'A pen warmed up in hell' | Reality-based commentary about Phoenix, Arizona, and the nation.
No CommentsAlan Greenspan is worried about his reputation and is trying to set the record straight in an interview with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal. I was prepared to be sympathetic after reading this quote:
"I was praised for things I didn’t do," Mr. Greenspan said during one
of three interviews at his sun-drenched office in downtown Washington,
D.C. "I am now being blamed for things that I didn’t do."
But then the reporter tells us that the former Federal Reserve chairman "doesn’t regret a single decision." This makes my bullshit detector go off. How could any thinking person live a full life, especially one at the pinnacle of international leadership, and say with a straight face they have no regrets. Even Frank Sinatra had a few.
Greenspan wants us to draw the correct lessons from his tenure and the current market disaster, so that we don’t implement the wrong policies. But what if the wrong policies are the very ones implemented on Mr. Greenspan’s watch?
1I wonder why news organizations are even covering, much less hyping, the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus before Congress this week. We know nothing will change. President Bush will do as he pleases. He has shown the president to be above the law on torture, eavesdropping of American citizens, environmental policy, etc. Why should the president be above common sense?
All three presidential candidates will be among the members of Congress questioning Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. This, too, will be entirely predictable. McCain, why is slyly trying to conflate Sunni and Shia extremists for a gullible public, will proclaim that the escalation ("surge") is a success. Obama and Clinton will try to look presidential and tough without alienating the anti-war elements of their party.
Nothing will change until we have a new president and more Democrats in Congress. The only question is whether anyone has the guts to level with the American people about what the change will be.
No CommentsMany days the Arizona Republic reads like a bad real-estate supplement to the National Lampoon, but today is especially priceless. The editorial proclaims Glendale as "center of the Valley."
Nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd. And Glendale has quite a group gathering. It includes far more than ever-loyal football fans drawn to University
of Phoenix Stadium to watch the Arizona Cardinals fight for a win. It’s more than hockey fans or screaming concert-goers drawn to Jobing.com Arena. It’s more than the baseball fans who will certainly flock to Glendale’s
spring-training complex near Loop 101 and Camelback Road next spring.
I compressed the dodo short paragraphs and will cut the reminder for the sake of your gag reflex, but you get the idea. It talks about the developers and real estate ventures and concludes, "Wow." I am sure the Pulitzer judges are already taking note.
3As far as I can tell, the Arizona Republic devoted a mere four paragraphs to the latest evidence of the state’s dismal school system. Here they are:
Arizona spends less on educating its kids than almost any state in the
union, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released Wednesday.In 2006, the state spent $6,472 per student, or $2,666 less than the
national average. Only Idaho and Utah spent less. The report has ranked
Arizona second or third from the bottom in per-student spending dating
to 2000.The state Legislature caps the amount of money schools can receive from
the general fund and in property taxes, said Chuck Essigs of the
Arizona Association of School Business Officials. That formula is more
restrictive than the majority of states’, he said.Arizona also ranks in the bottom three when tallying money spent on
instruction, including teacher pay and benefits. Administrative costs
can’t be blamed for eating up the money, either. Arizona ranked second
from the bottom on money spent on administration of individual schools.
So that’s that. We can go back to the ever-desperate "everything’s fine!" Of course, it’s not.
2In the ever-desperate effort to keep you distracted, the corporate media are forced to scrape quite deep today, telling you that the husband of an obscure senator had sex with a prostitute in a Troy, Mich, motel. What on earth don’t they want you to know?
Things like the erosion of American latitude in foreign policy — some might even call it sovereignty. And it’s all our doing, whether through our thoughtless votes at the ballot box or our votes in what we buy and how we live.
We’re supposedly committed to a war on terror, or a struggle against "Islamic fascism," to use the "conservative" phrase. But who is the biggest sponsor of terror? Our friends, the Saudis. This news comes not from some conspiracy site but from the Bush Treasury department, which reported quietly that Saudi Arabia remains the largest funder of al Qaeda and other extremists.
Meanwhile, nations are talking about boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics to protest China’s horrendous human rights record. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel apparently will not be there. You can bet President Bush, the leader of the Free World and a man who pledged to support democracy across the globe, will attend.
1
2Maybe it was inevitable, with the closing of the frontier and the amassing of so much wealth, with the death of history teaching in schools and the idiocy inducing drug of television. Maybe it was inevitable with all this and more that America would become a nation of whining children.
Fresh evidence comes today with the theater of oil executives being called before "outraged" members of Congress to defend their obscene profits at a time when gasoline profits are so high. As the Washington Post reports:
Lawmakers seeking a way to deal with rising concern among motorists
took aim at the oil companies and the record profits they registered
last year amid record oil prices "I believe the laws of supply and demand when it comes to oil and gas are broken and completely malfunctioning," said Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.).
I hate to break it to the distinguished gentleman from the Constitution State, but the laws of supply and demand are functioning perfectly well.
1
2In my David Mapstone Mysteries series, the Maricopa County Sheriff is a Mexican-American tough guy — bull-headed, manipulative, egotistical, fascinating. Nobody ever accused him of violating prisoners’ rights, however, and he brings an ambivalent realist’s view to illegal immigration. In real life, we get Joe Arpaio, who casts himself, thanks to a gullible media and public, as "America’s toughest sheriff."
Many real police officers have nothing but contempt for Arpaio — they call him the "badged ego" for his endless publicity stunts. They talk about how the media leave largely unexamined the troubled record of Arpaio’s department (an honorable exception is the weekly New Times and my friend, journalist John Dougherty). But nobody wants to listen to reality in Arizona, particularly when the Arpaio fantasy so appeals to the simplistic minds of the many Anglos who want the Salt River Valley to be Des Moines with hot weather.
The latest spectacle involves Arpaio sending deputies and "posse" members into the city of Phoenix to arrest illegal immigrants. Phoenix PD wasn’t happy about it, and Mayor Phil Gordon belatedly condemned it, albeit before a safely sympathetic Hispanic audience. An Arizona Republic poll — an unscientific, self-selecting Web thang — shows most support the sheriff.
Whatever faith-and-prejudice-based ether Arizona’s Web lurkers live in, the reality is far different. Arpaio plays to the mob while doing nothing to address this complex issue of, in Joe Wambaugh’s words, lines and shadows.
12The candidates are giving speeches on the economy, ranging from Obama’s correct diagnosis that corporate political power has driven much destructive policy to Clinton’s programmatic wonkishness to McCain saying speculators should receive no federal bailout. Unfortunately, he means individuals who face foreclosure, not the big financial institutions that caused the housing and mortgage collapse.
The nation faces more economic challenges than at any time since the Great Depression. But overall America is so wealthy that the stresses and dangers are concealed; their most severe consequences may not be felt for decades. Nobody has all the answers, but I will lay down some markers to watch. These are based on history, the test of time and the reality of today’s economy. I wonder if the candidates will address them (we already know McCain’s answer)?
1
No CommentsOne of the most fascinating changes in my lifetime has been the militarization of America. It’s not just the rise of the national security state with the Cold War, extended vastly by the so-called war on terror. It’s not just the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned against, where profits drive policy, often to disastrous ends. It’s not even the necessary burdens of being a superpower, or, if we’re not careful, an imperial power.
It’s the whole "support the troops" religion that has grown up. In fact, Americans were historically suspicious of a large standing army. Support the troops? Newly commissioned, young U.S. Grant was heckled and ridiculed when he came home from West Point. It made him forever shy away from gaudy uniforms. World War II was fought by citizen-soldiers who wanted to get the job done and come home. Architects of the post-war world sought collective security with diplomacy and strength. Americans had been oppressed by a king with hired troops. They knew from ancient history that permanently militarized republics eventually became centralized tyrannies.
Do we even think about these things as we "support the troops"?
2
No CommentsFrom today’s New York Times, a story that adds ammo to my skepticism that Obama can win. The headline: "Obama’s Test: Can a Liberal be a Unifier." Imagine a similar question about McCain: Can a conservative be a unifier? The historical record says no, but set that aside for a moment. The supposedly liberal media continue not only to give McCain a free ride, but to buy into the destructive narrative about "liberals" and "conservatives."
The Times writes:
To achieve the change the country wants, he (Obama) says, “we need a leader
who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and
bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things
done.”
But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can
such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was,
by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?
Also,
and more immediately, if Mr. Obama wins the Democratic nomination, how
will his promise of a new and less polarized type of politics fare
against the Republican attacks that since the 1980s have portrayed
Democrats as far out of step with the country’s values?
So are we to believe that breaking the military in endless wars of choice, installing a theocracy of ‘family values’ intolerance, ignoring global warming, wrecking the constitutional separation of powers and whittling away the middle class in favor of a corporate elite are "in step with the country’s values"? God help us if they are.
1