from that other cheerleader for capitalism and unfettered globalization -- Thomas Friedman. My optimism is a little different. It is that someday Brooks and Friedman will retire and we will get some real intellectuals that actually challenge readers to think more deeply about what makes a country truly great; not just what makes some of its citizens truly rich . . .

Global Warming Doubters Share Low IQ and High Gullibility

The New Yorker has a nice article on global warming doubters in the current issue: www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/04/12/100412taco_talk_kolbert. Among other things, the article cites a recent study from George Mason University that found that more than 25% of weathermen agree that "Global warming is a scam." It also mentions Joe Bastardi, the frequent Fox News visitor and global warming doubter, who uses an absurdist combination of volcanism, sunspots, and a sea-temperature trend known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to argue the earth is cooling. He then suggests waiting 20 or 30 years to see who is right. While we're at it, let's just legalize all pharmaceuticals in the country and wait to see how many people die. Of course Fox News likes him, but why is he showing up on the front page of the New York Times? Well he does have a BA in meteorology, which should make him just as credible as Nobel Prize winning scientists across the globe and every credible scientific body in the world. It is because of crackpots like this, and the media's irresponsibility in covering the issue credibly, that a majority of Americans have come to believe that global warming is a conspiracy. One wonders in the end what (and who) the American people won't believe . . .

Need a Job without a Job History . . . No Problem!

So you cheated your way through high school, earning an honors degree. Then after getting kicked out of five schools (for cheating, those hypocrites), you decided it was just easier to buy your degree online – for a reasonable fee. After a few years toiling in a Wall Street firm you decided the law was for you, and bought your degree online again. Then you had to deal with the bar exam and realized that there was actually some value in actually attending law school. You scoured the Internet for days, but no bar certification for sale! Now what? Well, we have just the site for you – a place where you can upgrade all those holes in your CV with wonderful references that will actually answer the phone: www.buyajobreference.com. No you never actually worked with or for them, but who cares? In a postmodern world, any fiction can become fact with the right sign of approval. Before, one earned success predominantly through merit and hard work. But why can’t the lazy guy make it in America today? If George W. Bush can be president, can’t anybody? We can make your dreams come true!

Caveat Emptor: Once you get that killer job, you might actually have to perform it. So we are working tirelessly to come up with an Avatar-like system that can put your body to work with our team of experts behind it while you relax the day away in the comfort of your home. Stay tuned!

New Fuel Emission Standards to Destroy America

In a move clearly designed to destroy America, President Obama passed new fuel emission standards for cars today. The new standards are an attempt to address the absurdist claims of Nobel Prize winning quack scientists about "global warming." Pragmatist critics, of course, worry about the costs in jobs and profits to big oil companies. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called it "the result of backroom deals and an ideological agenda that will cause more Americans to lose their jobs. Even though unemployment is at nearly 10 percent, this administration continues to press expensive regulations as if the economic recession never happened." When one reporter asked if lack of regulation might have actually played a part in the recession, Issa laughed and then claimed that only a socialist pig would ask such a silly question. In further proof that this is a plot against average Americans, the socialists up North passed a similar measure on Thursday. Tea baggers across the country promise they will not take this blow lying down.

Republican BS

Scott Brown and Mitt Romney are mad as hell about Obama's healthcare plan and they are letting the world know it. Romney has been using the bill as one key element in his bid for the 2012 Republican nomination saying Obama is "succumb[ing] to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends" (tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/obama-my-health-care-bill-is-just-like-romneys.php?ref=fpb). This seems ironic given the bill's close proximity to his own; but why bother with history when it's inconvenient? Republicans are particularly adept at this historical amnesia and have really made it into a near art form (see posts below). War is peace, freedom is slavery and the truth is generally just an inconvenient barrier to  And for once the media is kind of doing it's job, reporting on the similarity between the two bills: www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/26/us/politics/AP-US-Romney-Health-Care.html.

Brown, on the other hand, at least doesn't have that bill to erase from his resume. But like most Republicans, he is either ignorant or forgetful about their use of reconciliation in the past -- arguing in an oped in the Boston Globe, "After my election, Washington politicians began an aggressive push to bend the rules and force their unpopular health care bill on an unwilling nation" (www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/03/30/the_health_care_fight_is_not_over?mode=PF). The other problem with this statement is the Gallop poll right after the signing of the bill that found more support than opposition to it (I am, of course, a little annoyed that the first poll to show this reality was after the fact, not before).

He goes on to argue, "They went into secret negotiations to make up their own rules, and eventually found a way to circumvent the will of the people by using the reconciliation process to ram through their health care bill. For the last year, the American people have been shaking their heads at the closed-door meetings, sweetheart deals, and special carve-outs. It has been a very ugly process, and caused many Americans to lose faith in their elected officials in Washington." Um, huh, I think the American people lost faith in their elected officials way before this bill and, in fact, those "closed-door meetings, sweetheart deals and special carve-outs" were the norm during the Bush years and certainly did not make up the bulk of a bill that insurance and healthcare companies fought tooth and nail against.

His next argument is about cost: "When this legislation is fully implemented, the real cost to taxpayers is $2.6 trillion over years." Um, I guess he didn't read the CBO report that the bill would actually reduce the deficit substantially over the next 20 years (www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm). He finishes the editorial by claiming that Americans don't want the liberal agenda but jobs. I agree, but what exactly are Republicans proposing to lower unemployment besides more tax cuts; at the same time they complain about the deficit? Nothing really. In fact, there is substantial evidence to support the claim that Obama's stimulus package and Geitner's bailout of the banks helped stave off an even worse economy and might lead us toward a recovery in the future.

Republicans seem to have little to offer except obstructionism and a critique of the rancid environment in DC that they helped create. But by telling lies and half-truths, rewriting history and calling for simple, practical solutions to problems without telling us what those solutions are (simple or not), they sound like the party to fix the problems they are creating. It is a brilliant strategy that might just restore them to power; and might just send the country into a even steeper nose dive from which we will never recover. Congratulations!

To Terrorize or Not To Terrorize

The papers are full of the radical Christian group that planned to kill an police officer and then others at his funeral: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/29/AR2010032901541_pf.html. (Yet they are not, of course, terrorists - news.firedoglake.com/2010/03/29/ceci-nest-pas-un-terroris). This follows the arrest of Norman Leboon for threatening Rep. Eric Canter, among many others: www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/norman-leboon-arrested-th_n_517246.html. And there are the various incarnations of the Tea Party spitting at politicians, calling them racial epithets and worse. The question is why are these white people so angry? And about what? Obviously the healthcare reform is the latest source of their ire, but conservative white males have been angry for a long time. Some call Obama a Nazi; failing to recognize the irony. Some seem to have no idea that facism and socialism are not the same thing. Others seem to hate Obama because he is Black -- though they won't admit it. What's odd is how few seem to hate corporations. They are angry at the "illegal" immigrants that are taking their jobs, the poor who they believe they are paying taxes to support, the government for challenging their "freedom" and anything that has the word "tax" attached to it. But these are just the outlets for their anger. One wonders what the source is. Here I have to ponder whether it is the falling state of the white male in America. Most know that they will some day become the minority, and this scares them. Women are outperforming them in educational achievement, Blacks are theoretically taking their jobs through affirmative action (though this doesn't really exist anymore). Gays are trying to destroy our Christian roots. And Mexicans and those from South America are changing the color and language of America. Really it appears that ressentiment (ala Nietzsche) is at the heart of the matter. What's odd is that classic populism attacking the rich and corporations seems to have failed in this case. The years of Reagan and other conservatives shifting the source of the blame for the upward movement of wealth and increasing unemployment have worked and it is hard to break through the hatred that has built against those who have destroyed the American dream. One wonders if this trend can be changed; or if this group is large enough to really matter in the long run . . .

Healthcare Passes . . . Media Buys Some Tea

So Obama appears to have passed a bill that some have been hankering for over 70 years. It is a major achievement, especially when one party is content trying to make sure government doesn't do anything before November and a series of corporations all interested in keeping the system as it is have been throwing a lot of money and influence around to back that position up. Sure the bill is flawed and doesn't include the public option, but it insures 32 million more Americans, cheapens drug costs for seniors, disallows insurance companies from not covering or dropping insurers with preexisting conditions, allows small businesses to pool together for better rates, and though conservatives have been challenging the CBO numbers -- the bill is predicted to CUT the deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the following 10 years while saving 2.5 million jobs  Yet the media appears to have bought the GOP story that this will hurt the democrats. "Democrats could pay a price," warns the Washington Post while the New York Times tells us buyer beware: "A Major Victory, but at What Cost?" The LA Times adds "After healthcare vote, Democrats turn to damage control" and Politico claims Democrats "face a potentially devastating backlash in the midterms." And that's just the "liberal press." William Kristol does a special for the Weekly Standard claiming "This year Obama has handed Republicans a one-item Contract with America, an item a majority of the public supports—opposition to, and therefore repeal of, Obamacare." Even before the bill is signed, Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and other party leaders are clammering for repeal and 12 states are already lining up to challenge it as unconstitutional: www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-22/twelve-states-plan-lawsuit-over-obama-health-overhaul-update2-.html. David Frum offers a more realistic position though, arguing repeal is all but impossible given what the bill offers and the legislative hurdles. In the end, the bill might hurt Democrats, but given that it will be paid for predominantly by insurance and pharmaceutical companies and the wealthiest Americans and will start us on the path to addressing one of the great dangers facing America in the future, I think it is a step in the right direction. It is also nice to see Democrats actually stand up for something collectively. Could this be the beginning of better days for the party, or the beginning of the end of their short reign? Stay tuned . . .

Tea Party Trolls Torment

Not that it is really surprising to people who are paying attention, but the mainstream media has finally gotten in on critiquing the group for their innate racism and general lunacy (www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/03/20/tea_party_racism) -- after an event yesterday where they yelled the "n" word at a series of Black politicians, spit on one, called Barney Frank a "faggot" and walked around toting signs that said they would kill those who vote for the healthcare bill: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/20/code-red-gun. It is extraordinary how much easier it is to get in the news for acting like a complete buffoon than for actually making a reasoned, rational argument about politics; or the media for that matter. Just ask Glenn Beck . . .

Corporations Finally Get into the Political Fray

After years of watching their interests go unheeded by Washington, corporations will finally have their say in the political arena. The Supreme Court decision last month giving corporations the full personhood they have so long deserved has once and for all eliminated those pesky campaign finance limits that have given the people far too much say in political decision in America. Now corporations can have their voice heard loud and clear, untethered by the will of the people and their silly notions of the common good. Should their really be limits on the interest rates banks can charge for loans or the fees they collect? Should insurance companies really have to insure high risk clients or those already sick? Why should pharmaceutical companies have to go through the onerous process of making sure their drugs are safe when that can be figured out after their product goes to market? Should cigarette and chemical companies really be limited by silly concerns about their safety, when it cuts into their profits? And why should corporations have to waste all that money on lobbying when they can simply buy the politicans that will best reflect their interests? The benevolent society of American corporations and the wealthy, aka the Chamber of Commerce, has certainly been asking these questions for years and are now ready to put their wallets where their mouth is, spending as much money as they can withdraw from their sheltered offshore accounts to make sure years of government interference in their profit-seeking behavior come to an end once and for all: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-chamber9-2010mar09,0,4230154,full.story. Let freedom ring! 

He Looks Like $50

A highway, airport, aircraft carrier and one of the biggest federal buildings in DC are all named after Ronald Reagan. But that's not enough for his conservative acolytes -- now they want to replace war hero turned corrupt president Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill (www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-reagan-fifty3-2010mar03,0,6008759.story). So I thought on the heals of this potentially momentus tribute to the greatest President of the 20th century we should look back on his many accomplishments . . .

- Cut the top tax rate down from 70% to 28%
- Cut the capital gains tax precipitously
- Both these helped increased income inequality to the worst in the developed world
- Moved us from the biggest creditor to biggest debtor nation in the world
- Increased the deficit from $700 billion to $3 trillion
- Oversaw the S&L crisis and 1987 Stock Market Crash
- Helped out those poor Contras in their fight against the insidious communists in Nicaragua
- Turned back the clock on the pesky civil rights movement
- Commenced those fun loving "blame the teachers" and "blame the victim" movements in America
- Got rid of annoying market oversight and regulation thus helping Walls Street make a lot more money *

and

- Ended communism single-handedly (and I have a share in the Brooklyn Bridge I'd like to sell you)

Long live your legacy, our fallen king.

* This also helped cause the financial crisis we are currently mired in, but that's just nitpicking.

ACORN Exonerated!

Surprise, surprise . . . the two conservative pranksters that caused a media firestorm over five months ago charging that ACORN was giving advice to a pimp and prostitute about getting a mortgage appear to have doctored the video and no criminal charges will be filed by the Brooklyn DA. What's interesting is how the different media sources cover the story.

The New York Post claims on pg.2 in a short piece that sources claim the infamous videos were heavily edited and thus "many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister." The New York Times takes a more moderate position, mentioning that charges are being dropped without noting the charges of tampering with the tapes: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/no-crime-in-acorns-advice-to-pimp-d-a-says/?scp=2&sq=acorn&st=cse. Finally, is Fox News, where they think there is still serious malfeasance and corruption to be unearthed, with the following paragraph: "But Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, said Monday that ongoing federal and state investigations 'will expose the criminal nature of ACORN's deliberate effort to abuse taxpayer dollars to advance a radical political agenda.'" (www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/acorn-videos-bring-problems-group-criminal-charges/?test=latestnews).

Actually, it appears the radical political agenda is being perpetrated by conservative operatives like this (remember Watergate?), with one of the two recently charged with three others in attempting to tamper with Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu's phone. Of course, while the media will dutifully report the story, there is no mea culpa -- just a nod to their absence of malice. Remember those Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? Well the media got that one wrong too, but it only cost us four extra years of Bush, so no bigee . . .

Healthcare Through the Backdoor

To those of us who has watched bumbling Democrats for the better part of 30 years it is a near miracle to conceive that they might actually pass an even flawed healthcare reform bill. Little resolve has existed in the party, they have been too wobbly kneed when it mattered most and lost the battle of words, ideas and elections too often. Democrats like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry failed to inspire, changed positions as if in a game of musical chairs and even Obama has seemed to wilt under the pressure of a conservative juggernaut unfazed by huge defeat less than two years ago and a media that has aligned themselves with conservatives far too often in recent years. Nancy Pelosi even said she is willing to give up seats to win this important battle. That is what our representatives are supposed to be about -- representing the public interest, even if the public is sometimes confused about what their interests are. The public option might not find its way to the final bill, but if it ends up on Obama's desk for a signature it will be a huge victory for Americans and our collective future. Lets hope that resolve holds up and the party finally gets something right . . .

Turning Schadenfreude on its Head

In an odd turn on the American love affair with Schadenfreude is a new website that will let friends anonymously tell you what they really think of you: http://www.failin.gs/. One has to wonder if anyon? Isn’t life better wie really want to know this? Isn't life better with the lies we tell each other and ourselves to make it bearable? Didn’t anyone see The Invention of Lying? Can we really take the ridicule that one assumes has to emerge from this site? And what about hackers? Our enemies can have a heyday at our expense. One way to get the news out on your new “bruise my ego for free” site is to provide a link on Facebook. Um, how about those lunatics with 500 friends? Even those of us with 200 have to know that many of these “friends” simply use us to increase their cyber popularity index, or maintain the link to spy on us; with our active approval, I should add. I don’t know about you, but I’m already rough enough on myself. Me thinks my friends doth protest just enough.

Ahistory 101

What do you do when history is working against you? What if people really do want to learn from history so they don't repeat it? Well, just rewrite it, of course. Republicans have been adept at this for years, most recently pretending the financial crisis started with Obama, or that Bush somehow solved it (even though it's still going on), or that they never blocked a nomination under Clinton. The latest incident is the so called "nuclear option," an apparently unprecedented attempt to circumvent the workings of democracy . . . or is it? In fact, the reconciliation process has been used 21 times since the 80s, mostly by Republicans. It was used for Reagan's huge tax cuts, for both Bush tax cuts and for welfare reform. Now Democrats want to take the political capital given to them in 2008 and using it to pass the healthcare reform most Americans want (unless it is labeled "socialist"): www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/24/840251/-Majority-rule-is-the-nuclear-option. But why allow history to cloud the fact that Democrats are actually using their majority in the House and Senate together with control of the Presidency to actually, gasp, do something without the Republicans. They seem to forget that that is exactly what they did for the first six years of the Bush administration; unless Dems supplicated (as they did on more occasions than they liked to admit). Thomas Jefferson once argued "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Of course, if we believe the lies why not believe we are free as well?

Brother Can You Spare a Quarter Million?

The Washington Post today reports that Wall Street is shifting its allegiance from Democrats to Republicans: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022305537_pf.html. Ever since the triangulation policies of Clinton and the New Democrats proved effective at winning elections, the party has in many ways been beholdent to their very rich benefactors. They have sold themselves as liberal on social issues but more conservative on economic policy. While the populist rhetoric occasionally emerges (Gore in the last two months of his 2000 run; Obama at times), the party generally does little to actually hold Wall Street accountable for their actions or, for example, change the tax structure so hedge fund managers pay a reasonable tax rate on the millions (and for some individuals billions) they earn every year -- rather than the paultry 15% they currently do. So while many will see this as bad news, particularly given the recent Supreme Court decision about campaign finance reform and the early forecasts for the midterm elections (slatest.slate.com/id/2245799/?wpisrc=newsletter), I wonder if some good news doesn't emerge from this trend? For one, could Democrats finally stand up to Wall Street and start reregulating the markets (as they did in a minor way with recent bills on bank and credit card fees)? Can they start to hold the postmodern Robber Barons accountable for their actions? Can they usher in a real debate on economic reform that will challenge the dramatic stratification that reigns supreme today? I wouldn't hold my breath just yet, but I think it could be a good sign if the American people believed Democrats were the party that actually stood up to the powerful for once. Otherwise, the small government movement may appeal to those who wrongly place the blame on government and not the markets and their architects (and I do use this word on purpose) for our current economic problems (much as Reagan placed the blame on feminism and the civil rights movement in the 80s).

Government the Problem?

It depends who you talk to. For those at the top of the income ladder, this is clearly the case. They benefit from a laissez-faire approach to economic policy and always have. But for the middle and the bottom? Then the story is different. As some economists start to talk of economic recovery and getting beyond the worst of the Great Recession, the stark reality for the poor and middle class in this country is a declining quality of life and dour long term prospects. A couple of weeks ago, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert pointed out that unemployment varies dramatically along class lines. Those at the top of the income bracket has an unemployment rate of only 3.2 percent and the next highest only 4 percent. Contrast that with the bottom two brackets ($12,499 or less and $12,500 to 20,000), that suffer through 30.8 and 19.1 percent, respectively: www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html. Some would argue that this makes sense, given the realities of the new economy and the nature of the crisis itself. Yet it is part of a trend that has been accelerating since the 70s, a growing gap in not only income and wealth but quality of life between the rich and poor here and across the "developed" world: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/21/business/main4535488.shtml. I think it would be naive not to recognize the relationship between this return to the Gilded Age of the turn of the century and the fall of communism. Without any alternative to fight, neoliberalism has ushered in a new phase where capital accumulation and consolidation of wealth accelerate dramatically. Services are being cut, marginal taxes lowered and the elites establishing rules that are skewed to their interests. The latest Supreme Court decision only punctuates the push away from democracy and popular rule and toward a theocracy of the market and its stewards. Is this sustainable in the long run? The history of capitalism is one of laissez-faire followed by economic crisis, calls for intervention and then deregulation soon after markets recover. Yet conservatives and business leaders are attempting to forgo any further intervention before the financial crisis ends. This could spell doom for America and across the globe. Will they wake up to the reality of the moment before it is too late, or allow their greed to trump our collective future? Here I turn to Edna St. Vincent Millay (with a minor edit) . . .

Thy candle burns at both ends
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends --
It gives a lovely light.

Sphincter Says What

"I'm not frightened by bipartisanship... We should be brave enough to stand up and say let's work together until we finish defeating the left and then we won't have to work with them as much."

-- Newt Gingrich, quoted by the Huffington Post.

Interesting definition of bi-partisanship. The real problem today is that conservatives have hunkered down to a degree where reality is just a pesky inconvenience that stands in the way of their agenda. They have radicalized to the point where facts and counterarguments do not move them, but simply strengthen their resolve. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Right now, in the midst of economic, environmental and global crises, most conservatives believe that returning to the past is possible, that somehow things will fix themselves and that the best thing to do is nothing at all. They want to continue policies that got us here in the first case. They rewrite history to support their position, get stuck on the one exception to the rule and change subjects whenever their positions are challenged. And who comprises the latest addition to the lunatic fringe? The lovely Tea Party and their inspirational wackado leader Glenn Beck (www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/us/politics/16teaparty.html?pagewanted=print). But while there might be a populist element to this movement, I think we are kidding ourselves if we don't recognize that 1. They have been driven by conservative media personalities to their current position, 2. They are often led by old guard members of the far right 3. Their anger is largely based on irrational conspiracy theories and latent racism and 4. They are a force to be reckoned with, but not as large as some have led us to believe (www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/17/tea.party.poll/index.html?iref=allsearch). When you get right down to it, the media loves to report on fringe groups, but particularly right wing varieties. When they look at fringe groups on the left (real fringe groups, not the group now labeled as Leftists because the middle has moved so far right), it is usually in a mocking tone.

The one point that most Americans can seem to agree on today is that "government is broken." A CNN poll shows that 86% of respondents support this assessment: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/21/poll.broken.govt/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo. So what should we do about it? The interesting thing is that some believe we should just scrap the government altogether, leaving benevolent multinational corporations to fill the void. On the other side, there may be too much faith that government can solve our problems. In the end, hope seems to be the real victim -- washed over by expectations as ephemeral as the distance between first and second in the luge.

Healthcare Tango

So a growing number of Democrats are pushing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include the public option in the reconciliation bill, that can bypass a Republican filibuster. Reid is waiting to count votes before he decides, as is House leader Pelosi. In the meantime, Obama is backpedaling yet again, offering a modified plan that he hopes some Republicans will support: www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/health/policy/19health.html?pagewanted=print. The reasonable party, however, doesn't really need to see one to decide that "no" is their answer: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/cantor-we-will-say-no-to-the-health-care-bill.php. So those most interested in the debate decided to actually ask people what they think: www.tonic.com/article/health-care-reform-bill-activists-poll-states-on-public-opinion. Early leaked results show a plurality supporting a bypass of the obstructionist Republicans, while 51% remain unsure (in Illinois). It's time for the feckless Democrats to finally get some backbone and take a chance. Poll after poll has shown that passing healthcare will have little to no effect on their prospects for November. Why not do something radical that could alter the future of the country? We will see if Democrats stand for anything other than supporting Wall Street and backpedaling every time they get close to taking a stand on anything . . .

Et Tu, Homer?

Simpson that is! A few articles in the past few weeks have called into question one of America’s favorite pastimes – namely, working. The Daily Beast had an article yesterday that labeled the U.S. as the laziest country in the world (www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-17/the-laziest-countries) Using Internet usage, calorie intake, aversion to sports and television viewing per day, they found Americans to be the least active of the OECD countries. But aren’t we the hardest working country in the world? Isn’t it our Protestant Work Ethic that made us great? Aren’t we the country that doesn’t have any time for fun, because we’re too busy working our, apparently bulging, asses off? Actually, wait – that could still be true. Methodology is often that underreported element of these silly studies we count on to give us information and determine the public will. Here the article appeared to be tongue in cheek, but just to be clear --- maybe Americans are so “lazy” because they work so hard they find it hard to find time for sports or other diversions (many Americans go to the gym, which is not generally considered sport – except to those wolves trying to pick someone up at the club). And calorie intake could actually be related to exercise, as those who exercise more would eat more to restore their energy – though a quick look around the streets of middle America and their middles does seem to indicate too many Twinkie aperitifs before and after dinner. A final thought on the study – Internet use. While I can’t speak for women, men use the Internet for a number of things – one of which actually could be considered exercise . . .

The second article goes back to December, when an adjunct instructor up in Boston argued Americans are the laziest students: www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/12/21/my_lazy_american_students?mode=PF. This caused an uproar among some, while others provided their strong agreement with the claim: www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2010/01/04/miller. Being a professor myself, I must agree that many American students seem lazy, uninterested, uninspired and in need of very specific, detailed instructions for almost any assignment – as contrasted with students from other countries, who tend to be harder working and generally turn in better work. Stereotyping students like this is, of course, wrought with peril, but it does seem true that the next generation does have a sense of entitlement and a lack of motivation for schools and intellectual pursuits. I find plenty of students that challenge this claim, but the aforementioned Internet and television usage, together with the Ipods, cell phones and other technology that keeps these students busy for 7.5 hours a day (according to Kaiser Family Foundation) certainly is a call for concern. On the other hand, the school where I teach has students that work part or full-time, take a full load of classes and do turn in their work on time most of the time. I’m not sure if laziness really describes the American today, but inactive in the traditional sense appears to be a fair claim. Time to go for a jog!

He Said, She Said Media

There is something wrong when Jon Stewart and the Daily Show staff are doing much superior work to the mainstream media. Why can't anyone in the media (besides the pundits) just make a declarative statement without attributing it to someone else? Why can't they fact check a claim rather than just tell us what both parties, or opposing sides on almost any issue, say? Why can't they seem to deconstruct the lies we hear every day, even when a fifth grader could do so with three minutes and access to google on his blackberry? These are the questions that try men's souls -- or at least mine. The latest example comes from the Washington Post today and this brilliant reporting, regarding the unexpected retirement of Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, "Many Democrats blame Republicans for the partisan polarization in this Congress, citing in particular the GOP's near-unanimous opposition to the Democrats' health-care legislation. That presents Obama with his biggest near-term challenge." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605974_pf.html) Um, yeah, thank God they found someone to make that claim, as there would be no other way to prove that it's true. In case you haven't heard, the say no to anything strategy is now really paying off as a new ABC Poll finds that only 44% think Obama should have a second term while 52% think no. (http://slatest.slate.com/id/2244975/?wpisrc=newsletter)

It's 8" . . . I Swear!

And now for something completely different . . . apparently American men are taking postmodernism to its absurd limits. Rather than buy a condom that actually fits, they are buying sizes too big to well, inflate their ego, I suppose. A new University of Kentucky study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8516654.stm) finds that upwards of 50% of men in the study bought the wrong size condom and then removed it during sex. The authors suggest clever marketing as the way to deal with this problem. Who really wants to buy a "small" or even "medium" condom. But how about vente or grande -- now that sound pretty good!

The Spin Zone . . . on Meth

So you’re thinking of running for office? What should you do to brand yourself and make sure you get sufficient exposure? Raise some money for commercials, visit community sites, engage in debates. Nah, those are all wrought with the potential for negative press coverage. Here’s a better idea – become a media personality yourself. That way you can spin all the news to your own favor and do “exclusive interviews” for the very company that employs you. What are the chances that station would have a negative story on your campaign? Probably a lot lower, eh? And you can use that platform to not only prop up your credentials and ideas, but to slam your opponent and their party. On top of all this, you will now be given the stamp of authenticity and seen as a provider of unbiased "truth," thus helping sell your platform and stump speech (together with their revisionist version of history and bold faced lies).

Most have obviously heard that Fox News hired Sarah Palin even as almost everyone knows she will be running for office in a couple of years. Fox also has former presidential candidate Huckabee and Next Gingrich who both are considering runs in 2012. And they are not alone. CNBC star and Teabag hero Larry Kudlow is considering a run for the Senate, as is ex-Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. of MSNBC and Lou Dobbs, who left CNN in the Fall. Former Fox analyst Angela McGlowan is running for a House seat in Mississippi and one can remember Pat Buchanon switching back and forth between TV and campaigns for President (Chris Matthews also seriously considered a Senate run in Pennsylvania).

In a New York Times article today, they make the point: “'It makes sense for candidates to seek out positions in niche cable, because it is a direct pipeline to voters,” said Jonathan Wald, a former senior vice president at CNBC and an adjunct professor at Columbia’s journalism school. 'It’s an automatic affinity group.' The benefit to the viewers is less clear. Some experts say the arrangements can cloud the objectivity of the news organizations." (www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/business/media/15candidate.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print). Um, you think so? Could it be that Palin slamming Obama for everything he does might come across as less than objective? As TV pundits deconstruct the news, is it possible they are skewing it to their interests?

Objectivity in media has always been an obvious façade, used to give news the imprimatur of accuracy and truthfulness. The interests of the companies that report on the news always inflect what is reported, how it is reported, what is left out and what is ignored. This is most obvious on cable news stations like Fox and MSNBC, but it is true across the board. The picking of experts is one obvious place where this occurs (see Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, and Eric Alterman’s What Liberal Media?), but decisions are increasingly made by huge media conglomerates with all kinds of conflicts of interests that even transcend their profit interest. Do we really need future, or even prior, politicians pretending to be “journalists” to make the point even more obvious? Journalism is in danger of completely abdicating its responsibility to inform the public and hold individuals and groups accountable. Thank God for the Internet, the only place where old school journalism seems to happen these days . . .

Obama Finally Goes on the Offensive

One wonders how long the current Republican strategy can be effective -- can it really carry them back into power by simply doing nothing? Obama has decided it's time to test their resolve and that of the American people. After a series of speeches and a press conference, Obama has gotten to work, attempting to use his executive power to either pressure Congress or bypass them altogether: www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/us/politics/13obama.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. He warned Republicans he would use recess appointments if they didn't act on all the nominations held up, and 27 confirmations went through within the next few days. He asked for a commission on the deficit and went Congressional Republicans balked at their own idea, he simply circumvented them and did it himself. Now he is planning to soften enforcement of "don't ask don't tell," allow the EPA to enact enforcement of emissions as the Senate bill continues to languish, among a series of other initiatives.

One should remember that Presidential bullying and resolve have been at the heart of two of the most important, widescale governmental initiatives in history -- the series of bills that became known as the New Deal (against strong opposition) and the ambitious Great Society of LBJ. Both are constantly debated among liberals and conservatives, based on the reality that admitting that both helped the country would undermine the essential myth of conservatism in America today.  I have spoken about both in this blog before, but in brief one can say the following -- the New Deal ultimately ushered in the longest substained period of economic growth in this countries history (1947-1973) and the Great Society cut Black poverty and overall poverty in this country in half and led to two decades of school desegregation that cut the racial achievement gap in half; besides a whole host of other achievements in education, the arts, civil rights, the environment and the like. Obama will never gain popular support for altering the nature of politics and economics in America, but he can still serve the nation by ignoring those corporate lackey's and others that refuse to acknowledge where the power lies in America today.

Jeez, Can't You Do Anything Right?

One of the most underreported problems in America today is childhood obesity. We do talk about it occasionally, but there is little dialogue on the long term costs to individuals and society for this growing problem (pun intended). What is behind it? Obviously, technology plays a huge role as does fast food, less gym in school and overprotective parents that don't let their kids go outside very much anymore. So Michelle Obama decided to launch a national campaign to address the problem. A lot less controversial then, say, trying to solve the healthcare crisis in America, right? Not according to some critiques, who think American kids should be allowed to be fat if they want to, dammit! (http://slatest.slate.com/id/2244210/?wpisrc=newsletter). America seems to become more and more like an absurdist novel or movie everyday. But luckily people are paying attention -- and they like it. The latest poll from Washington Post/ABC shows that our view of the Republican party has actually improved, there do nothing/"no all the time" politics is apparently just the kind of inspiration we need in these difficult times: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/10/AR2010021000010.html. Let freedom ring (as long as it doesn't cost tax payers anything)!

Who's to Blame?

Jacob Weisberg, Slate editor-in-chief, has an incisive critique of the political climate in America today. Rather than blame the politicians, or lobbyists or Obama, he blames the American people (www.slate.com/id/2243797/). And he has a point. Americans want the government to solve all of our problems quickly and cleanly, without any additional money, any tax increase, any change in our own behavior and any notion that there might be long term costs to society. In fact, Americans seem to think that the government has some sort of magic bullet not to kill a Kennedy, but to solve the financial crisis, healthcare debacle, environmental devastation and falling position of the United States without the public at large doing anything to help. Government is bad, but we still want it to fix everything that's wrong. But not at any cost to us. So what is the solution? It's hard to see how things can change for the better without some collective sacrifice, without some call for real change, without some faith that government can take on the interests of the power elites and actually improve society. But the underlying cynicism so endemic in America today, together with the general blithe ignorance to what needs to be done, leaves us immobilized and willing to support little. So Republicans can undermine the hope that seemed to bolster the nation a year ago. Now absurd charges of socialism, fear mongering about governmental death squads for the elderly, absurdist discussions of deficits and even more wild conspiracy theories dominate the debate while right wing loons like Palin and Beck dominate the airwaves with discourse that sounds resonable only to those who understand nothing. Postman is right, we really are amusing ourselves toward death, as individuals and a nation. And in this, we may well succeed.

The Party of No: Ad Nauseum

So a Senator from Alabama now thinks that it is acceptable to stop all 70 of Obama’s outstanding nominations until his fair state be given two important pork projects revolving around the only really important GOP talking point these days (besides saying no to anything and everything democrats like): terrorism -- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/opinion/06collins.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. I’m not sure if anyone in America still remembers, but since Clinton, the Republicans have been consistently blocking judges nominated to federal courts by Democratic Presidents. But when Bush was president for eight years we heard endlessly about the few pretty radical choices that Democrats blocked from the federal court. Lest us forget what has happened with the two most important selections that did get through (and a lot more got through in general than under Clinton), those two Supreme Court justices that just rewrote campaign finance in the U.S. to the benefit of corporations and against a reasonable definition of what democracy means. In any case, one wonders if Republicans might pay for their unrelenting dedication to absolute obstructionism? While the radical Tea Baggers, led by the suddenly media-savvy Sarah Palin and lunatic fringe TV personality Glen Beck, continue to show a willing blindness to the reality of the moment (and a penchant for ahistoricity that would make Big Brother proud), one wonders if the rest of America is ready to essentially shut down the government to allow Republicans back into power. Didn’t we elect Obama to get away from Bush and the mindless mantra of small government and free markets? It takes a while to teach old dogs new tricks, but if we don’t start teaching ourselves what role government has to play in our lives, we might find ourselves eating our beloved dogs to keep from starving . . .

Super Bowl Censorship

Over the past two decades, Superbowl ads have become almost as important as the game itself. At parties across the country, people who could care less about the game often shut up for the space between TV timeouts to catch the latest clever ads from Budweiser, Google, Coca Cola and the like. Some of the most famous and infamous ads come out that day at as much as $3,000,000 a clip. But what won’t be coming out are any gays on CBS. The papers have finally chimed in on their editorial pages to decry the decision to reject an ad that, gasp, has two men attracted to each other at the most masculine of American sports (besides maybe the no holds barred fighting that keeps gaining popularity): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403562_pf.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/opinion/06sat4.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print. Luckily CBS isn’t eliminating all political ads. They are ok with an ad by Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother arguing the pro life position. Well at least they’re consistent!

This is not the first debate that has occurred regarding Superbowl commercials. In fact the NFL and whomever is telecasting the biggest guacamole day in any year have pretty consistently supported conservative causes – whether it is celebrating American militarism, the war in Iraq, family values or, indirectly, God and his handicapping hand. NBC, for example, refused to air an anti-abortion ad last year (from Catholicvote.com that used an image of Obama and the tag “Life: Imagine the Potential”) and one about marriage equity. PETA and Moveon.org have been rejected in the past, and NBC did reject an ad in 2004 by the United Church of Christ that included the tagline “Jesus Didn’t Turn People Away. Neither Do We,” targeting gay parishioners. In the past rejection, CBS claimed it had a policy of refusing advertising that "touches on and/or takes a position on one side of a current controversial issue of public importance". Now with the Tebow ad (from Focus on Family) they claim: "[CBS's] standards and practices continue to adhere to a policy that insures that all ads on all sides of an issue are appropriate for air.” Um, what? The first statement is troubling in its own light, given that we do live in a democracy and do have that thing called the First Amendment, that has thankfully been extended to our neighbors down the street (the big corporations that all but run DC already). A few others you might not have heard about that were rejected, can be found here: http://redstaplerchronicles.com/the-top-ten-rejected-super-bowl-commercials/.

Of course, football has arguably tacitly supported homosexuality for years. We have tight ends, quarterbacks who start every play in a rather salacious position while reaching their hands between the legs of their centers before screaming hike, an uncomfortable fascination with penetration by the defense among analysts, men in tights who often pat each other on the ass and openly embrace after big plays and throwing passes at each other or handing their balls to their “backs.” But I digress . . .

Teabagging, Sodomy and the Right

The Family Research Council has gone a step further than arguing that gay marriage will destroy America: news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/02/family-research-councils-peter-sprigg-lawrence-v-texas-was-wrongly-decided/. Actually, gay sex itself should be illegal they think. But, uh oh, just like those geniuses who named themselves after a rather unfortunate sex act (depending on the hygene habits of the recipient that is), Peter Sprigg wants to outlaw something plenty of God-fearing, heterosexuals probably partake of at least occasionally -- that nasty habit from the original twin city: Sodom. Does that mean that oral sex is ok? How about illicit airport bathroom sex without penetration between Senators and their willing constituents? One wonders in the end if rather than going around spreading their hate, these people simply spread their legs every once in a while, or those of someone else, they might find something to be happy about. Could it be that hate eminates from repression? Call me crazy, but me thinks the answer be oui (which is better than he or she) . . .

The Party of No: Part III

So now even legislation they support, or even came up with in the first place, they reject if it gets the imprimatur of the President. This is getting down right Dali Surrealist. The latest, as you probably heard, is rejecting a call to have a commission formed to figure out how to reduce the deficit: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832963/-Horrors%21-Republicans-Find-a-Deficit-They-Dont-Like. The line among some is that instead we need a commission to reduce spending (not, God forbid, raise taxes on the rich!)

The American people, on the other hand, seem to be growing tired of partisan deadlock and some are pushing for change. Obama has finally started calling out Republicans on their obstructionist ways, inviting them to offer alternatives to their “no all the time” mantra: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us/politics/03bipartisan.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=print. And a series of bloggers and pundits have moved beyond their keyboard quarterbacking to start an online campaign “Demand Question Time,” to hold regular, televised conversations like the exchange in Baltimore last Thursday (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=93AC0124-18FE-70B2-A896F3733FD5234E).

Is this what representative democracy is about? Whose interests, exactly, are senators representing when they undiscernibly say no to anything and everything? Oh, that’s right – the corporate lobbyists who seem to run the party now. At least with the Supreme Court decision last week, they don’t have to hide their activity anymore. Go capitalism! Down with the Republic!

* * * *

An interesting day in the news, by the way. Another story seems to challenge the idea that torture is necessary to get information out of potential (or successful) terrorists: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203738_pf.html. Not that Obama has been that great on this issue so far.

Congressional Success?

An interesting article in the Washington Post today argues that this congress has actually been the most successful since the Great Society years of 1964-65: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012902516.html. What, you say? Ornstein does make some interesting points about the stimulus bill, tax cuts, impetus for green investment, increased regulation and the like. But the bigger issue right now is the obvious failure to pass healthcare right as we stood on the cusp of its success. Americans just don't like this idea of "big government." One irony of the Massachusettes election loss was that Mass. has a very successful public healthcare option that has relatively popular support among the populace. But put the word "Congress" in front of it, and it no longer sounds so great. The federal government has certainly screwed a lot of things up over the years. But what are our options now. The party of no has seemed to move us toward a country of no. Can we survive with pure negativity? It's hard to see how . . .

From Bad to Worse

This has been a bad couple of weeks for Democrats. If we add the election in November, things have been going downhill for a few months now, with the exception of the now moribund healthcare reform bill (which would have been a huge, baby’s got back, but). Obama has looked into the abyss and instead of finding himself, appears to be moving even further to the center (www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2010/01/25/obama_panicking?source=newsletter). I sometimes wonder if DC even knows that the financial crisis continues for a lot of Americans. Obama seems like he is going to shift to Republican strategies (with minor Democratic modifications): tax cuts, focus on the deficit and caps on spending. This seems like a really bad time to shrink the size of government, besides essentially putting up the white flag to the barrage of far right criticism (and contradicting what Obama said just a few days ago in Ohio). One wonders in the end if Obama has the resolve to stick to his guns? If we can say nothing else good about Bush, and I’m hard pressed to do so, at least he stubbornly adhered to his political philosophy. I cannot remember the last Democrat to do this. It might very well have been Lyndon Johnson who tirelessly and successfully pushed through almost his entire Great Society initiative. I have no idea what Kerry really stood for, am as confused about Gore in 2000 as he seemed to be, see Clinton as a major sellout (forgetting even the liberal social program side of his triangulation strategy after a couple of years) and could add a long list of other reptilian cowards to the list. With all the DNA testing going on, maybe our only hope is to clone FDR. Anyone have the number for those South Korean scientists?

Limited Liability Personhood

Now that the Supreme Court has further expanded the rights of corporations as individuals, I think it’s time to contemplate the issue from the opposite end. I think people should start incorporating themselves, thus limiting liability for their actions. Why not? Corporations were once given charters to serve the public interest, but that notion was replaced by the idea that profit maximization is in the public interest. While this isn’t implicitly untrue, it obviously often is in practice. So I have decided I want to be limited liability as well.

Thinking economically, my goal will be utility maximization rather than profit maximization, but the two are closely related. To maximize my utility, I need the guarantee of the court that I will not be held personally responsible for my actions. Feel free to sue the shareholders, in this case my parents, friends, community and anyone else you like – I no longer feel that I am personally responsible for my behavior beyond the notion of maximizing my utility. Toward that end, I have decided I will systematically eliminate all of my enemies. Beyond this, I will only follow those laws that serve the interests of my utility. Following the speed limit for example, is just too damn inconvenient. And limits on the money I give to political parties or individuals? That makes little sense to me. I will be giving $1,000,000 to my congressman next week (in a lovely alligator skin briefcase). This is my free speech right and should help with my ongoing problem in securing a liquor license for my apartment and any further impediments to my prostitution ring.

I have also decided that clothes are too large an onus on my finances. I will stop wearing them immediately. And those pot plants in my closet; I think I’ll move those to the back yard of my apartment. Doesn't the choice for what I do with my own property fall under the purview of free speech? Luckily New York City is already full of people that seem to make all their decisions in this manner already. A lot of them work on Wall Street, so maybe I will start spending time at the clubs and five star restaurants they frequent. A few other things I will now do include not waiting in line, refusing to pay taxi drivers I don’t care for, paying all my bills three months in arrears to allow me to earn more interest on my personal accounts, only paying doctors and dentist what I think are reasonable rates for service and kicking out my next door neighbor so I can double the size of my apartment. Let freedom ring!

The Truman Show (1998)

Is Truman Burbank the embodiment of us all? The character, played by Jim Carrey in The Truman Show (1998), won him a Golden Globe for Best Actor and numerous other awards for the film. In it an insurance salesman comes to recognize that his entire life is a lie, a television show he has unknowingly been the star of since birth. Truman entertains millions who watch his life unfold through cameras placed all over the huge globe set created by the director Christof (Ed Harris). The name is of course a reference to Jesus, as he carefully constructed the world in which Truman lives from one day to the next.

Yet the underlying message of the film appears to be a metaphor about media culture itself. Are we not in some ways the same as Truman? How do we decide what we want and need? Where do our dreams come from? Why do we believe marriage is the realization of a happy life? Why do we buy Heineken instead of Bud Light, or vice versa, or craze pizza or a big mac when we are hungry? Why do cigarettes or chocolate entice us like the sirens? Who tells us what is cool and passé? From where does our image of beauty emerge? And what of ugliness? How do we decide what we want to do with our lives? Why do we believe what we do?

Does all this develop from within? Or is it possible that the external world emerges inside of us and helps us refract the very lenses through which we view the world. Is our psyche in some sense colonized by the media/consume culture that surrounds us – rearticulating needs and desires and creating a revaluation of values that does little to bring satisfaction, contentment or that elusive goal of happiness? Or is it the very fount of happiness in a sad, saturnine world? Sure our parents, peers, teachers and communities help us develop into who we are. School, church, neighborhood, country and a whole other series of institutions help us define ourselves and our place in the world. But what of the culture industry? Recent studies have shown that media and technology take up an astounding 7 ½ hours of the lives of youth each day. How can we not pretend that their influence transcends all others? Sure everyone is not the same and all these other influences are important. But where do are parent’s identities emerge from, how about our peers? Media culture has arguably become the key rearing and reproducing institution in society – all the more powerful because many fail to recognize its power.

Ultimately, Truman escapes the ecosystem that defined his life from birth. He bowed to the cheering audience and took the exit sign to freedom, saying you are not in my head. Can we do the same? Can we escape the grasp of media, even if we try? Do we want to? What does it mean to recognize the externalization of all that we presume emanates from within? The truth is that truth itself is constructed just as we are. But as the existentialists argue, recognizing the social construction of reality before most, we are conditioned but not determined. Ultimately we have the power to find our own exit door and forge a different life. How many will make that choice?

Nobody Listens to What They Want

Why do we smile when lost in sadness we lay?
Why do we laugh when tears right the way?
Why do we hate when we’d rather create?
Stay in a circle when we wish to escape?
The sun shines a shadow on our lost today
Tomorrow become the heart led away
Yesterdays gone in regret and despair
Happiness on that rainbow somewhere over there
Why is our heart lost and astray?
Why do we listen when words just betray?
Why not be happy I heard someone say.
Fear it appears, stands in the way.
Who do we whisper to in the heat of the night?
Who made us empty in the darkness absent light?
Why do we leave when we’d much rather stay?
Something awry in this cold world today.

Wish You Were Here

The Supreme Court decision today is a smack in the face to democracy. Coupled with the result Tuesday, the hope the Obama presidency gave us seems to be disappearing in the dust of our collective stupidity. I think it may be that the country does not have the will to do what it needs to do to survive. Instead we are selling off America to the highest bidder -- in this case the corporations who will now run the government by fiat. Who are these people we chose to lead us? Does anyone have the balls to challenge this afront to our freedom? As John Adams sings in 1776: "Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?" and maybe most apropos "How quiet, how quiet the chamber is."

For some reason, the events this week make me think of one of my favorite songs (actually I know why) . . .

So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell,
blue skies from pain.
Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
And did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage?
How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have you found? The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

To finish on a positive note, here is a more hopeful part of the song

The croakers all say we'll rue the day
There'll be hell to pay in fiery purgatory
Through all the gloom, through all the gloom
I see the rays of ravishing light and glory!

Massachusetts Massacre

I haven't heard anyone mention the irony that MA happens to be the first state in the country to dabble in socialized medicine, when Dukakis was the governor in the 80s. This on top of the irony many have mentioned that Kennedy himself was a life-long champion of major healthcare reform. Now a late surge by a conservative candidate (in moderate clothes for the election) could jeopardize the bill only weeks after it looked like a foregone conclusion. Republicans are emboldened and the recriminations among democrats have begun. The most troubling discourse that has emerged, even as there appears to be some truth in it, is among the old New Democrat ilk (aka Clintonites). They argue that Obama has gone too far to the left and we should return to the fiscal responsibility and "liberal" agenda of the Clinton years. Um, sounds great, except we are now in the throes of a financial crisis and Clinton's nod to conservative economics helped put us where we are today. Given the reptilian backdone Democrats have had since the mid-80s, I'm afraid these voices of false moderation may win out and the party move back further to a center that has been moving right for the better part of 30 years. Can Obama find the will to challenge this push? It's hard to believe he will, given his record to date. But you never know. Many Presidents rise to the call that a moment ushers in. Let's hope he choses the more radical course (which is really just a moderate retro-70s disco move away). The real problem, as I've been writing about in this blog intermittently for some time, is the continued resonance of the small government discourse. Someone needs to challenge it, and the only one who seems able at the moment is Obama himself. Let's hope he gets back to those moving speeches that won him the election in the first place.

Lessons for Iran?

I occasionally read Esquire for pleasure, usually while taking care of some daily business. There was an interesting quote from Mohamed ElBaradei (Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2005 and Director General, International Atomic Enger Agency) in the January edition: "Iraq has been pulverized. North Korea has been treated with kid gloves. The difference is that North Korea has nuclear weapons -- and this leson does not pass unnoticed."

This short quote explains the current impasses between Iran, the U.S. and Europe. Not only is there concern that Iran fundamentalists might actually use a nuclear weapon against Israel, there is the further concern that they will gain immeasurable power if they succeed in enriching uranium. Being in the belly of the beast, Iran is a much scarier place than North Korea and their strategic location makes the chaos they could reap that much more troubling. The United States knows this, and will do anything they can to stop this from happening. Does that include attacking Iran? I doubt it, though the Bushies certainly wanted to. But it does indicate the ongoing imbroglio and why concerns of nuclear weapons in the middle east far outstrip concerns for Israel alone. Troubling stuff . . .

Still Dominating the Debate II

The Post continues its discussion of the Obama presidency today, with E. J. Dionne offering his analysis of the current Conservative backlash and its success: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/17/AR2010011701934_pf.html. He makes the obvious point that the best way to confront conservative orthodoxy is by discrediting it and offering an alternative narrative. Obama was somewhat successful at this, though one could argue that really he just ran as not Bush and on a rather nebulous notion of “hope.” For that hope to be instantiated in the real, it will take a cogent, persuasive vision of where that hope should lead us.

As Dionne argues, “It's also striking that most conservatives, through a method that might be called the audacity of audacity, have acted as if absolutely nothing went wrong with their economic theories. They speak and act as if they had nothing to do with the large deficits they now bemoan and say we will all be saved if only we return to the very policies that should already be discredited.” I think the point is Democrats must continue the dialogue that Obama initiated during his inaugural speech. It is not if government is good or bad, but when it is necessary for it to intervene. Conservatives win American minds and hearts with simplistic, ahistorical messages that prove empty and disingenuous under the glare of real scrutiny. Yet the media does little to shine that light upon that discourse.

So it is the dual job of Democrats to both successfully challenge Republican lies and outdated economic theories with arguments not so wonky or complicated that the average American can’t understand them and to offer an alternative to the current order of things. If one really thinks about it, the last one to do so was Gore, in the last month or so of the 200 election, when he was arguably pushed toward populism by the insurgent run of Nader. Obama has also provided the frame of an ambitious new direction, but it needs more details to be truly compelling to the general public. What vision does the Democratic party have for America? What vision do they have for the role of government in the economy, healthcare and the environment? How are their policies going to help the economy recover and grow in the future? What is their vision for improving the quality of life for the average American?

Because conservatives have a clear (though obviously in my mind flawed) vision of what America should look like, well-developed frames and discourse to spread and reinforce that message, as well as outlets to galvanize their base into action, they tend to dominate the debate. Democrats need to find a vision they can embrace themselves so that they can escape the tendency to react rather than proactively act and thus always be on the defensive. It’s extraordinary that this situation continues as they control Congress and the Presidency. On MLKs birthday, it seems apropos to remember that being right is not enough – one must have the power to persuade others of what is right as well.

Still Dominating the Debate

Obama won a sizable election a little over a year ago. He came into office with high popularity ratings and a desire by the country for change. And yet one year later, the tired old discourse on small government continues to dominate American politics (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR2010011602950_pf.html). The obstructionist party has been very effective at blocking major parts of Obama’s agenda, while the media continues to buy the rather absurd story that Obama is too partisan. He makes concessions and gets not one GOP vote. How could Obama be more conciliatory? Just accept the Republican position that we need small government, no new programs and no new regulation? Further privatize the economy? What exactly should he be doing to try to deal with the continuing financial crisis, a broken healthcare system that is draining resources from families and the economy and serious questions about the future competitiveness of America in the globe?

The Reagan revolution is still alive and well in the country, even as unemployment levels remain high, people lose their homes and the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. Pride in ignorance has always been a part of American life, but the ahistorical nature of this position is hard to fathom given what is currently going on. As I have said so often, I believe the media has a lot to do with this by abrogating their responsibility as the fourth estate and failing to report facts that could alter the debate. Instead people somehow believe corporations and the “free” market can solve our problems better than the government. It seems there is still an undercurrent of populism in the country, but too much of it is anti-government rather than anti- those who caused the crisis in the first place (by pushing for the very deregulation at the heart of the problem). Is there a way to change American beliefs as the great depression did; leading to a long period of sustained growth where everyone was made better off. Do things have to get worse to get better, as Lenin once argued? Or like so many empires before, will we simply allow ourselves to fall as a country through inaction and the greed and intellectual laziness of those in power? I think if the democrats pull out the senatorial race in Massachusetts on Tuesday, they should simply push through their agenda and hope that positive results occur before 2012.

Sometimes the only way change can occur is through the force of will of an individual or small group that go against the tide of popular opinion and live by their ideals rather than polling numbers (Margaret Meade anyone). FDR was that leader, as was Martin Luther King and so many other great personalities throughout history. It is time for the president to take a stand for the country, even if it means risking his political future. Let’s hope he can find that resolve.

On a Magic Ghetto Bus Ride . . .

What do you get for someone who has everything? A private jet, a limited edition Porsche, maybe a small island in the South Pacific? Well for those of us with a more modest budget, how about a trip through the heartland of LA gang activity (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/us/16tour.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print)? For $65 (which includes lunch), ex-gang member Alfred Lomas will lead you through the center of gang activity in the country today, replete with graffiti lessons, a drive by of LA’s biggest jail (“the unofficial home of 20,000 gang members”), four or five gang members on the bus in case you don’t see any “natives” on Saturday morning, and visits to famous sites like Watts. He and backer Kevin Malone (former GM of the Dodgers) did decide against their original plan to have residents shoot water guns at the bus and sell “I got shot in South Central” T-Shirts – but maybe you can still talk one of the locals into shooting you for a few bucks. In fact, the package includes a requisite release form warning of the danger of the tour and the possibility of death.

But is death that big a price to pay to observe these American icons in their native habitat? To be fair, Lomas says he is trying to educate people about gangs and will use the money for microloans to get gang members working. The question is whether exoticizing kids and adults who often turn to gangs to protect themselves and find family in poverty striken inner cities really helps them improve their circumstance. Of course maybe, given our economic prospects, some will take the tour to come up with their own plans to start their own gangs to compete for shrinking economic resources. Wall Street might be a better starting point though.

Foreclosures, Bonuses and the STREET Goes On

A number of articles today bring together an underlying theme of this blog. The first is from USA Today, detailing an unexpected rise in foreclosures for the first time since July (a presumed peak): www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-01-13-foreclosures-rise-in-december_N.htm. Just to give perspective, that is 349,519 families that lost their homes last month. Another 2.4 million are expected to happen in 2010. In 2009, the total was 2.8 million homes, the year before 2.3 million and around 1 million in 2007. These numbers are staggering when put together, but there is, of course good news as well.

Things are coming up roses for banking, which some have erroneously blamed for the financial crisis (read sarcasm here). As reported in the Wall Street Journal today: “An analysis by The Wall Street Journal shows that executives, traders, investment bankers, money managers and others at 38 top financial companies can expect to earn nearly 18% more than they did in 2008—and slightly more than in the record year of 2007.” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704281204575003351773983136.html#mod=todays_us_page_one). That makes sense, right?

To bring the two articles together, is an oped by Nobel Lauriat Paul Krugman regarding the current Congressional hearings regarding reregulation of the financial sector (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/opinion/15krugman.html?hp). Krugman makes the very valid point that it is absurd to talk to Wall Street about fixing Wall Street, when they are so blind to the truth and so inured to the idea of profits over people and the common good. Historically, as I have mentioned many times before, the average person does better when markets are regulated. Wall Street does better when it is not. Yet the marginal return to regulation is better for everyone, given the pain almost all of us feel during financial crises like the Great Depression, 70s stagflation, the 87 crash and the current financial crisis. We need to remind politicians and Wall Street that the country is not built on the elite interests alone and that we need to rebuild a fair and just American economy before we are all forced to fold our cards and start the slow descent into third world country status. It is time for the people to stop listening to foolish talking heads regurgitating old Reaganomic lies and start listening to economists who know what they are talking about. Governments might be bad and dangerous sometimes, but they are necessary if we are to escape this mess.

The Party that Loves to Hate

So as Haitians are literally dying in the streets (www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/world/americas/14haiti.html?th&emc=th), you assume all would rally to support them in their time of need. Of course, that would be a mistake. Not Rush Limbaugh et al, who are actually criticizing Obama for responding so quickly to the tragedy: www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/13/824726/-Monster. You got that right – he responded too quickly, showing he cares more about Black Haitians than Americans who were unhurt by a failed terrorist attack. But this is mere trifling compared to the words of radical preacher Pat Robertson on the 700 Club yesterday:

"[S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'Okay it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other. Desperately poor. That island of Hispaniola is one island. It is cut down the middle on the one side is Haiti, on the other is the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, etc. Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God and out of this tragedy I'm optimistic something good may come."

Who is the real devil here? The good news is the GOP sets the bar pretty low and thus the new governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell invited Robertson to attend his swearing in. The hypocrisy of the grand ole party would be funny . . . if it wasn’t destroying the country.

Lobbying and Democracy II

An interesting article in the National Journal yesterday (http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php) highlights the fact that six of the biggest health care insurers were spending between $10 and $20 million last summer, through the Better Business Bureau, to air ads that argued against the very legislation they were supposedly working on with Obama and Congress. There is, of course, nothing implictly wrong with this -- in fact, Madison argued for the power of factions to battle each other and thus balance out power. Yet one has to wonder what faction is challenging the power these large corporations have to dominate the form and framing of the debate. This spending did seem to reap benefits for the private healthcare industry, by turning the public against the public option and reform in general based on a series of half-truths and lies.

"The ads sharply criticized the high costs of the separate bills, especially the House version. The commercials warned the legislation would raise taxes for Americans and hurt the economy as it tries to recover from the recession. And some chamber-financed commercials attacked setting up a government run plan to compete with private insurers -- a special sore point for the insurance industry -- which is part of the House measure. The U.S. Chamber has spent approximately $70 million to $100 million on the advertising effort, according to lobbying sources. It's unclear whether the business lobby group went to AHIP with a request to help raise funds for its ad drives, or whether AHIP approached the chamber with an offer to hit up its member companies."