I don’t know if you remember the days when newscasters would routinely smile when the Dow Jones Industrial Average ended the day in positive numbers. It was a not-so-subtle sign that “The system is working” for those who profited from the financial sector. For the rest of us, a smile meant good news — even though we probably had no idea what they hell the numbers meant, or what all this talk about “The Dow” was about.
Something like that is happening now, as newspapers report the surge in stock markets. And it’s clear that the move many countries have made to nationalize banks and inject capital into the system to loosen up credit may have the desired effect. The headlines won’t say anything about “Socialism Saves Capitalism,” but that’s pretty much what’s going on. Yes, it is ironic, but if we’ve learned anything in last eight years, irony has reigned supreme among the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.
The party that supposedly hates nation-building, had to become advocates of nation-building. The party that promotes freedom and derides “government interference” were zealous in supporting policies that lead to government intrusion into the lives of Americans. The party that believes in low taxes and curbing government growth, spent tax money and increased the size of federal bureaucracies in a way that would give FDR chills. And finally, the party that has been ramming through deregulation policies affecting the financial sector, has had to French kiss socialism to provide a trillion dollar safety net to keep the world-wide economic panic from reaching a depression. (more…)
There’s a phrase made famous by Thomas Hobbes, used to great effect in Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, and that is: Homo homini lupus. That Latin phrase roughly translates to “Man is a wolf to man,” and strikes the keynote to part of the powerful film War/Dance.
The film, exquisitely shot by Sean Fine and directed by Andrea Nix Fine, tells the story of a group of Ugandan children who live in a government camp that offers 60,000 refugees a semi-safe haven from 20-year war between the Ugandan government and the Christian terrorist group known as the Lord’s Resistance Army. The leader of the LRA is Joseph Kony, and his overt aims are to build a Christian theocracy in the northern region of Uganda — which is home to the Acholi tribe. However, what the LRA is really doing is abducting children (who often have to kill their own parents) and forcing them to fill many roles (i.e., soldiers, sex slaves, and torturers) as the LRA attempts to build their utopia. Kony claims to be creating a society based on the Ten Commandments, but, as it’s been pointed out by many human rights organizations, the LRA routinely violates many of the commandments they claim to uphold (the first, obviously, is not to kill.)
In this war-torn environment, we meet three children (Rose, Dominic and Nancy) who live in the camp and have had to witness horrors no one should. Nancy’s father and mother were abducted by the LRA one day while working in the fields, and Nancy and her siblings had to hide for three days in the bush before fleeing to the safety of the government camp. Nancy’s mother eventually escaped from her captors and was able to briefly stay with the kids before moving to another city to find work. Nancy’s father didn’t survive. He was killed almost immediately upon capture (hacked into pieces by a group of kids wielding machetes) and his wife was ordered to pick up the pieces of her dead spouse and bury him.
Rose’s parents were also killed by the LRA and their bodies were displayed in a gruesome way. She recounted a harrowing story of a time when she was brought to the place where rows of pots were boiling with human remains, and shown the head of her mother. Throughout much of the film, there’s an emotionless shield Rose and Nancy use to protect themselves, but it certainly cracks when the girls recount their tragic loss and the alienation they feel. (more…)
My political/economic socialization came during the heady days of free market zealotry. 1984 was a year when it seemed like many of my friends — who never cared for politics or economics in high school — found a new religion at college: free market economics. Fueled by the Reagan-era drumbeat that the free market can take care of itself, I had to suffer through endless panegyrics about how government regulation was snuffing the life out of a potentially vibrant economy that, if left to its own devices, would shower down the goodies of jobs, better pay, more products, and better services to the masses. The joy with which they talked about this new utopia had the conviction of an Amway convert in search of willing salespeople to join in on the pyramid scheme.
In the political realm, deregulation and lower taxation take the form of a V, where those at the top of the income bracket paid the least amount in taxes, creating favorable conditions for a surge in economic growth. It all seemed to be going as planned — even through recessions, and um, Bill Clinton’s tax increase (Shhhh!). The prescription for a good economy was to continually reward those at the top with a “less is more” approach. In good times, lower taxes. In bad times, lower taxes — and if you do, we’ll all get more in terms of a vibrant economy. One problem is that while people love the sound of lower taxes, they don’t really like it when their government benefits get cut — unless those benefits are framed in such a way as to evoke a negative response. Case in point, the term “Welfare.” I once explained to friend who was enjoying his free market high that I was on welfare (I’m such a buzzkill sometimes).
“Huh? What? Are you on food stamps?” He said.
“Nope,” I said, “I go to a state university and the good people of California pay taxes to maintain that system so I can get an education at a very discounted rate.”
“Well, that’s not welfare,” he snorted.
“Really? What would you call it, then? The free market?” I asked.
“Um no. I would call that an investment into the education of the citizenry,” He opined.
Between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Those are our options in dealing with this financial mess — or so it seems if you’ve been following events since the initial government bailout of Freddie and Fannie. Our, ahem, esteemed leaders in the Bush Administration have acted in a way that’s all too familiar when there are warning signs in the air: do nothing until critical mass has been reached, then make an unprecedented power grab in the name of security. We’ve seen this before: Bush ignores a report about Bin Laden hell bent on attacking the U.S. – and one method is using hijacking airplanes and flying them into icons of western power. 9/11 happens, and what’s the response? How were we to know that terrorists would use airplanes as missiles?
The run-up to the Iraq war: a case study in scaring the hell out of Americans. You remember, right? That “New Hitler” named Saddam Hussein was this close to getting The Bomb, and if we didn’t act, well, let’s just say mushroom clouds going off in American cities would have been in our immediate future. If that wasn’t enough, just throw in a few references to 9/11, Bin Laden, terrorism and one, two, three, we have a compliant populace ready to surrender those pesky things called rights to the government — all in the name of security and overthrowing the New Hitler.
This, my friends, is crisis politics in a nutshell, and it all comes at a price. How much, you say? Well get this: we’re spending over $300 million a day in Iraq, the cost of creating our newest bureaucracy (The Department of Homeland Security) is roughly $37-40 billion a year, and now with the current financial crisis, Congress is supposed to roll over and play dead while they hand over $700 billion (perhaps $1.8 trillion) to the Treasury Secretary to bail out failing or failed financial institutions. You start to add that up, and you’ll see we’re talking about real money here. Might I add that all of this money is being allocated and spent as both candidates for president are talking about tax cuts. If it all seems a bit unreal, that’s because it is. The debt that the government is incurring won’t be paid by us here and now (because, you know, taxes are evil). Rather, it’s being pushed farther and farther into the future where our profligate debt will be some other generation’s problem. (more…)
If journalism is the first draft of history, and history is argument without end, then Matt Taibbi has fired the opening salvo of a new argument about the current political and religious culture in the United States. I can just see grad school papers 20 years from now with titles like, “The Deranged Decade: The Hegemony of Myth in Political Manipulation, 2000-2008.”
The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, & Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire is laced with gallows humor but also some sharp observations about certain sectors of American culture. What Taibbi is concerned with is the way in which Americans construct protective bubbles around themselves with narratives about the big bad world — which are more often than not delusional, deranged, and flat-out wrong. He arrives at this conclusion while reporting on the Iraq war as a “embedded” journalist for Rolling Stone magazine. While stationed at “Camp Liberty”– where 30-foot walls are constructed to protect the soldiers inside from attack (even though bombs are randomly being set off by Iraq insurgents) — Taibbi reasons:
Over time I started to feel in my bones that this weird walled-off archipelago was itself a profound metaphor of American domestic reality … the more I looked at them, the more they reminded me of the freaky-tall bulwarks on King Kong’s Skull Island: masterpieces of architectural overkill, the panic visible in each extra foot of protection, walls designed to keep something in, not out. In America we live in a bubble and the rest of the world is a dangerous mystery, about which many legends may be spread by those cunning and unscrupulous enough to bother. The outside world has become scary enough that most of our people have decided not even to bother trying to figure it out — which is how you end up with such lunacies like They hate us for our freedom and 9/11 was an inside job.
Taibbi takes one for the team (and that would be Team America) by not only embedding himself with U.S. troops in Iraq, but also in the Bible Belt as a convert to Cornerstone Church. He also takes us inside the U.S. government and confirms in one chapter what the likes of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have been telling us for years: When it comes to the day-to-day business of the government, there is very little that differentiates the Republicans from the Democrats.
He has the unenviable task of faking his way through indoctrination and baptism as a born-again Christian. He often feels terrible about his fake identity, is appalled by the rampant hatred that permeates sermons that are supposed to “lift the spirits” but are often reminiscent of the “Two Minutes Hate” in Orwell’s 1984, and flummoxed by the lack of understanding of not only world geography but a basic understanding of the geography of the United States (one of his fellow converts had no idea where New England was, even after he rattled off the names of the states that comprise the region. Only when he mentioned the New England Patriots did she have a slight understanding of what he was talking about). (more…)
The current breathless “Sarah Palin Watch” going on in the mainstream and not-so-mainstream media is one of those political phenomena where the accuracy of her claims doesn’t really matter to those outside the chattering class. That’s because it’s not so much what she says as the image she projects. But that image has to project a certain something with keywords directed to the political base and swing voters (at this point in the game, swing voters are about 21% of the electorate and they have a high opinion of both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden).
If you had a chance to see Palin’s big debut at the Republican convention, it’s clear she can throw a punch with a red meat speech written for her. However, one thing that’s not too clear (well, not to casual political watchers) is Palin’s inside-the-Beltway political tactics regarding allegations of abuse of power as governor of Alaksa. The so-called “Troopergate” scandal (can we get away from attaching “gate” to political scandals?), and her behind-the-scenes maneuverings to gum up the investigation give us a glimpse of what a McCain administration would be like if Sarah is part of the day-to-day business of governing in the White House. However, because Republicans are masters at changing the political narrative, we’ll have to wait to see how this plays out in the future. In the meantime, it’s an out-and-out hard sell for the hearts and minds of swing voters.
The latest polling indicates that 42% of the electorate are committed to Barack Obama, and 37% are committed to John McCain, so now you see what the game is: make sure your base of support is motivated to show up on voting day, and lure as many swing voters as you can. The 5% difference in committed votes between the candidates means they have to hustle and speak to those who are on the fence. What do the fence sitters want to hear the candidates talk about? The expression “It’s the economy, stupid” is pretty much front and center. Forget “Hockey mom,” or “Executive experience” for swing voters; candidates have to convince them that they can address their concerns.
What are swing voters concerned about? Pretty much the same thing as the majority of the electorate: (more…)
An Open Letter to Hurricane Gustav
By Ted Asregadoo
Damn you, Gustav! I mean, how could you have the audacity to downgrade from a Category 3 to the Category 2 and not hit New Orleans practically straight on –like Katrina did? Didn’t you watch the video the RNC put together to reassure the Gulf Coast (i.e., the Republican base) that Republicans were “on it”? Didn’t you see Rick Perry in front of “Texas Task Force One” looking us in the face and saying, “Taking care of citizens … it’s what we do”? I know, it was hard not to snicker, but I bit my lip hard and made myself forget how much “care” Republicans heaped on those who survived your friend Katrina.
Have you no heart not to point your fury at the Big N.O. and fill that bathtub to the overflow point? I mean, Bob Riley of Alabama was appealing to the better angels of our nature and telling us that our values like honor, courage, and dedication will lead to a recovery, but only if you leveled the place! And have you no decency, Gustav? At long last, have you no decency, sir? Because if you did, you would know that Charlie Crist of Florida said that through tragedy we will see an increase in self-sacrifice and the spirit of helping one another. Haley Barbour “felt” our prayers and has seen firsthand the outpouring of charity in the aftermath of tragedy. And it’s through those tragedies will we see the “partnerships” that form between the Federal and state governments.
Gustav, didn’t you know that it was because of you that we were all going to put on our “American hats, ” roll up our sleeves and get the job done? Since you didn’t fulfill your role as a “Lucifer’s Hammer,” it’s going to be tougher for Republicans to stick to their revised narrative of “Serving a cause greater than self-interest.” I am so disappointed in you, Gustav. So terribly disappointed. (more…)
Jon: What were your impressions of Ted & the Kennedys? He looked pretty good, considering.
Ted: He did a very good job. Kennedy finished probably his last political speech, and it was nice to hear and see him look so vibrant.
Jon: If, as you say, this was Ted’s last political speech, it was certainly high on emotion…if utterly devoid of substance. It was as though he were running purely on motor memory…how to give a rollicking speech full of Kennedy-esque rhetoric, without actually saying something. I found it interesting to hear him speak within 24 hours of reading news reports of Margaret Thatcher’s rapidly advancing dementia. An era is ending, a generation of leaders is falling by the wayside–and I don’t (merely) mean to be snarky when I note that John McCain is only four years younger than Ted, seven years younger than Thatcher. Chris Matthews put it succinctly: “We have watched a Kennedy grow old.”
Ted: He’s a guy who represents the last of the liberals who have attracted so much ire from the Right. Kennedy’s brand of liberalism (characterized by the term “Big Government”) is one that became increasingly marginalized by both the Right and the DLC since the ’80s. To end up on the stage talking about Obama — whom he supported in the primaries — was a nice passing of the torch to a candidate who’s not a Kennedy liberal or a Clinton/DLC type.
Jon: Interesting perspective you have–though I actually think Obama is more of a Kennedy liberal than he would want to admit to the nation in general.
Ted: I don’t really see the same kind of “Big Government” stuff coming from Obama, but…
Jon: It was fascinating watching the choreography of Ted Kennedy’s appearance play out. Beforehand, Caroline Kennedy, John Kerry and others claimed they didn’t know whether Ted would speak at all, and on MSNBC Olbermann and Matthews seemed not to know either. After allowing that suspense to build, only afterward did Olbermann, without a hint of apology or irony, begin his analysis with, “They told us that speech would be four minutes long”–making clear that they knew the speech would be happening all along. I wonder if Fox made the same effort to build suspense for an audience full of Kennedy-haters; heck, I wonder if Fox showed Ted’s speech without contemporaneous heckling from Hannity. Maybe a Fox viewer can let us know… (more…)
The Bureau of Labor Statistics for July states that 5.7% of Americans are unemployed. Percentages are sometimes difficult to visualize, so how about this number: 8.8 million people are officially out of work.
The number of the unemployed is actually higher, because the BLS only counts people who file for unemployment insurance.  However, in the official numbers, you can view the stats by certain categories to see who’s losing a lot of ground. In July, whites were unemployed at around the national average (5.1%). If you’re African American or Latino, the unemployment rates are much higher (9.7% and 7.4%, respectively).
One of the most shocking numbers is for teenagers. Yep, teens get a category, and the rate is just a little over 20%. For a bit of a comparison, the unemployment rate peaked at 25% in 1933 for all workers. Of course, that’s an average, and there were parts of the country were whole populations were unemployed because of something called the Great Depression. These days we’re not anywhere near depression levels in terms of unemployment and the economy tanking, but we are in an era where a number of factors have aligned to produce a real downward drag on sectors of the economy. The price of oil, the credit mess, war, real estate woes, decreased consumer spending, and prices for goods and services increasing mean that we’re going to languish in the economic doldrums for the next year or so. Businesses are spending less, too. If staff cuts can balance out the bottom line, then cut away — or face extinction.
Government solutions to crises like this run the gamut of tax cuts to direct cash payments to individuals to stimulate the economy back into a period of growth. The economic stimulus checks that went out did help goose the economy a bit as consumer spending slightly rose. But really, people aren’t complete fools, and most paid down their debt or saved the money if they could afford to. It seems in the “rational actor” world of economics, people know we’re in a shitstorm, and they’re battening down the hatches. (more…)
If you were a conservative back in the days of the New Deal, lobbing verbal grenades like “A traitor to his class” at Franklin Roosevelt was as common as clearing your throat. Indeed, the political right in the U.S. spent a good many years in the proverbial wilderness as WWII, the post-war boom, and the collective embrace of modernism ascended. By the time Barry Goldwater took the political stage to demand “a choice, and not an echo,” many within his own party saw him as a crank.Â
New Deal liberalism was the dominant paradigm (to use a fancy-pants term), the middle class — a good many of whom were ensconced in suburban bliss – were happy to vote for Republicans who were basically “Democrat-lite,” and big business groomed and nurtured company men who would enter the “system” as eager drones, and exit with a pension and a golden retirement.  “Pleasantville” for some? “Happy Days” for the fortunate?  Maybe so, but the culture within this paradigm was clearly no haven for those who inhabited it. If it were, there wouldn’t have been the rebellion of the mid-to-late ‘60s. Sure, the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement had a great deal to do with the rebellious ‘60s, but they also gave Goldwater conservatives an opportunity to revolutionize their party. (more…)
The current breathless “Sarah Palin Watch” going on in the mainstream and not-so-mainstream media is one of those political phenomena where the accuracy of her claims doesn’t really matter to those outside the chattering class. That’s because it’s not so much what she says as the image she projects. But that image has to project a certain something with keywords directed to the political base and swing voters (at this point in the game, swing voters are about 21% of the electorate and they have a high opinion of both McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden).
An Open Letter to Hurricane Gustav
Jon: What were your impressions of Ted & the Kennedys? He looked pretty good, considering.
