On Pragmatism

In a piece over the weekend, "Sounds Great, But What Does He Really Mean", Alec MacGillis writes:

Across the political spectrum, though, there is grumbling over the label. After the election, former Bush adviser Pete Wehner wrote that the word does not show where Obama would take a stand. "When gale-force political winds hit, pragmatists, because they do not have deep-seated convictions, rarely hold shape," he wrote. "A pragmatist avoids hard choices. A great leader makes them."

On the left, the Nation's Chris Hayes argued that Obama supporters were embracing pragmatism after incorrectly concluding that Bush had struggled not because he had the wrong ideology, but because he had an ideology, period. "Obama may [say] he's interested in 'what works,' " Hayes wrote, "but what constitutes 'working' . . . is impossible to detach from some worldview and set of principles."

....

"It's possible to be ruthlessly pragmatic in terms of how you get to an objective," Reich said, "but the phrase is nonsensical in terms of picking an objective."

That leaves us searching for the intent and belief beneath each "pragmatic" approach so far.

The dichotomy* suggested that pragmatism is about means while principles is about goals is a false one:

In the real world, goals collide. There are few transcendant goals that rise above all other interests. Economic growth might come at the cost of the environment, yet jobs at the cost of a healthy, sustainable world is also a problem. A practical problem-solver would seek the greater good, balancing interests, and not side with one goal to the total exclusion of another in a dogmatic, absolutist fashion (eg. "To hell with global warming, we need to create jobs!")

A fair and responsible leader knows that s/he has to look out for ALL of our interests, not just a few special interests, who push their goals and ignore consequences for everyone else. Special interests and absolutist ideologues have wrecked this country with their strident, uncompromising approach to grab the maximum advantage for themselves to the detriment of the greater good of society. Any compromise, no matter how sensible and modest, has been fought tooth and nail, all in the name of "principles", which others might call dogma.

Also, the article makes some silly claims. Such as that pragmatism results in different approaches for different issues. On commenter remarks:

Websters Dictionary--Pragmatisim: dealing with events in the light of practical lessons or applications relating to state affairs. Gillis--- Obama pragmatism: "very different things in different arenas, it turns out." Well DUH!!!!

While the Bush years exemplifies the folly of saying, we will use a core set of principles to approach everything -- we see how well that worked out -- it is not just that his principles were wrong. It is that that approach is wrong. This isn't to say that we don't make moral judgments. But that experience and evidence matters and effectiveness matter as well. In other words, a little less righteousness, a little more data.

There even may be a generational aspect to this, which MacGillis is missing. People younger than the Baby Boomers may be fatigued by the Culture Wars that characterized that generation over the past several decades. Perhaps it is time for a new approach -- methodical empirical problem-solving.

*It's interesting to note that false dichotomies were one of the critiques of philosophy by pragmatists:
Dewey, in The Quest For Certainty, criticized what he called "the philosophical fallacy": philosophers often take categories (such as the mental and the physical) for granted because they don't realize that these are merely nominal concepts that were invented to help solve specific problems.

The "Ticking Timebomb" Fallacy

In today's Washington Post, Michael Scheuer trots out the usual argument about the "ticking timebomb scenario":

In surprisingly good English, the captive quietly answers: 'Yes, all thanks to God, I do know when the mujaheddin will, with God's permission, detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States, and I also know how many and in which cities." Startled, the CIA interrogators quickly demand more detail. Smiling his trademark shy smile, the captive says nothing. Reporting the interrogation's results to the White House, the CIA director can only shrug when the president asks: "What can we do to make Osama bin Laden talk?"

Let's pretend that this 0.0001% scenario -- which has never occured -- happens and that the US captures a top Al Qaeda member who has fresh info on a pending attack.

1.We wouldn't know that there was a pending attack. Scheuer's scenario is a joke: OBL would not say a word until it was over. A child could poke holes in this. Without being handed gifts of crucial intel by captives, we would be guessing. We might be wrong, and would likely (99% of the time) be torturing someone who doesn't know of a pending attack.

2. Even if we know, the enemy would simply lie. If tortured, they would lead you on a wild goose chase to the wrong location, the wrong city, and the bomb would go off anyway somewhere you hadn't evacuated. Indeed, if OBL tells us that within one hour, NYC will be destroyed, we would have to worry that this is misinformation meant for us not to evacuate DC. The incentive for the terrorist to lie and achieve success in their plot is immense. They are willing to die.So, even though the terrorist would simply lie to us, the pro-torture camp is willing to destroy the ideals of our nation because of this one immature, paranoid fantasy. But wait, there's more!

• Opportunity costs: How many valuable man-hours was wasted following up lies, and what is the opportunity cost of missed real leads?
• How do you know it's really a terrorist? Innocent people could be tortured. Scheuer cleverly uses someone who is obviously a terrorist. But in real life, we might not know. The injustice of torturing someone who doesn't know anything or is the wrong person is grave.
• Our soldiers will be tortured. Get ready for American soldiers being waterboarded, and the video probably being uploaded to the internet. Worse still, we won't be able to complain and the world will feel little sympathy.
• We lose the moral highground and 'soft power' which buys us cooperation and respect around the world. Being respected means fewer people are motivated to attack us, and people are more likely to inform on people who might.
• (And this last one might not convince hardcore torture fans, but allow me to get on my soapbox.) We forget what we are fighting for and who we are as a nation. We once prosecuted Axis powers for their cruelty and abuses. How sad that some want us to adopt their methods. I thought the reason we fought Nazis and Communists was because they were evil, and not just because they were rivals. People fought and died for our freedoms and for our civilization and ideals.

Now how much would you pay for the "benefits" of letting yourself be duped by terrorists??

I also note that Wikipedia has an entry on this fallacy (perhaps some intrepid WaPo editor could have Googled it?)

Some human rights organisations, professional and academic experts, and military and intelligence leaders, have absolutely rejected the idea that torture is ever legal or acceptable, even in a so-called ticking bomb situation. They have expressed grave concern about the way the dramatic force and artificially simple moral answers the ticking bomb thought-experiment seems to offer, have manipulated and distorted the legal and moral perceptions, reasoning and judgment of both the general population and military and law enforcement officials. .....They believe that simplistic responses to the scenario may lead well-intentioned societies down a slippery slope to legalised and systematic torture. They point out that no evidence of any real-life situation meeting all the criteria to constitute a pure ticking bomb scenario has ever been presented to the public, and that such a situation is highly unlikely.
The distorting and misleading nature of the scenario is in part due to the fact that it is most often presented in a manner that keeps many of its assumptions hidden. Once exposed, it becomes clear that the scenario is either wildly unrealistic or that any exception to the prohibition of torture would be much more widespread than the proponent of the scenario originally suggested. The scenario thereby manipulates moral and ethical judgment by obscuring the true moral cost of tolerating any act of torture....

For instance, it is asked whether torture would be limited to suspects, or whether one could torture the family and friends of a suspect to make him compliant. According to John Yoo (the former Department of Justice official who wrote memos justifying President Bush's policies on torture) this would be legally permissible, including crushing the testicles of the person's child to obtain information.[6]
If we imagine that officials might attempt to justify torture of people whose phone numbers happened to be in a suspect's mobile phone or agenda-book, in their desperation to find useful information, the range of possible victims of "ticking bomb" torture becomes much wider. Another point is the notorious unreliability of the information gathered, e.g. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi.

Pretty grim stuff -- torturing children of terror suspects. But according to the "ticking timebomb" spinmeister's logic, it is probably only a matter of time before the US is torturing children -- hey, if it saves New York City? If it's Osama Bin Laden's child and would get him to "talk", why not? How about it, Scheuer? Are you going to own the full implications of your argument?

Clearly, the only real "ticking timebomb" is this failed argument, which leads us down a dangerous and disturbing path.

The only question remaining is simply why is our media culture so intellectually inept that they can't poke holes in this very flawed argument, and perpetuate a fallacy that has been debunked so thoroughly?

Domestic Terrorist Sympathizers & Apologists

Malkin and other righties were 'outraged' yesterday at the DHS report on domestic and rightwing extremists. Never mind that it was a year in the making (75% of that would presumably have been under Bush, a Republican last time I checked).

But what's interesting here are the ironic parallels to the debate over Islamic extremists a few years ago:

• Post-911, conservatives castigated 'moderate Muslims' for not loudly denouncing the radicals preaching hate in their midst, and said that their silence encouraged the extremists implicitly.
• Conservative bloggers who, a few years ago, were trolling around MEMRI for examples of Islamist "hate speech", now claim that their YouTube snippets are "taken out of context".
  
• Today (as well as in the past, such as the 1990s militia movement), we have conservatives who do not loudly denounce the copkillers, the mass shooters, the racist hate groups, the anti-government militia types, in their own midst and among their listeners.
• Instead, we get something like what we heard from Palestinians and other Arab Muslims after 9/11: "Of course it's too bad that all those people were killed. But they do have a point!"
• And we have the same dynamic of radical speech leading to radical actions, with plausable deniability: Glenn Beck can claim that he wasn't advocating the shooting of police when he told listeners about 'FEMA concentration camps' and other conspiracies, like that 'Obama is coming for your guns'. ("Because he will slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun. He will make them more expensive; he'll tax them out of existence. He will because he has said he would. He will tax you gun or take your gun away one way or another. ")
  
• Michelle Bachmann can claim that "armed and dangerous" was figurative. Just like radical clerics preaching hate didn't actually blow up anything.When that Saudi cleric, or better yet, Ahmadinejad, says that Israel should be "wiped off the map", I guess that's a figure of speech as well.
  
• So my question to these domestic terrorist sympathizers -- Beck, Bachmann, Malkin, Savage, Hannity -- is exactly which part of the Pittsburg shooter or church killer's views do you disagree with? These domestic terrorists claim to be followers and fans of your views. So where do you part ways? Do you just disagree with their means, or are they correct in advocating "killing liberals" and the "government taking their guns" and so forth?

I think we need to ask this question of the people who seem to mostly agree with the views of domestic terrorists. Their views of the government seem not that far apart from a Jim Adkisson or a Timothy McVeigh. Are we hearing the same old excuses? "Of course I am against violence, BUT ...." (There's always the "but") And then they proceed to blame the government for causing the killers to have to kill.

So rightwing pundits, do you think that the domestic terrorists who agree with your views "have a point"? What's the difference between rightwing pundits and their radicalized followers, and fundmentalist Islamist preachers and their radicalized followers?

Kindle: Digital vs. Print

Josh Marshall at TPM pondered the future of books in light of Kindle:

When I think about it I kind of miss it [newspapers]. In a way I regret not reading them. But I just don't. I vote with my eyes. And I wonder whether I'll soon say something similar about books.

As far as Kindle or other e-readers replacing books, I'm skeptical. The trend in digital technology is more options not fewer. A lot of people keep searching for the "one device" or format that does it all, but people are happy having many dedicated devices that do different things well. Example: An mp3 player has a better form factor for playing music, than say, a phone that also plays music and requires a few more clicks and fewer/no dedicated buttons for playing music. Dedicated devices do one thing really well. Do-it-all devices do many things adequately and often awkwardly.

A paper book is one such "Dedicated device" -- large type, very high resolution (the highest, in fact), works great in the tub, on the beach, while eating lunch, etc. without worrying about breaking or scratching. My dog or toddler can't destroy it, and if lost or stolen, won't cost me a fortune to replace.

E-books are great for trips, for the subway, etc. But not for reading in bed (you might roll on top of it in your sleep!). The Kindle seems very thin and very fragile, and you'll worry about scratching it or the kids messing it up.

And for the foreseeable future, print is easier to read, has higher resolution and larger type. A printed book can be 600 dpi. iPhone's is about 160. My PC is about 72. This is why reading an entire book on a computer screen is unpleasant for most people -- it strains the eyes because of the lack of detail.

Printed books will remain larger, and the size of books has been selected over time as the optimal reading size. But devices like iPhone or Kindle are necessarily smaller an will remain so -- their convenience is their pocketability & portability. If they get much larger, they will become awkward to carry. This is why the PDA doesn't replace a laptop -- it sucks to read long form on, and is crap for entering text. The result is people want all options -- a laptop for writing and editing, an iphone or blackberry for short, mobile communications, maybe a Kindle for fast access to many books, and a paper book or newspaper for leisure or at the beach (don't get sand in your Kindle!). Forget "convergence". We live in an era of multiplicity.

This isn't to say that e-books might not alter some sections of the publishing industry -- those enormously heavy and expensive textbooks for college kids come to mind -- and that it won't have a big impact. Stuff with a short shelf-life, also seems likely to go totally digital. But just that it isn't an either/or proposition.

I think hardback books -- perfected over centuries and nearly ideal for their purpose, as well as aesthetically beautiful -- will stay strong for books people want to collect. More dispensable and ephemeral texts -- software manuals, school textbooks, pulp fiction -- might get hit hard, and you might see some of them move exclusively to e-books if they can ever make screen reading more comfortable -- but we're not there yet.

Sullivan on Health Care

In a mostly laudatory on Obama's presser the other night, Andrew Sullivan brings up health care:

On healthcare, I fear that restraining costs means rationing in the end and expanding the power of the public sector in ways that will reduce patient choice and slow innovation and research. At the same time, I can see that the combination of our current expectations and the revolution in medical science will mean huge increases in spending which, because healthcare is distributed through third party insurance, is very hard to curtail without more government.

...On healthcare, I'm not so sure. It's hard to oppose the upgrade in information technology as a cost-saver. I can see the merits of getting more people insured. As long as any reform is careful to prevent the private sector being squeezed out of business, I'm open to persuasion. But I'm more cautious on this than most, I guess. I value the private healthcare system in the US, that, for all its faults, has innovated medicines that have saved my life. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/last-nights-pre.html

Which country is Sullivan living in? Our system is a absolute train wreck:

* American products have about a 15% premium versus foreign competitors due to companies shouldering the burden of health care, which has quadrupled and now takes up an extraordinary amount of our GDP. GM, even if well run, couldn't hope to compete with Toyota or Volkswagen. Those firms don't pay huge sums for workers health care since their governments 1) cover a lot and 2) control costs.

* Health care costs are crippling small business. Many people who want to start their own business are disuaded from the horrors of so-called "individual insurance" (I say so-called, because the pre-existing exclusions and various riders and other schemes basicalyl make it not cover any actual illnesses, or merely try to make it so expensive that you give up)

* For every story about "miracle drugs" that save lives, many more are lost due to the total lack of safety net: get sick > lose coverage > die. Or Lose your job, lose coverage, go bankrupt. (Most bankrupcties in the US are due to medical expenses -- at least this was the case before the housing collapse) BUt no worries - George Bush told us that if you are uninsured, just show up in the ER!

* While the enormous sums we spend on health care don't actually deliver good health (we die younger than Canadians, for instance), you're right, they pay for a lot of research that helps people around the world who don't have to pay for it.

* ALL industrialized nations have national health care systems other than the US. The lies Republicans spread about "socialized medicine" fall apart when you look at nations where people are not terrified of getting sick and losing their house, or losing their job and thus their health care. And my personal experience in several other nations was BETTER than in the US. Americans are being duped -- we have the WORST health care.

*Our miserable health care "system" is killing small business, which creates most of the jobs and leads to tomorrow's big businesses. We are failing in many ways because of our lack of will to solve this huge problem. This is a travesty that Americans are like a third world nation when it comes to health care safety net. And yet a few monied special interests -- doctors, drug makers, insurance companies -- are able to keep their strangehold on the nation for their own personal benefit.

Sullivan is, in my view, clinging to Republican dogma here about "miracle" medicine in the "great" US health care system. Take off the rose-colored glasses. (And conservatives are supposedly the ones with the cynical yet realistic view of the world)

Bush's second coming

Here we go again!

Another "reformer with results" country
governor who masks extreme rightwing views and total incompetence with
folksiness and platitudes about being "compassionate". Jus' folks!!

Just
another pretty face on the ugly policies of environmental destruction,
more subsidies for Big Oil, more wars and hatred abroad, and more
partisan warfare and religious extremism at home. Now that America knows and hates Bush, the GOP changes the costume and sends us more of the same.

When she speaks, expect a lot of vague, faux-moderate positions. Just like Bush's "humble foreign policy" and being a "uniter not a divider", it will be 100% lies. Just like that humble fp involved torture, gitmo and two wars.

But the lapdog corporate MSM will lap it up -- I bet she spends her weekend clearing brush and will be a lot of fun to have a beer with! Never mind the death of civil liberties, that the only "Choice" left will be for rapists to handpick the mothers of their children, the extinction of polar bears, the decline of the American economy, and the erosion of rule of law. Yum, luv that BBQ!!! Get me some more charonnay for the tire swing!!


Frum (conservative):

George W. Bush had very slight executive experience before becoming president. His views were not well known. He won the nomination exactly in the same way that Palin has won the hearts of so many conservatives: by sending cultural cues to convince them that he was one of them, understood them, sympathized with them. So that made everything else irrelevant in 2000 - as it seems again to be doing in 2008.

http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDg5NzEzNGUyNmNlMGZhMjI0YmJmOWJhYzE0NWE0ZmU=


HuffPo:

But McCain is not Bush. ..... Now Palin? Palin is Bush. What helped propel Bush into the White House was not only some effective electoral nullification. It was his lack of a record in public office. The governorship of Texas is one of the more ceremonial of all the governorships in this country. The state legislature calls the shots. Bush came into power with less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama has now. And was "elected" to two terms. Bush had no foreign policy record to examine.....

We know nothing about Sarah Palin. Nothing. Which is not anywhere near enough information to elevate her to the position whereby she would succeed McCain if he died in office or suffered a catastrophic illness. At 72 years of age and in questionable health, McCain's fitness to coach a high school football team would be in doubt, let alone the grueling reality of the presidency of this country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/john-mccain-is-not-george_b_124464.html

From the Economist:

Inexperienced and Bush-level incurious. She has no record of interest in foreign policy, let alone expertise. She once told an Alaskan magazine: “I’ve been so focused on state government; I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq.” She obtained an American passport only last summer to visit Alaskan troops in Germany and Kuwait. This not only blunts Mr McCain’s most powerful criticism of Mr Obama. It also raises serious questions about the way he makes decisions.

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12066224


And last, just for fun, book-banner, rapture-awaiting Sarah W. Palin unmasked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhjuRMi_78U

Slate: Racism is McCain's only hope

I know this isn't exaclty a newsflash, and is fairly obvious for a while now. But Slate's Jascob Weisberg stops the charade and tells it like it is: It's all about race. The inspiring talented Obama is only close to the befuddled backward-looking McCain for one reason: racial prejudice. I have to agree. All the MSM euphemisms and laundry list of supposed reasons for the race being tight are, at the end of the day, 100% bunk.

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

Of course, playing up the racism issue won't help us. I know that. Calling out the subtle and not-so-subtle racist tactics of McCain-Rove & Co, will only help them. But I thought this article deserved attention nonetheless.

It ends with this ominous warning. And perhaps this is the more important point. A choice of McCain might signal the end of America's preeminence, a moment when a courageous forward-looking nation that led technological and democratic revolutions lost its nerve and succumbed to fear and prejudice once and for all.

Choosing John McCain, in particular, would herald the construction of a bridge to the 20th century—and not necessarily the last part of it, either. McCain represents a Cold War style of nationalism that doesn't get the shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics, the centrality of soft power in a multipolar world, or the transformative nature of digital technology. This is a matter of attitude as much as age. A lot of 71-year-olds are still learning and evolving. But in 2008, being flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer, seems like a deal-breaker. At this hinge moment in human history, McCain's approach to our gravest problems is hawkish denial. I like and respect the man, but the maverick has become an ostrich: He wants to deal with the global energy crisis by drilling and our debt crisis by cutting taxes, and he responds to security challenges from Georgia to Iran with Bush-like belligerence and pique.

You may or may not agree with Obama's policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change. To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn't just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation's historical decline.

Joe Klein: McCain's "severe character defect"

A harsh rebuke from the Time columnist, but right on point. The rest of the MSM should take notes for a pundit who finally and comes out and speaks the truth.:

But there is no excuse for what the McCain campaign is doing on the "putting America first" front. There is no way to balance it, or explain it other than as evidence of a severe character defect on the part of the candidate who allows it to be used. There is a straight up argument to be had in this election: Mcain has a vastly different view from Obama about foreign policy, taxation, health care, government action...you name it. He has lots of experience; it is always shocking to remember that this time four years ago, Barack Obama was still in the Illinois State Legislature. Apparently, though, McCain isn't confident that conservative policies and personal experience can win, given the ruinous state of the nation after eight years of Bush. So he has made a fateful decision: he has personally impugned Obama's patriotism and allows his surrogates to continue to do that. By doing so, he has allied himself with those who smeared him, his wife, his daughter Bridget, in 2000. Those tactics won George Bush a primary--and a nomination. But they proved a form of slow-acting spiritual poison, rotting the core of the Bush presidency. We'll see if the public decides to acquiesce in sleaze in 2008, and what sort of presidency--what sort of country--that will produce.

McCain Fun Facts!!

I was thinking it might be fun to make a big list of things average people didn't know about lil' Johnny McCain.


* When his first wife Carol was in a bad car accident and seriously injured, he dumped her for a blonde heiress 20 years his junior.

* Abandoning his injured wife was a smart move: His new wife had political connections and millions in the bank. This was his path to the Senate.

* He cheated on his heiress trophy wife with a lobbyist. Literally "in bed with lobbyists", namely Vicki Iseman, who lobbied the FCC with McCain's help

* He publicly called his trophy wife Cindy a c**t and a trollop. He infamously told dirty jokes about then 13 year old Chelsea Clinton

* He boasted in 2000 of "hating gooks", and only under pressured retracted the statement

* Even though Karl Rove & Co. slimed his adopted daughter with false and racist rumors in 2000, McCain actually hired the same crew to run his 2008 campaign

* Famous on Capitol Hill as a hotheaded, vindictive grudge-holder. Kicks reporters off his bus who write anything critical.

* Senator McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts for the superrich, while Candidate McCain now supports them enthusiastically

* Senator McCain consistently voted against renewable energy time and again, but Candidate McCain pays lip service to clean energy

* Senator McCain boasts of being the scourge of lobbyists, but Candidate McCain's campaign is actually run entirely by lobbyists

---------------------------------------------

Did I leave anything out?

Feel free to share these with your friends!

The Politico: Rightwing Spin Machine

Last week, I wrote about how Politico is Trojan Horse "journalism":

Obama stalls in public polling
By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 8/6/08 4:48 AM
He should have a healthy lead. Yet in poll after poll, Obama conspicuously fails to cross the 50-percent threshold.

They pretend to be an inside baseball type news org, but are really closely tied to the Republicans. Their slanted, slanted coverage shows this very clearly.

Well the rightwing GOP mouthpiece Politico is at it again. Their top story today:

7 worrisome signs for Obama
By GLENN THRUSH | 8/11/08 4:29 AM In a year where the fundamentals strongly favor a Democrat, their candidate has yet to pull away. Here are seven reasons for Obama to worry.

Virginia is tied, a traditional solid red state turned "swing state", yet Obama is the one with worrisome problems??

The big problem is that TPM and other media outlets routinely treat Politico as some independent news organization. It is no such thing.

An astute commenter pointed this out:

"This Washington Post article -- entitled "The Bank of Dad" -- details how Robert Allbritton's entire career was shaped and molded by his father, who handed him everything (including the money he is now using to fund The Politico). Joe Allbritton -- who is Texan -- has all sorts of close ties to key Republican power centers, including the Bush family:

He donated the portrait of Reagan that hangs in the White House. Former president George H.W. Bush has attended Allbritton's post-Alfalfa brunch. When George W. Bush's inaugural parade passed the Riggs branch on Pennsylvania Avenue, he spotted Allbritton and said, "Hey Joe, how are you doing?"

And Salon.com correctly identified Politico as a rightwing cesspool:

I once thought that Politico would be a pernicious new addition to our rotted media culture. Instead, it actually provides a valuable service by packing every destructive and corrupt journalistic
attribute, in its most vivid form, into one single cesspool.

When will TPM and other news outlets figure it out: Politico is nothing other than an RNC spin machine. Every single word is propaganda. Quote it only as you would quote Karl Rove himself.

More Rightwing Hackery from The Politico

Top story today:

Obama stalls in public polling
By DAVID PAUL KUHN | 8/6/08 4:48 AM
He should have a healthy lead. Yet in poll after poll, Obama conspicuously fails to cross the 50-percent threshold.

We've seen this constant Obama-sniping and MCcain-cheerleading all year. So please, please stop mistaking the GOP-funded outfit The Politico as some impartial source.

Politico = Drudge 2.0

Top signs of Netroots overreach

I'm not saying we're there yet, but what would be the signs that so-called "Netroots" has moved from a smart, savvy, often prgamatic and energetic movement to push progressive reform into hubris and power-hunger?

Some suggested signs:

* Start making lists of enemy Democrats you want to defeat -- instead of Republicans

* Requiring all Democrats to kiss their ass publicly and bow down and grovel (sort of like the Religious Right does).

* Liberal use of threats: Defy us and you "will pay!".

* Forget that we've only won a single election cycle (One!) and in many cases by slim margins (VA)

* Act like you are the voice of "The People", when in fact still a minority voice

* Conflate America's souring on the GOP with America becoming suddenly very progressive in all things

* Say things like "Hey, you're 12 points ahead, he can afford to lose a few points of [insert pet issue]"

* Spend all their time threatening/punishing/harassing/badgering politicians for not making unpopular decisions that are losers at the ballot box instead of trying to convince the larger public on the issue (making it easier for the politician to do the right thing)

* Anything that smells like Naderism: the sanctimonious, leftier-than-thou sneering that labels anything too popular or sensible or -- gasp -- winning as "too corporate/mainstream for me".

* Intolerant attitude towards healthy criticism (Kos' recent remark that if you don't like his refusal to contribute money than "fuck you")

Any others?

Salon: "The right-wing Politico cesspool"

I've always suspected this of the Politico, which is being treated by the MSM as impartial. Their tone, however, is very much slanted.

Speaking of Politico's sycophantic service to the GOP, Allen's colleague, David Paul Kuhn, today has an article about how gay marriage is going to help McCain win the election and doom Obama among independents and working class voters. Last week, Kuhn wrote an article reporting that GOP operatives were excited about the prospects of McCain winning in a "blowout." Several weeks before that, Kuhn wrote an article about how the Iraq War's growing popularity among Americans would be a huge asset for McCain and doom the Democratic candidate. Not even the most shameless GOP hack makes such absurdly optimistic claims about the GOP's electoral chances -- at least not out in the open. They just have Kuhn and Politico do it for them.

I once thought that Politico would be a pernicious new addition to our rotted media culture. Instead, it actually provides a valuable service by packing every destructive and corrupt journalistic attribute, in its most vivid form, into one single cesspool.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/30/allen/index.html

Glad to see Greenwald nail them.

Bittergate: Proof of Rightwing Media Bias

The faux "bittergate" scandal is winding down, but I do want to call attention to one thing overlooked: The press reaction has been that what Obama said was a "gaffe" and politically perilous, the worst crisis since Rev. Wright. My question is (the horse race aspect aside) why???

Specifically, the remarks on clinging to guns, God, and anti-immigrant sentiment are singled out. The key point overlooked is that the remarks that are supposedly untouchable are taboo only from an ultra-rightwing perspective. From a liberal perspective, they are entirely legitimate, and more than that, totally correct ,at least from a liberal POV.

Think about it:

Guns - If you are a Democrat, you support reasonable limits on firearms, period. Why is the entire media and political establishment pandering to the gun nuts who will never in a million years vote Democratic? And look at the appalling silence at massacres such as Virginia Tech which are repeated again and again. There was no outcry, largely because the entire media establishment has been co-opted by the right. Pols pander to gun-nuts (and "gun nuts" there are -- sportsman don't need copkiller bullets or assault rifles) but why does the MSM roll over for the NRA's extremist views?

God - Religion is even more of a rightwing boondoggle. Religious political activists push their fanatical extremist views on everyone else, to the point of terrorism in some cases (assassinating abortion doctors, for instance). They bash gays, jews, muslims and women's rights. Democrats really are about tolerance and minority rights and about separating church and state.

Anti-immigrant sentiment - This is the worst one IMHO. We listen to Lou Dobbs rabble-rousing nightly on the supposedly centrist CNN. We hear about Minutemen stalkers harassing latinos. What exactly is wrong about speaking out against hatred and intolerance? Why is speaking out against hatred and xenophobia taboo? Is the MSM pro-xenophobia? It is unfathomable to me who would be offended by the phrase "anti-immigrant" othre than immigrant-haters. If the shoe fits.

First off, I am not talking about Obama's views on these issues. He's a bigtent Democrat who wants to reach out and not be divisive. Fine.

But what about the media, what's their excuse? Why have they swallow the GOP's version of political correctness? And I'm not just talking about the usual suspects like FoxNews and Politico. But ostensibly centrist news like CNN, MSNBC, Time, New York Times and so forth.

Why has the media rolled over to the point that it goes without saying that "urban" and "educated" is bad, that "guns" and "anti-immigrant" are good.

Bittergate brings it all into focus. The mainstream media is thoroughly infected with extreme rightwing values.

US Healthcare is sabotaging our economy

The U.S. healthcare non-system is approaching Soviet-level dysfunction. Not only does it cost more than every other developed countries, but the outcomes are worse than most. So Americans pay more and die younger.

But it's not just costly. Here are other reasons why the U.S. healthcare SUCKS:

• Opportunity costs -- many small businesses and entrepeneurs have given up due to enormous costs on small businesses. Many flee to corporate jobs with benefits. Who knows the number of possible Googles or HPs that could have happened. Small businesses are far more creative and agile than the big giants, but our insurance mess hurts the little guys the most.
• Bad doctors - the U.S. has a higher rate of bad doctors who make mistakes, and a lot of them. American hospitals are now so incompetent they have to write with markers on people's body parts so that they don't operate on the wrong one!
• But people are stuck with bad and overly busy doctors -- most Americans have to go to the docs in their HMOs book. Problem is, so is everyone else. Thus you can't get them on the phone, and it takes weeks to schedule and appointment, and you will surely have to wait at the office even with an appointment.
• Why are these doctors so busy? One reason is they have to spend an enormous amount of time dealing with billing issues and fighting with the greedy, unhelpful insurance bureacracies. These insurance companies constantly try to bid down prices and wiggle out of paying, and paperwork is weapon of choice.
• Of course, doctors and hospitals aren't stupid, so they'll try to pass the costs and paperwork onto you. If the insurance won't pay, you get to sort it out. You'll be the one on the phone with for an hour with a call center employee who 1) doesn't know anything 2) has no power to fix errors and 3) is mostly there just to waste your time in an effort to wear you down so you'll pay up.
• These are just off the top of my head. But the inefficiencies and excesses of our current system are reaching critical mass. This is an enormous amount of money and time wasted for no good reason. Worse yet, that's money, time and effort that could have been spent productively elsewhere.

Common sense would say that this system is broken and we should fix it. But the insurance companies, awash in profits, and their lapdog politicians, will try to tell you not to. The question is, will commonsense and the average citizen win out, or will the powerful healthcare industry crush opposition once again?

Archives: Comment about LiveAid

Thanks to the reader who posted this mini-essay:

The Live8 thing was a waste of money and time. These rich pampered celebrities don't have a clue about jack. They want to act all compassionate, but as you said, they are just throwing money at the problem. If they truly cared, they would find out what the problem really is. When they do, they wouldn't bother with any silly concerts. How patronizing.

As an African, specifically, as a Nigerian, I can tell you that while European colonization had an impact on us, our problems, at least those in Nigeria, are totally Nigerian-made. We have enormous wealth, but it is all in the pockets of a few, who don't care if the country goes up in flames, as long as they are well taken care of. Ghana was colonized just like we were, but they seem to be functioning much better than we are now, and we are much richer in resources. Now whose fault is that?

Someone wrote about shell. Shell polluted the soil and environment in the oil-rich areas of Nigeria, and for that they are horrible. But guess what? If our government actually cared about us, they could have stopped shell from doing it. But they let it continue. I place the primary blame on the Nigerian government because Shell is after all a business trying to make the maximum profit. (Note that I am not absolving Shell of responsibility.)

It is not the obligation of the West to take care of our problems. It is our responsibillity. All ours. Maybe these celebrities need a way to feel more important and self-righteous. Maybe they really want to help. But they are at best misguided.
[...]

By the way, veraciraptor, thanks for acknowledging that Africa is not just one big country, like a high school student I taught thought, but a continent with probably more distinct countries than any other, and many different cultures. In Nigeria alone, we have over 250 distinct ethnic groups.

By the way, veritas7 mentioned the current Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, who founded Transparency International. He is just the opposite of transparency and is as corrupt as the worst of them.
[...]
Finally, the West is not to blame for all the problems in the world. It is highly patronizing to think so. We in other parts of the world can do a good job of messing ourselves up all on our own, thank you. We are not helpless mindless children. The West needs to get over the guilt of success (sure, you all did your fair share of trampling on others to get where you are, but that's not my point at the moment), and people need to stop hating on America. Sure, the US has made many mistakes, but I suspect a lot of the criticism is rooted in envy. America is not the worst country in the world. In fact, it is a great country. I can name many, many countries far worse than the US where you would definitely not want to live, trust me, (and I'm sure you can too).

Well said.

Lou Dobbs, the demagogue

I am sick and tired of Lou Dobbs' drumbeat of demagogy and bullying night after night after night. This has got to stop. CNN has become worse than Fox in its xenophobic propagandizing. When exactly did they stop trying to objectively report news as opposed to badgering the public with your views?

Dobbs' non-stop immigrant-bashing is simply unconscionable at this point. Targeting powerful lawmakers is one thing -- although the easy pandering and posturing is hardly courageous, nor particularly informative. But Dobbs routinely targets the most helpless sector of society for his malicious bullying. He is contributing to a climate of xenophobia rising in this nation. He brings on yes-sayers who agree with his views to ensure that no actual debate takes place, or he brings on people to bully and talks over them.

I will stop watching CNN until Dobbs' excesses are restrained and objective news reporting is brought back as the standard. This is not only my view. I've heard many others comment about how unhinged and over-the-top Dobbs' segments have become. "Screed" is an apt description.

Have you, at long last, no decency, Mr. Dobbs???

Leaf blowers = lazy, greedy, destructive

Face it, the only reason people like LBs are because they are L-A-Z-Y. Americans are fatter and lazier than ever. We'd rather destroy the earth and fund the Sauds than actually get some exercise with a good old fashioned rake.

The mean, greedy, lazy aggressive SUV, leaf blower culture is a corruption of the true American spirit IMHO. Americans were once humble, hardworking and down to earth. Now we're becoming selfish, lazy bastards who will run people over for a parking spot -- just to save from walking an extra 50 feet. The leaf blower is the ultimate in selfish behavior -- you annoy your neighbors on a Sunday morning, you blow dust and dirt over to their side, you pollute the earth so your children will have to deal with it, all because you can't get off your fat lazy a** and do some real work for a change (as opposed to sitting on your fat a** behind a computer all day like most of us).

So to sum up, the LB morons would do all this to avoid spending 30 minutes getting exercise raking up leaves, or even getting their kids to do it and get some exercise (you know, outdoors -- away from the PlayStation):

• pollute the air
• contribute to global warming
• give themselves and their children allergies, asthma and lung cancer
• spend more money for a $100 LB than a $10 rake
• annoy their neighbors, deal with local ordinances
• have to buy fuel, maintain equipment
  

And all because they are too lazy to do some real work, and want their lawns to look like an artificial golf course.

Sheer annoyance and dirtiness aside, leaf blowers are a symptom of a larger problem-- the decline of the American soul.

Congratulations America!

Wonder of wonders, there hope left yet. The Republicans, whose main purpose now seems to be simply to hold on to and amass power, got the whooping they surely deserved. I think they learned an important lesson:

1. When there is hubris,
2. Then there is nemesis.
   

Bu$h + G0P want to fool America again

There they go again: While Americans are getting slaughtered on a daily basis in America due to a strategy gone adrift, while Bin Laden plots his next hit, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld want us to focus on issues that "really matter" like gays marrying, saving embryos from research and beating up on fumblemouth John Kerry.

Come on -- do they think this nation is stupid enough to get distracted into voting for them again? They've tried fear, smears, and queers. Why are they so desperate? Has power becoming the only thing they care about, more than the conservative principles they lost long ago, more than American democracy??

My gut tells me that Americans like a divided government. It keeps them honest. It checks their worst instincts, and limits the damage they can do. Reagan got a Democrat congress, and Clinton got Republican congress. Americans want a counterweight and oversight of the unhinged, out-of-touch, and increasingly dysfunctional White House.

Bush/Cheney = Anti-American!

After careful consideration, I've discovered a solution to the current political crisis: Bush and Cheney should move to North Korea. The benefits include:

• One party rule: Rove wanted "permanent majorities". They'll be happy with no opposition whatsoever
• Fawning worship of the Dear Leader: Just like questioning "Your Commander in Chief" (sic) is 'unpatriotic' and 'offensive', questioning the Dear Leader will lead to internment in a camp.
• Cooperative Media: No pesky questions, no doubts, only rah-rah happy talk from an obedient propagandized media. This is FoxNews on stereoids!

The only caveat is that some aspects of Saudi Arabia might appeal to them:

• No abortion!
• No feminazis!
• No stem cell research!
• Prayer in the schools -- at last!
• God decides policy! This ones for you Georgey.
• Morality police - enforce "family values" with a whip
• No Hollywood values - no sex in movies, and indeed, no women in movies!

What Bush and Cheney and the GOP rightwing in general doesn't need is this pesky American democracy with all its faults:

• Separation of church and state
• Federalism and state's rights
• Vibrant and critical media
• Independent judiciary
• Checks and balances, and congressional oversight
• Regular elections

Who needs that? So why wait -- we, the American people, with our cooky democratic traditions should buy them their tickets today! Others agree, on the Left (1) (2) (3), and the Right (1) (2) (3)

Dictator's Book-of-the-Month

I couldn't believe how Chomsky happily accepted the boost in book sales after Chavez mentioned his book, and never once mentioned that Chavez rewrote the Venezuelan Constitution to givee himself more terms. While it is actually illegal to insult Chavez in Venezuela, and protestors there have been shot at and killed, Chomsky is happy to accept accolades from an increasingly authoritarian demagogue simply because he is a fan and a Leftist. That is classic Chomsky at craven, unprincipled best.

Here's why Chomsky is terrible:

1. Chomsky is a deceitful and arrogant - dismissful of counter arguments, panders to fans, and only appears in comfortable environment (sounds like GWBush actually)

2. He's manipulative with language - confusing situations are labelled as "unambiguous", controversial references are cited to "authorities" on the subject ....

3. His fans are unquestioning, obedient hero-worshippers for whom he can do no wrong. This is exactly the authoritarian society we want to avoid -- cult of personality, and mindless followers. Questioning one of Chomsky's statements lead to angry denunciations by the dittoheads. The mindless, knee-jerk defenders of Chomsky are so uncritical that it can only be termed a faith-based community, not an intellectual one.

4. Fringe politics: Chomsky claims to be an anarchosyndicalist. There should be a disclaimer when he speaks that he does not support liberal democracy, and instead supports a system that almost no one would want to live under or even knows about or understands. Thus, American democracy is evil even if it acts virtuously, since it never lives 'up' to his bizarre political fantasies of how things 'should be'.

5. Chomsky's anti-US slant is worse than useless, and actually enables the GOP, for instance, to ravage the US Constitution, since its only opponents on the US Left are off tarring everything with the same broad utopian strokes, and not attackiong the truly anti-democratic practices. To people like Chomsky, the Democrats are just as bad and part of some "system", so why fight against Bush and Cheney? The result: misery and tragedy for millions because the Left is busy fantasizing about Utopia and their own moral superiority.

6. Lack of scholarly ethics: Chomsky lies and distorts his own record when he errs, making endless excuses and even simply avoids the issue. Serious scholars have to be honest about mistakes and also limits of their research. They have to be fair with citations and also fair to counter arguments. His ruthless and dishonest academic style is poisonous, the academic equivalent to Karl Rove's destruction of American politics.

7. The Killing Fields: Why does Chomsky not admit that he questioned and enabled the Cambodian genocide? Thirty years later, he is still making excuses. He called the "socalled genocide" a New York Times creation. Now he lies and makes excuses. I want some accountability.

The Dictator

American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said, "The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions."

Bush is destroying the US constitution, our civil liberties, all for supposed electoral advantage and his own power lust. His dwindling supporters want a strong authority figure. I think they're in the wrong county. This is the US, land of the free, mistrustful of government, independent, loudmouthed, never obedient. Or it was.

What a collosal shame. Shame on bush and his kowtowing servents. Shame on these true anti-Americans, who hate everything beautiful the USA has stood for.

All because of a few cowering terrorists. 1000 Al Qaeda vs. 300,000,000 Americans, and WE'RE the ones who are supposed to be afraid all the time???

End the Fear. Down with Bush. Down with the corrupt, disgusting, vile, sicko, criminal Republican party.

Anti-Columbus Day: The Hypocrisy of the PC Crowd

Here we go again. Another year, another chance for Leftist hatemongers to bash and badmouth Columbus day. They view it as a day of infamy when those "evil Europeans" came to the New World.

It makes you wonder -- why exactly we are supposed to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month , then? The Spanish were the first to arrive, and Spanish culture wiped out much of the native culture. Our Leftist loudmouths have some strange racial (and racist) hierarchy going on. Conquistadors = okay. Pilgrims = monsters. (As an aside, this parallels the demonizing of the Puritans' religiosity as crazed extremism, while lauding Muslim's far greater piety as "their culture" which should be "respected".)

Second, none of these bigots is ready to correct the "mistake" of human migration and give up the deeds of their house to some American Indian tribes and pack up for the Old World. I guess that would spoil the fun of the ritual badmouthing, whining, demonizing, preaching and the feeling of superiority that comes every year on Columbus Day.

American Multiculturalism's Own "Minutemen"

America is certainly one of the biggest success stories in history of a multicultural immigrant nation. Much of the U.S.' strength comes from the energy that new arrivals and new cultures and ideas bring. And immigrants fair far better in the U.S. than Europe, for example (see France's Muslims for an example). So I am reluctant to criticize whatever it is the U.S. is doing, since it clearly works.

However, the recent immigration debate shows that all is not well. Many anglos are "up in arms" about illegal immigrants, especially Spanish-speakers. There seems to be a temptation on the right to go the way of Europe in putting up fences to new immigration. Insanely, some people, like CNN blowhard Lou Dobbs, want to mimmick everything that has not worked with immigration, and to dismantle the U.S.' incredible success with assimilation and rapid advancement of immigrants.

On the other side of the equation, though, is, in some quarters, a rather testy nativism of its own. By this I mean the concept of cultural or ethnic authenticity and exclusivity. American political correctness dictates that only certain "ethnicity" are correct in certain contexts. Essentially swapping "ethnicity" for the unexamined construct of "race", and promoting racial political correctness.

Want to make a movie about Israeli assassins? Better be a Jew yourself. Otherwise you risk being accussed of "insensitivity" or even, gasp, "exploitation". Every white rapper has to face the same scrutiny about whites 'stealing' yet another musical genre from blacks, as blacks were forbidden nowadays from playing blues or jazz by the inclusion of everyone else in the genre. Inclusivity is suddenly "exploitation". Academics is even worse: Imagine a European or African ancestry academic who specializes in Polynesian history, to grab an example out of the air. Despite protests in other context that such racial stereotyping would be racism (asking your Indian friend about yoga tips, or Asian friend to teach you kung fu...), in academia, having polynesian ancestry would lend an heir of "authenticity", which could in fact be total nonsense.
Moreover, an "outsider" race interested in other cultures is immediately suspect. "What is your agenda" or "why would you be interested in our culture" seems to be the accusation, along with the near-jerk criticism of "exploitation" at the slightest error. Interlopers are disproportionately under the magnifiying glass and accusations of "gotcha".

*A German filmmaker making a movie about Israel
*A Japanese book about Chinese history
*A man writing about feminism
*An African-American writing article on Korean-American social issues

Strangely, such racist/sexist/discriminatory stereotyping about who is saying it instead of what they are saying, is acceptable in certain context, even de riggeur. The message seems to be: stick with your own type, celebrate your "diversity" -- which means the homogenity of your "type" or "group", otherwise you risk being an 'Uncle Tom', 'whitewashed ', 'race-traitor', although they might never use such language outright or only in anonymous contexts. The ironic result: "diversity" > segregation. Aren't we back where we started when schools started to forcibly diversify communities to desegregate?

There seems to be a spirit, mostly in American debates, of exclusivity, of building up walls, and of a testy hostility to outsiders. Here's a little experiment: Learn Spanish and go around Miami, the most internationalized city on Earth, and strike up conversations in Spanish with people. Wanna bet you won't hear, part of the time, "hey, you think I can't speak English, jerk?" (As if speaking one language excludes another...) This is an American phenomenon. Go to Equador and try it and I bet you will make some friends even. People in other countries are actually so proud and fond of their culture, they are even flattered by someone taking the trouble to learn about them. In the U.S., it's viewed as an assault on dignity. And yet, speaking Spanish is to be celebrated to promote diversity and respect, just not by any non-native speakers. Or only when the native speaker speaks it first. And people wonder why Americans are generally poor at languages! Maybe it's because -- despite having most of the 190 nations around the world represented on its city streets -- Americans are generally discouraged from using languages by this "keep with your own kind" mentality.

In essense, there is little difference between PC racism and the wall-building mentality of the anti-immigration Minutemen. Stay out, leave us alone, we don't want your kind here. The only difference being that when the Minutemen say it, it sounds ugly and racist. When the PC left says it, they mistake their racism for a holier-than-thou enlightenment.

The good news: people don't do what they're told. People get together. Maybe the rule-breakers will overcome the wall-builders afterall...

Save the Internet!

Big Telephone and Cable companies want to ruin the internet. But a lot of tech companies are opposed to it, so there is a good chance we can fight it.

More: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

Do you want to continue the incredible innovation of the Net we know, or make the Internet more like Verizon or Comcast or AT&T, whose service is one notch above the DMV?

More here: http://www.netfreedomnow.org/

Colbert vs. Bush

All I can say is "wow":

Colbert was invited to speak at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner (aired on CSpan), and so he did. George W. Bush was in attendance, as is the tradition… and Colbert took that as an opportunity to roast him. With Bush sitting two feet away staring at him. In front of the most powerful political forces in the world. It's… well if you're a fan of Colbert's it's almost breathtaking.
...
To see Stephen talk to the President about reality's well known liberal bias, just click the links to watch the video online and behold Stephen's truthiness. Then wonder in the comments section below how the hell he got away with this.

part 1 | part 2 | part 3

- Colbert Confronts Bush with Truthiness

More comments / praise for Colbert and some more links to the videos:

Thankyoustephencolbert.org
14653 Thank yous so far

Weazlsrevenge

Bush: Worst of Both Worlds!

On the one hand:
Violates civil liberties, privacy
Breaks the laws of Congress
Violates Constitutional checks and balances
Sneaky, power-hungry, cheating, corrupt

And yet:
Are we any safer?
Where in the #$%@ is Osama Bin Laden??????????
Where's Zawahiri?
Where's Zarqawi?
Are we winning in Iraq?
Will Afghanistan and Iraq fall apart?
Does ANYONE believe we are winning "hearts and minds" in the Muslim world, or is Bin Laden???

So instead of trading civil liberties for security, we are merely losing both. No one feels safer. No one thinks terrorism is going away. No one is any closer to getting Al Qaeda. And yet Bush/Cheney are snooping in our email and phone calls, bullying Congress, lying and cheating.....


The job of the government is to protest BOTH our liberties and our security. They can't pick or choose. They have to protect BOTH. IF they CAN'T, if they are NOT UP TO THE JOB, then move out of the way and we'll find politicians capable of doing that job!!!!!!!!!!

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" ... Benjamin Franklin

"Learning to Lose"

The world is an increasingly competititve place. India, China, South America, Eastern Europe .... they can build it cheaper. But even R&D and skilled labor is moving overseas.

Yet at a time when we should be worried about falling behind our competition (which is busy cracking open science and math textbooks), what is the US doing? Wasting time over "intelligent design" nonsense...

But the U.S. educational system is failing in precisely those areas that underpin our competitiveness: science, engineering and mathematics. In a recent international test involving mathematical understanding, U.S. students finished 27th among the participating nations. In China and Japan, 59 percent and 66 percent, respectively, of undergraduates receive their degrees in science and engineering, compared with 32 percent in the United States.

Intelligent design, prayer in school, angels, "home schooling" .... any inane distraction -- meanwhile we are getting creamed by global competition. America has become the "cool kid" in the back of the class, dawdling, attracting attention, making people laugh, screwing off, meanwhile the "nerds" are busy building a foundation for success. Guess which one will be bitching later on about how "unfair" the job market is?

Eventually it may not be only Indians who wake up at strange hours and affect foreign accents at outsourced call centers... And that wall with Mexico the right is always salivating over?? Can you imagine a day when Mexicans want to keep American poor from crossing over for day labor. Or an even more likely scenario -- Canada trying to keep Americans from working illegally in their health-care paradise.
Think about this:

Right now, there's a kid in China who has his head buried in a science textbook. Right now, there's an American child surfing the web, listening to his iPod, and sharpening his thumb skills with text messages to friends.

Where will they be in 20 years?

Immigration hypocrisy

Some thoughts on a hot topic:

* Bush's policy is sensible but sneaky: The US needs farm workers, and the fact is none of these blowhards who complain about migrant workers are willing to get out there and pick grapes! Officials in CA are already saying there is a shortage of workers.

* It seems like there are two issues here: illegal immigration and immigration. Some of the people complaining about illegal immigration seem to be using it to mask their opposition to ALL immigration. If illegality is the problem, then let more people in legally. My guess is Mexicans would rather not risk death crossing the desert if there were a better way to get work.

* The loons are all over this issue: Lou Dobbs, immigrant-hating blowhard extraordinaire, is ready to explode. Others, like Bill O'Reilly, are having fantasies of a fence. Good luck, first of all. That's one BIG border to build a wall at. Second, it reminds me of the Berlin Wall, and will be viewed as a wall of shame.

* To reiterate, if the problem is the illegality (which is a problem -- we need to know that it is people seeking work who are coming, not Al Qaeda operatives), then come up with some efficient, sensible and big program that can let people in who 1) don't have thousands of dollars for complicated immigration paperwork 2) is quick enough for company hiring schedules 3) keeps track of people once they are in the US 4) has some incentive to go legal, and doesn't punish law-abiding immigrants.

As an aside, it is fun to watch the Pro-business Republicans clash with the Bigot vote. Bush wants to keep business and hispanic conservatives happy, while not offending the xenophobe rednecks who also voted for him.

Oh well, give this country another few decades. Legal or not, hispanic are becoming too large a block for this xenophobe nonsense to continue. Demography is destiny.

Foreign aid for New Orleans

I would just like to say "thanks" to the 90+ countries which offered aid to the US in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the tragedy in New Orleans. The help is very much appreciated, especially by the millions of victims of the storm and flooding. Most astounding and impressive were the offers of assistance from poor and developing countries which do not themselves have a lot of aid to give. Thank you!

Foreign aid flows in for Katrina victims
"...official statements of sympathy and aid offers from at least 70 nations, including countries usually on the receiving end of U.S. and other foreign help. Among them was Bangladesh, which Monday pledged $1 million."

Some of the countries giving aid:
Afghanistan : $100,000
Armenia : $100,000
Australia : $7.6 million
Azerbaijan : $500,000
Bahamas : $50,000
Bahrain : $5 million
Bangladesh : $1 million
Belgium : Medical/logistics teams
Canada : 2 helicopters, 32-person rescue team, evacuation flights, medical supplies
China : $5.1 million cash and relief supplies
Djibouti : $50,000
Finland : Search-and-rescue team; 3 logistics specialists
France : Tents, tarps, MREs, water treatment supplies, cleaning equipment
Gabon : $500,000
Georgia : $50,000
Germany : MREs, high speed pumps, forensic experts
Greece : 2 cruise ships
India : $5 million
Iraq : $1,000,000 cash
Ireland : $1,000,000 cash
Israel : Tents, first-aid kits, baby formula
Italy : Generators, water pumps/purifiers, tents, med supplies
Japan : $200,000 cash and $844,000 in relief supplies, $1.5 million in private donations.
Kuwait : $400 million in oil, $100 million cash
Maldives : $25,000 cash
Mexico : Transport vehicles, 1 helicopter, ambulance and medical teams.
Mongolia : $50,000 cash
Nepal : $25,000 cash
New Zealand : $1.4 million cash, search and rescue teams
Nigeria : $1 million cash
Norway : $1.54 million in relief supplies
Qatar : $100 million cash
Republic of Korea : $30 million cash and in-kind donations
Saudi Arabia : $5 million from Aramco, $250,000 from Agfund
Singapore : 3 helicopters
Sri Lanka : $25,000 cash
Taiwan : $2 million cash, medical supplies
Thailand : Forensic experts, blankets and food
UAE : $100 million cash
UK : MREs
Venezuela : Up to $1 million

Hurricane George

By now, everyone has seen the enormous disaster in New Orleans. While the city was indeed a disaster waiting to happen, Bush's slashing of FEMA's budgets since 2001, including programs to maintain the New Orlean levees, surely gutted the organization in charge of protecting citizens from tragedy.

The Bush administration's tardy response of sending in National Guard troops surely is partly to blame for many of the thousands of deaths. Worse yet, the weather forecast was spot-on, and this event was highly predictable. Everyone new New Orleans was a potential disaster, and it was regarded in the top three biggest potential disasters in the US.

Some questions that need to be answered:
So why slash the funding for the levees since 2001?
Why no additional funding to prevent this disaster? Scientists had many plans, including relocating much of New Orleans across the river, or re-establishing the wetlands and building stronger levees and a storm gate.
Why not send troops right away when you see the hurricane heading right for the city?
Why wait 5 - 7 days to fully respond-- by that time, many desperate people had died.

I think most people realize that Bush has failed this time, failed utterly, and Bush's failure cost hundreds or thousands their lives. No spin can erase the highly visible fiasco down south.

With the 4th anniversary of 9/11 approaching, it is worth noting how unprepared the government is for a major disaster -- natural or otherwise.

Then the deluge...

Horrible pictures of devastation in Mississippi and New Orleans showing the terrible power of nature. But is it just nature? Scientists tell us that the engine of hurricanes is warm surface water. As global temperatures rise ever so slightly, what is the likelihood of global warming increasing global water temps, resulting in more or possibly stronger storms, like Katrina? Maybe it is time to consider the dangerous implications of a warmer world--actually, it's long past time, but better late than never.

Worse yet, the Atlantic hurricane season is far from over. More hurricanes hitting already devastated areas. I'm not sure if that would increase the disaster, or just wash away already ruined homes. What will people do when 4 or 5 of these monster storms level everything on the southern or southeastern coasts, one after another? Maybe it is time to think of storm prevention: 1) don't warm the waters any further -- tackle climate change or at least stop making it worse 2) more robust defenses for vulnerable cities (New Orleans should never have been protected by a single sea wall) 3) consider moving cities that are doomed to a rising sea. It will be cheaper to move them voluntarily than being forced to move them by Mother Nature.

How to help: www.redcross.org

Nasrin: Anti-American hypocrite

Taslima Nasrin, the poster child for death fatwa victimization (along with Salman Rushdie), is out to prove that even victims of extremist tyranny can be nasty human beings.

Taslima was not allowed to read her poem ‘America’ during a Bengali Convention held in Madison Square Garden on Sunday evening ( 3rd of July). ‘America’ is an anti-war poem which is against weapons of mass destruction while taking a stand for humanity. As she was reading this poem, many from an audience of 6 thousand American-Bengalis booed and did not let her continue after the first few lines of the poem. Taslima had no other alternative but to skip to the end of the poem. She was soon forced by the organiser of the convention to leave the Madison Square Garden area.
People who were present commented that the objections were coming from individuals of the extreme right-wing. Thereby, they were showing their intolerance toward a view different from their own, yet they were claiming this is a democratic land where freedom of speech is a right.

We can only guess about the poem itself -- as it is not posted on her website. But we can gather it must have been a real friendly one, as indicated by the audience response. There are two things to note:

1. Freedom of speech is not the guarantee of an audience. I can write all I want, but nobody has to publish it. (Especially if it is predictable bigoted Leftist diatribe.)

2. Nasrin was a guest, a foreign visiter. I wonder how Bangladesh, her home, would respond if a Yankee went to a large stadium event and read a scathing poem called "Bangladesh"?

And I wonder about the designation of "rightwing" America-Bengalis. Is this a big problem? I never heard of Bengali brownshirts menacing the streets. It strikes me as a facile discrediting of an unfavorable response, one akin to the age-old Leftist tactic of calling all critics "fascist".

Nasrin, in a spirit of friendship after a visit to Harvard, wrote a scathing attack on the US in French: "Une Amérique irrespirable". In it, she laments that people only applaud when she is criticizing Islam but not when she is thrashing America. It is an understandable lament (if extremely self-centered) and one I think we should correct by not applauding at all.

More on Live8

Well Live 8, dominated by white, rich Westerners, is over. The South African and Japanese venues indeed turned into after-thoughts. I thought it was quaint that European Bjork tried her best to look "Asian" at the Tokyo event so that the media wouldn't have to show any footage of actual Japanese musicians, which we all know are obviously insignificant. I'm surprised no one else followed suit and donned "black-face" at the Jo'burg event. But in the end, footage of that event was so limited it proved unnecessary.

Here's some prescient criticism:

“‘The Live 8 phenomenon is part of this Western fantasy of omnipotence,’ writer and authority on humanitarian aid David Rieff continued in a telephone interview, ‘a politically correct version of the imperial impulse to give some money and all will be well, as if the problems of Africa are just the results of our not paying enough attention,’” reports the New York Times.

Is it any wonder then that the largest event and all of the founders were from the UK, with its history of "well-meaning" imperialism?

Next, look for assorted black-shirted thugs to break bottles, set fires and throw rocks in the name of "peace" at the G8. Gandhi would be proud.

European Union Empire

Hypothetical projection of the growing EU Superpower:



How far will EU "enlargement" go? Will this become the 4th Reich, or another holy Roman Empire?

Mamma Mia! Italy backstabs the US again

Once again, Leftist Italians are aggressively attacking their blood enemy. No, not Al Qaeda or other would-be massmurderers. No, the enemy is the Big Bad USA, otherwise known as StrawMan or Whipping Boy.

An Italian judge, in no way influenced by any socialist, leftwing political bias, feels that the most important criminal conspiracy he can be pursuing is neither 1) the Mafia nor 2) Al Qaeda, but rather the CIA.

Now the Italian government claims it "knew nothing", an assertion which was immediately disputed by sources in the Washington Post:

Before a CIA paramilitary team was deployed to snatch a radical Islamic cleric off the streets of Milan in February 2003, the CIA station chief in Rome briefed and sought approval from his counterpart in Italy, according to three CIA veterans with knowledge of the operation and a fourth who reviewed the matter after it took place.
The previously undisclosed Italian involvement undercuts the accusation, which has fueled public resentment in Italy toward the United States, that the CIA brashly slipped into the country unannounced and uninvited to kidnap an Italian resident off the street.

So it looks like we have a case here where Italian intelligence got the US to get rid of a terrorist threat, and now the Italians are hypocritically blaming it all on the US. The absolutely non-partisan judge, who, I repeat, in no way wishes to embarrass Berlusconi for political reasons, claims his own government of course knew nothing.

And some have the nerve to claim European "allies" aren't really committed to the war on terror! The nerve!

Michael Jackson: The Pedophilia Witchhunt

Some observations about the Michael Jackson case:

1. Pedophilia has become the modern equivalent of blasphemy -- merely the charge itself stains the accused forever, even if they are acquitted. In past centuries, let's recall, mass hysteria and a guilty-until-proven-innocent mindset resulted in people being burned at the stake for 'crimes' such as atheism, heresy or witchcraft. Historians ponder the origins of the collective madness that led to such events as the Salem witch trials. Today our witchhunts revolve around child molestation and sexuality in general. The worst crime, especially in the United States, is any crime involving sex.

2.Why is child molestation treated differently from other crimes? Sure, it's repulsive, but so are other forms of child abuse, which do not receive comparable media or political attention. I suspect that it is the sexual element that disturbs us so much. The great irony is that our culture increasingly pushes young teens and children to act more adult. It is not uncommon to see little girls wear make-up or dress like Britney spears (who herself started out dressed up in a school girl outfit). How messed up can you get?

3. The hunt for "kiddie porn" is now a global crusade. Law enforcement, with the apparent consent of a panicked citizenry, seem to think that any encroachment of civil liberties and privacy is okay in the case of child pornography, yet actual rape of adult women (and even men) remains grossly under-punished. Think about it: Possession of photographs of child molestation, including copies of old photographs or even virtual photographs, are viewed as far worse than actual sexual assault of adults -- a crime than continues to be regarded lightly even when it occurs in the US Air Force, or in American prisons.

4. Accused terrorists and their helpers receive much lighter sentences around the world than child molesters and kiddie porners. At least outside of the US, sentences of 3 - 6 years for terrorist plots is not unheard of. Thus, mass-murder, including of children, is supposedly less evil than pedophilia. Likewise, trafficking of thousands and thousands of women and children, often as sex slaves, is a huge global business, yet receives scant attention from authorities.

5. Hysteria: Many regretable cases show the hysterical aspects of pedophilia. For example, in the UK, a pediatrician -- a doctor who treats children -- was mistaken for a pedophile, and the doctor's house was vandalized with the word "pedo". Are child doctors now suspect?

6. Internet lists of "sex offenders": Again, why are sex offenders worse than other offenders, such as murderers, arsonists and robbers? In the crusade against pedophilia, civil liberties and privacy rights are thrown out the window. (Also, note that "sex offender" can include more harmless activities, such as streaking -- showing a bias against anything sexual, not serious crime per se). People mention recidivism, the statistical chance of reoffending, yet recidivism is worse for crimes like robbery than sex crimes.

7.How common is pedophilia? My guess is extremely rare, but I have no statistics to prove this. However, no one has proven to me that it is actually common. The suggestion that there is some "epidemic" of pedophilia strikes me as unproven, unscientific hysteria.

8.Today's "kiddie porn" hysteria reminds us of the "Halloween poisoning" hysteria of the 1980s, the "cars cruising to nab kids off the street", the "satan-worshiping day care abuse" scares.... all urban legends that never were backed up with data. Why is the culture of fear necessary? Why do we always have to have a 'fear-of-the-day' to terrorize us?

9.A greater irony: The hysteria over child molestation actually harms families. Fathers may be afraid to embrace their children. Accusations of child molestation may be a convenient ploy in divorce, so a wise person would avoid any incriminating activity -- a bath with a child, for instance. What is the toll on children who have distant parents who don't hug them? Is society afraid that anyone can become a child molestor??

10. Historically, this seems very strange: Many centuries ago, people didn't much care for children's sexuality, nor were children the center of their lives. Children were regarded on a level similar to property or pets. Today we obsess not only over children but their psycho-sexual development. Is this really healthy for them and for us?

Michael Jackson has been acquitted after a rigorous examination of the facts. The allegations will surely hang over him, despite a legal system which insists that people are innocent until proven guilty. It may simply be a case of a man who carelessly violated societal taboos in a culture obsessed with child sexual abuse. For that carelessness, he has surely paid a high price.

I am not minimizing the crime of child abuse nor the injury to the victims. However I am questioning the motives of our society, which has obvious issues regarding sexuality, at once puritanical and licentious, and obsessively focused on children's sexuality.

Live Aid 2 - Why the Left Needs a Needy Africa

Bob Geldof has launched a sequel to 1985's Live Aid concert. This time, he claims, the purpose is to pressure the G8 leaders to end poverty in Africa.

Some questions and comments:

1. Why is Africa the responsibility of non-Africans? Isn't this a repeat of colonialist "good intentions" to civilize Africa in centuries past?

2. If Africa really is in such dire straits, how did it get there? Wouldn't solving the root causes of its misery preferable to external aid and throwing more money at the problem? With all the talk about cancelling the debt, I would like someone to kindly explain how it got so much debt.

3. Are millionaire pop-stars really appropriate for preaching about extreme poverty? They'll take one day off to show off their social concerns before returning to their mansions and limos. Absurd.

4. Isn't speaking of "Africa" ridiculous? Some 40 + nations shouldn't be lumped together. Are Egypt, Morocco, Congo and South Africa really comparable or similar?

5. Geldof blames our leaders for the problem. But aren't elected representatives simply responding to the people's will? Aren't subsidies for domestic agricultural popular in most countries? The problem is always "them", but in reality it often turns out to be "us". Geldof, then, is a populist coward just like the politicians who seek convenient targets to blame for complex problems.

--

What Africa needs is actually more criticism. This sounds harsh, but criticism, both external and, crucially, internal, is what eliminates the corruption, warmongering, failed socialism and political abuses that have ruined much of the continent. Helping Africa means respecting that people can, and must, solve their own problems, most of which are not monetary. Live 8's approach is one of hypocritical Western paternalism, an approach that can be seen as enabling dictatorships and dependency. Ultimately, neither Bush nor Blair, nor well-meaning musicians, nor throwing more cash around, are going to save Africa. Only Africans can do that.

--

Just this week, we've watched as Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe has demolished the shanties of 200,000 homeless people. The response? Silence, from Europe, from NGOs, and predictably from Geldof & Co. The same goes for Sudan's raping and pillaging in Dafur. Political abuse and hypocritical silence, a fitting symbol of how Africa has failed, and why Live 8 will too.

Debate: Was Hitler a Socialist?

Several sites have been debating the "socialism" of "national socialism". This has been a topic of dispute at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_socialism

Here's an argument linked from that page:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle...

Several points:
1. Where does the author get this lsit of values from? Realism over idealism??? One could easily point out countless examples of racism, militarism, etc. in socialist countries. Just off the top of my head, Stalin's attacks on the Cossacks, and his planned internment of the Jews before his death. Communist countries are by and large thoroughly militarized, often choosing a large military over a well-fed citizenry.

2. The author claims that since Hitler's nationalist socialism doesn't fulfill the author's own predetermined list of criteria, it isn't "true socialism". In fact, as we read later, " socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world." So in a sense, socialism is a term that should never be used anywhere. The Nazis weren't "socialists" and nobody else was either! Even the Soviets are strangely cast out of the Socialist realm: "wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no."

3. How slippery. Thus, an argument about the Nazis state-controlled economy, attacks on "Jewish capitalism", and the strange fact that the Nazis themselves chose the word "socialism" for what they were doing are all swept aside simply because they don't live up to an ideal that has never existed anywhere else?

4. The author mistakes his notions of "right" and "left" for a definitive criteria, ignoring the historical use of these terms. If a group of people, such as the Khmer Rouge, call what they are doing "socialism", and their socialism includes race-baiting and pogroms against ethnic Vietnamese as well as paranoid nationalism, I would call that significant.

5. Some historians, also cited in the Wikipedia article, claim that the "socialist" aspects of the Nazi program were intended to appeal to workers and compete with the communist radicals. So the Nazi's socialism was simply pandering for votes? By this logic, we can imagine someone claiming Hitler was not 'truly' anti-Semitic because he was just attacking the Jews to win popularity.

6. I would argue that National Socialism was one variant of the socialist movement, one which was rebelling against the excesses of pure Capitalism and the world order especially after WWI. Some chose the path of Social Democracy, whereby abuses and injustices would be corrected through the social welfare state and a slow pace of reform. Others sought to destroy the state and redistribute wealth. Still others sought to militarily defeat the ruling powers and to wipe out the Jews who they blamed for capitalism.

7. This brings me to another often cited fact that the Nazis and Bolsheviks hated each other. The implication being that therefore, they were opposites politically. Yet, both also loathed Social Democratic parties and moderate socialists, and in fact ruthlessly persecuted such parties. I see the various parties which sought to take power and overturn old structures as competitors. Their mutual hatred came not from their opposition, but from their similarity. They were similar enough to be in direct competition.

Another site supports my last point, that both Nazism and Communism were anti-liberal, anti-democratic. For them, the slow road of consensus and reform, of complacent welfare state with all its ups and downs, with neither "glory" nor "enemies", was anathema:

Fight against liberalism in all its forms, liberalism that had defeated Germany, was the common idea which united socialists and conservatives in one common front.

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~grjan/hayeknaziism.html


Finally, another site argues that the socialist aspect of Nazism makes ex-communists particularly susceptible to its slightly different flavor of radicalism:

Although there are neo-Nazi movements throughout the world today, the phenomenon would appear to be of greatest concern in the former East Germany. There we find that apparently large numbers of young racist thugs are actively attacking immigrants in the name of "Germany for the Germans" and the Swastika is once more an insignia of terror for minorities. Yet are not these same young East Germans the product of a diligent Communist education? Surely they should have been the least likely to become Fascists? Why have they in fact become Hitler's most obvious heirs? The facts pointed out in this paper make the phenomenon no mystery at all, however. A Communist education is an extreme socialist education and Nazism was extreme socialism too. All you need to do is to add the nationalist element and you have Nazism. And nationalist feeling seems to be virtually innate anyway so, rather than actively "add" it, all you have to do is permit it -- and modern Germany is a very permissive state.

http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/hitler.html