'A pen warmed up in hell' | Reality-based commentary about Phoenix, Arizona, and the nation.
No CommentsI 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 CommentsIn 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.
1Maybe 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.
1The 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)?
1One 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"?
2From 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
1
No CommentsFor everyone who was stirred and moved by Barack Obama’s inspiring and intelligent speech this week — one of the finest of my lifetime — I have bad news. He will not be the next president. He may not even be the Democratic nominee. I pray and hope that I’m wrong. But the evidence is not good.
Why? Maybe it will be because, as Matt Bai pointed out in the New York Times Magazine, Obama only wins urban areas with concentrated black voters and states with few blacks — not enough for an electoral majority. He loses in the critical places with real (segregated) diversity, such as Ohio:
What this suggests, perhaps, is that living in close proximity to other
races — sharing industries and schools and sports arenas — actually
makes Americans less sanguine about racial harmony rather than more so.
The growing counties an hour’s drive from Cleveland and St. Louis are
filled with white voters whose parents fled the industrial cities of
their youth before a wave of African-Americans and for whom social
friction and economic competition, especially in an age of declining
opportunity, are as much a part of daily life as traffic and mortgage
payments.
Maybe it will be because Hillary Clinton has shown she will destroy the party rather than lose the nomination. Maybe it will be because Obama is such a threat to the community of interests that wants things to stay as they are (no need for conspiracy theories).
2After five years of war in Iraq, we know a few things. None of them gives us much comfort for the future.
We know that, contrary to President Bush after 9/11 (used as a false pretense for waging war in Iraq), that everything did not change. That was certainly true on the home front. For the first time in American history, taxes were cut as the nation went to war. Most Americans were asked to make no sacrifices at all — indeed, we were told to "consume" more (imagine that admonition from FDR). Americans continued the unthinking choices that helped lead to the mess in the Middle East, chiefly driving ever longer distances in automobiles. Televised and electronic distractions continued and even increased. Many Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack. The media unthinkingly report on "al Queda" in Iraq, although it is a separate group of insurgents that emerged as a result of the invasion. Most Americans, it seems, have "moved on."
No Comments
No CommentsIf only Admiral William Fallon had been involved with a $5,500 call girl named Kristen, or maybe had murdered a blond coed…
I don’t say this to libel this honorable man, but only to make the point about what it might take to get the attention of the addled, coddled, willfully ignorant American people about the really important things that are happening in the world. These thing will affect them far more than the hookers or coeds, or the "local news" that dominates their corporate-owned newspapers.
No Comments
2We have more than a recession. The bottom has fallen out.
We debate whether the United States should torture prisoners. We debate it and the “in favor” argument wins. Not once, but again and again, for years now.
At the birth of the Republic, Gen. Washington forbade the mistreatment of British and Hessian prisoners of war. He hoped we would indeed inaugurate “novus ordo seclorum,” a new order of the ages. Because the Founders knew they were establishing a republic of men and not angels, they set this new order on a firm foundation of the law, particularly a Constitution based on separation of powers and, especially, checks and balances against the excesses of the executive. It wasn’t just that the Founders had rebelled against a king; they took their cues from ancient Rome, and knew how an emperor could use constant war as an instrument to destroy peoples’ liberties.
Constant war and torture.
1