Handwriting on the wall

As long ago as during the months before the general election, Obama revealed himself to be the "political hack" that the McCain campaign termed him. So, why are we progressives surprised at the nature of his governance, to wit, doing anything and everything necessary to be re-elected.

My favorite line from this essay

about Obama's "jobs" speech is near the end: "Republicans have never had such an effective lackey."

This morning's Yahoo! News front page is covered with stories about "jobs": Obama's upcoming speech, the Republican candidates' debate, the impact of job loss on all segments of our economy, etc. But the theme of all stories is that Obama must come up with a plan in his speech that solves the problem.

What a crock! First of all, a speech isn't going to solve anything. Laws and policies and human conduct are. Second, where's Congress in this? They pass the laws and deal with domestic economic issues, not the President. He's paramount in foreign affairs (somewhat) but domestic issues are to be dealt with by the legislative branch of government. Third, it's more than a year until the election, but the stories all deal with the political issues--who's leading in the polls; what Obama "must say to turn the tables on the Republicans"; who's at fault for the persistent economic doldrums, etc.

I'm tired of all this, so much so that I'm not going to watch the President's speech tonight, just as I didn't watch the Republican candidates' debate last night. Fuck 'em all.

Everything you need to know about our militarist empire

is found in this excellent interview, that summarizes five important books on the subject.

The digitalized novel

An interesting, incisive essay about the value of the hardcopy version of long fiction. The significance of the codex form of presentation vs. the serial presentation of the electronic tablet. To this analysis, there's this: If you drop a book on the floor, you can pick it up, leaf to the place you left off and keep reading, no doubt; with a Kindle-like device, maybe not.

Getting the bumper-sticker slogans ready

After Obama's latest outrage--scrapping EPA's proposed smog regulations--I'm more certain than ever the man doesn't deserve re-election. I've proposed in previous posts the creation of a DOV movement, realizing, however, that he'll doubtless be the Democratic nominee. But at least I can have some fun with this campaign, proposing slogans for the bumpers of Progressives' vehicles. How about these?
(1) Don't impeach Obama, ignore him.
(2) Obama--2012! ...Whatever.
I came up with a third slogan yesterday, but can't recall it right now. I'll supplement this post when I come up with it.

Supplements:

(1) Don't blame Progressives--It's not our B.O.
(2) With friends like Obama ___ ___ ___?

Your slogans?

Across the pond

their foreign intelligence leaders seem to be both wiser and, if it needs to be said, of a different gender from ours.

An interesting idea that would deal with two huge American problems

dealing with the government financial deficit and obesity at the same time.

My favorite television show

hands down is Big Cat Diary.

An idea whose time has come

Some months ago (I posted on this blog about it, but because I'm too lazy to tag my blog entries, you'll have to trust me on this) I had the idea of starting a new political party, or at least a new movement, entitled the DOV party, for "disaffected Obama voters." Actually, because the "D" could stand for everything from "disappointed" to "distressed" to "disgruntled" and so on, I reasoned that it was an appropriate acronym for a large category of voters, a big enough tent to attract some attention, even, perhaps, to wield some clout.

Well, I didn't act on the idea (the laziness thing operative again) but now I just might. I mean, there have been plenty of articles -- the most recent one being here -- that discuss how Obama's failures and his rightward shifts have caused his base to question both his political bent and his competence. Trouble is, "disaffected" and such-like terms don't capture all facets of the effect of Obama's conduct as president. It leaves out the recurring theme of essays on the subject, namely, that former Obama supporters will, however reluctantly, vote for the man because they have "nowhere else to go."

And so, what about this: DOV--meaning, in addition to all else, "Disenfranchised Obama Voters"?

A must read

for anyone who wants to understand Gorbachev, his rise, his fall and his legacy. To me, a monumental and positive force in the last half of the twentieth century, along with Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

Matt Damon for President

In case you're keeping track, you heard it here (scroll down a few posts) before you heard it here.

An amendment--an addition--to my previous post

urging Matt Damon for President ("You heard it here first"), adding Warren Buffet as his running mate.

A movie recommendation

From director Carol Reed ("The Third Man"), a relatively obscure film, "Odd Man Out," available streaming from Netflix. Fabulous black and white cinematography, street scenes of Belfast in the forties. Throughout the movie, I kept wondering, How'd they do that?

Priceless

Literally so, because George Carlin is dead. Must see video.

You heard it here first

or maybe second, because I thought of it a week or so ago, but didn't blog about it, then I heard it--a quick suggestion-- on the Rim of Fire program yesterday: Matt Damon for President.

Ya gotta love the Web

I mean, where else would you find a fabulous site like this? Sure, in the past you could stumble across a book in the library that contained such information, but wouldn't you just leaf through it then put it back on the shelf? Now you can bookmark it and have access to it instantaneously, whenever the mood strikes or the need arises. Amazing. You'd think we'd all be getting smarter with such a tool, but you'd be wrong.

A fine blog

I don't usually do referrals of blogs, but here's one that strikes my fancy, and it's not just because she apparently likes my novel.

A thoughtful question, and my reply

A good friend of mine--Kyle, who hosts two blogs, Metaphor and Squelch (links below)--emailed me a question after summing up his frustration at the current state of our nation's politics and policies: What would the French and Italians do?

http://kylekimberlin.blogspot.com/

http://squelch.wordpress.com/

Here's what I wrote him back.

Kyle, I'm not certain what the French or Italians would do, but they'd surely do something. I think what's happened in the US over the last thirty years is that we've been overtaken by a perfect storm of developments that has destroyed citizen action.

1. We've become cynical about politics, because no matter what we do (having done lots in the sixties and seventies) nothing changes. Wars keep on being waged; government corruption and waste continue; inequalities, drug wars, poverty persist. Even when it appears something has changed--as when the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall came down--our "leaders" found new enemies to justify and enhance their role in our culture.

2. We've become overwhelmed by distraction. Religion isn't the only opiate of the masses (although it's a strong one). Now there's television, the Internet and its attendant gadgetry, consumption of material goods as well as food, drink and drugs, and a most powerful one: financial indenture. We're so engaged in digging ourselves out of the pile of debt that we incurred over the last decades that we don't have the energy or interest in events not related to that most compelling concern.

3. The Internet isn't just a distraction; it also has the effect of channeling any protest into meaningless displays to assuage our guilt at not doing anything effective. We write and connect with each other (as with this email) but do so while sitting at a desk, not swarming the streets. This is Chris Hedges' point in his many essays and which has led him from his Ivory Tower to the White House fence where he and others were arrested for failing to disperse. He's right: We must do something, anything. But we must do it.

The three of us Saturday soldiers have quit our weekly "peace march" after eight years-plus because of a combination of factors, together with the growing futility of our demonstration. For years we kept on because of the support we got from passersby. Nowadays, however, it's not just the shopping along State Street that pulls strollers away from us, it's the infernal plugs in people's ears and those damnable tiny boxes they're twiddling with their thumbs. Besides, we reckoned that since we began our march long ago, wars haven't ceased, they've multiplied. We thought perhaps our protest was simply provoking increased military engagement and so determined to quit marching to see if that stopped US warmaking.

So, come to think of it, I have done something after all. I've stopped marching.

Revised economic figures of US GDP "growth"

Why don't you tell me something I don't know?

I can't resist

making this observation: In the Middle East the populace riots for freedom; in Greece they riot over economic austerity; in the US we riot about a deejay's music festival.

The future is here

I recently read an article on the Internet (can't find the link now) that detailed how our increasing use of the "cloud" to create and store our information renders us more susceptible to commercial and governmental intrusion. I don't (I think I don't, anyway) use the cloud to store much information because I've never trusted that such storage places won't keep my data without being tempted to exploit it.

Now--no surprise--my reluctance to become a Facebook junkie has seen justification. I like the author's reference to the Pied Piper, whose victims not just willingly, but gleefully, followed him to their deserts.

Gotta love Santa Barbara

For several months last year (probably because I'd become addicted to my Netflix rental of BBC's Foyle's War series) I thought I'd like to move to Sussex County, England. It still appeals to me somewhat, actually. But this morning, while I'm grouting my bathroom floor, I've got the British Open golf tournament on television in my bedroom and I just checked out the broadcast from southern England. Result: It's blowing and raining in cold, driven spears there today. In high summer. Meanwhile, today in SB the weather is glorious, too glorious to be indoors grouting, but oh well.

An observation. On mid-day today there's a perfect sport on television to "view" from the other room, namely, football (soccer): the final of the Women's World Cup, to which the US team has (miraculously) qualified. I mean, you can hear the broadcast, but since nothing's happening except upon the occasional score--and each of those gives rise to a huge eruption of noise and are thereupon replayed at least five times--you can effectively see the whole match without having to watch it much, just by checking out the telecast a few times in two hours.

Now don't get me wrong. On occasion, soccer can be interesting, as with the women's amazing last-minute victory last week over Brazil to get them into the semi-finals. But its best function is as white noise in the other room while engaged in an absorbing indoor task.

A voice in the wilderness

Kucinich: A succinct statement of what's going on in America.

Delusional

Panetta is flatly out of his mind.

The next chapter in America's downfall

They already own our indebtedness and our commercial real estate and our jobs. Now they're nibbling away at our houses.

Here we go again

Another outrageous 5-4 Supreme Court decision, this time striking down Arizona's ground-breaking "clean elections" law that sought to "level the playing field" of funding of candidates so that money couldn't as easily buy elections. Under the guise of First Amendment rhetoric, the Court continues to foster finance over speech, money as the ultimate form of expression.

I'm wavering in my desire to sit out the 2012 election, if for no other reason than to keep the right from further polluting the Supreme Court.

If I watched local television newscasts

I'd be strongly opposed to this trend in broadcasting. As it is, local television newscasts come here to Santa Barbara from up north in the Pismo Beach/SLO area, except for one channel (I think there's one) that emanates from SB, and it's so awful I seldom watch it.

Why am I not surprised

at this latest 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

(To be honest, I not only anticipated the result--even the split on the Court--but I felt, as a former class-action lawyer, that the breadth of the class claims, as well as the manageability of the suit were on the outer edge of legal tolerance of the class action device.)

Here's a succinct lay analysis of the legality of Obama's actions in Libya

Its conclusion is that it's unlikely that anything short of impeachment--which is itself unlikely, of course--will be ineffective to stop this, or future, wars by imperial decree. I happen to agree, grudgingly, with that conclusion, which calls for me to consider whether this nation is still one that I revere. (I've been pondering this ever since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution handed LBJ unbridled power to destroy Vietnam, which the executive later used to bomb Cambodia.)

I still admire the process that allows public debate on such issues and that permits lawsuits, however ineffective, to be lodged to test the question. But these don't stop the presidential power to make war from being wielded by a single person. (Imagine Bachmann possessed of such power, or Palin!)

The only effective halt to this exercise of executive arrogance would be for the Supreme Court to declare the war illegal and to enter an order enjoining the president from continuing it. If disobeyed, the Court could send a US Marshal (imagine Tommy Lee Jones in the role) to arrest the president for contempt of court, which would not make even a decent screenplay. However--and this is ironic because of the disrespect I have for the five dwarfs on the Court--the conservatives Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and (somewhat less so) Kennedy are more likely than the other four to make such a ruling and enter such a decree because of their self-proclaimed "strict construction" of the Constitution. By that time, however, enormous devastation would have been wrought, the very devastation the Constitution was written to restrict.

Orwell rules the airwaves

Clear Channel's list of unpreferred songs after 9/11/01. Did you know about this?

You're likely aware of this site

but if not, you're in for a treat. Educational, cute, always entertaining. Enjoy.

Wouldn't it be wonderful

if this MIT discovery were feasible and effective? (If it progresses, however, I wouldn't give a plug nickel for the lives of the scientists who are developing it. Men in Black--the color of crude--will spirit them away, no doubt.)

Some more news about Africa

After that article about diminishing wild animals on the African plain (follow the link in my May 31 post) now this.

I disagree with these curators...

I think the Auschwitz sign should be put back where it can be seen in context and allowed to decay naturally.

Want some really terrible news?

Check out this story.

I may sound like a constitutional technocrat...

but why isn't Obama's failure to abide by the War Powers Act with respect to his ordering of US military strikes in Libya an impeachable offense? And, to be fair, his use of force in Libya in the absence of Congressional approval is even "more unconstitutional" that Bush's action in Iraq, given that Bush at least pretended there was a threat to the US from Iraq.

Both sides--liberals and conservatives--should demand that Obama either seek Congressional approval or immediately cease the use of American force and, if he fails to do either, commence the impeachment process.

Today's news

I rarely watch network television news--occasionally PBS News Hour, but even that only seldom--and have become out of touch with what passes for significant reportage in America. This morning, just now, I happened to click on MSNBC's news hour. The lead story: Oprah's last show.

Wonderful.

As a former Arizonan,

here's yet another reason why I'll not move back, ever.

Hapless, hopeless

This Saturday, today, our weekly peace march along State Street was ugly indeed. We were joined by four women of the Women For Peace group who, rather than engaging in symbolic speech, used the occasion to window shop and chat, while holding their hand-scrawled peace signs at their hips so as not to block their view of the shop displays or hinder their personal conversations. No wonder conservatives are taking over this nation. They have ardor and display it. Not so these "couch liberals," who because of the appearance they gave to the rest of us on the march who were singing "Imagine" all the while, became effectively ruinous agents provocateur.

What did we expect?

The Supreme Court, 5-4 (and you know who's in the majority) rules that class-action status can be defeated by the company's requirement that consumers sign an individual-arbitration clause as part of their purchase agreement. A death-knell to mass-consumer class actions.

And the corporatist beat goes on...

Another ditty--about politics in general.

When I learned PoliSci in my youth

The Right in Congress behaved with couth.

They’d debate with vigor, speak their truth,

Spar with Demos, nail and tooth.

(But then, as friends, share gin/vermouth.)

Rancor, if it flared, was fleeting,

Seldom lasting past a meeting.

No hint, no possibility of cheating,

Not by Dirksen, Ford or Kenneth Keating.

(Even while Tricky took that beating.)

But now the system’s gone awry.

Each issue’s posed as do or die.

No longer is there speech, reply.

Repubs rant and speakers cry.

(Some, indeed, shout out, “You lie!”)

Their pundits, steeped in vanity,

Report with relish this insanity,

Filling time-slots with inanity,

Neglecting genuine calamity.

(For rhyme and meter, I name Hannity.)

Reason, thought, are viewed as vices.

Blind reaction now suffices.

Each law becomes one born of crisis,

Stalled and blocked through artifices.

(Labeled parliamentary devices.)

I posit to you this no-brainer:

Which of these pairs is insaner:

Limbaugh/Beck or Bachman/Boehner?

If you must pause, could it be plainer?

(Another question: Which pair’s vainer?)

Chris Hedges is the man.

Okay, to be politically correct, he's the person. Check out his most recent speech. (Text and video are available at the link.)

This story says it all

The US postage stamp with the image of the Statue of Liberty taken from a photo of a Las Vegas casino replica.

A ditty about nukes and tsunamis and such

Central Coast Dilemma

(This doggerel was published in the SB Independent on Thursday, April 14, 2011)

Fukushima makes one wonder

Was Diablo Canyon a mere blunder,

Built on fissures three miles under,

Likely soon to tear asunder?

South along the tidal reach,

Avila, Grover, Pismo Beach,

Folks sip wine and nosh on quiche,

Warier now of seismic breach.

Ditto they in San Clemente,

Just upwind of San Onofre,

Another plant by PGE

Fueled by lethal energy.

Fatal as the plague bubonic,

This plant too spans plates tectonic.

Was its builder just moronic,

Or is the company demonic?

Come the quake, the wind, the tide,

We between can nowhere hide.

We’ll be left but to decide:

Diaboiled or Onofried.

A worthy quote

from on old murder mystery I heard on BBC radio: "Facts are like cows: If you look at them them straight away long enough, they'll go away."

In case you ever doubted it

Geithner has got to go.

The arrogance of power

Here's a letter to the editor of the SB News-Press that I sent today. I'll update this post when/if it's published.

Update: The letter was published on April 6, 2011.

American missiles flying, fighters firing rockets, causing explosions and destruction on the ground and in the air. In every sense—under international law, domestic law, the UN Charter—the use of such destructive force within the boundaries of a sovereign nation is an act of war, and under the US Constitution the power to declare war rests not with the president but explicitly with the Congress. How dare Barack Obama arrogate to himself the power to launch such devastation on Libya.

I supported Obama, worked tirelessly for his election in 2008, but this is the last straw. I’ve watched the man’s actions—blotting out his fine words—for three years, witnessing his repeated sellout of his office to the rich, the powerful and the corporate, and now—as he did in Afghanistan and Pakistan—the militarists. If George Bush had done what Obama is doing the calls from the Left for his impeachment would be deafening.

Where are you, “liberals” and “progressives”—you who demanded that the executive power be restrained when Nixon, Reagan and Bushes held that power? It’s time to judge Obama on his deeds, not his rhetoric. It’s time to remove him from the office he has so flagrantly and arrogantly abused.

A trick question

Which of these stories troubles me more?: This or this.

Answer: Both

Good news!

At least this one American business isn't outsourceable--yet--and it's thriving!

Faux news redux

They simply should not be allowed on our public airwaves. Not when they pull stunts like this.

Letter to the editor

On February 21, 2011, I wrote another of my letters to the editor of the SB NewsPress. It was published today (Sunday, 2/27). It reads

When was the last time we heard that anything positive was happening in America (except, of course, the ever-increasing salaries and bonuses of Wall Streeters).

Jobs? In the tank. Bankruptcies and foreclosures? On the rise. Working-class wages and the dollar? Falling. Food and fuel prices? Escalating. State and federal deficits? Soaring. Military expenditures? Inflating. Occupation of Iraq? In chaos. War in Afghanistan? Hopeless. The Arab states? Aflame. Israel/Palestine? Don’t ask. And on and on.

As much as I’m inclined to blame Bush/Obama and Congress (of whatever composition) for this wretched state of affairs, the fact is we Americans elected these folks to govern. If we are to be consistent about our claim that America is "special" because of its enduring democracy—our government, as Abraham Lincoln declared, “of the people, by the people and for the people”—then we have only ourselves to blame for our current plight.

And so, fellow citizens, what shall we do about it?

The dark side of cyber-citizenry

is astroturfing by groups, but even more so by corporations and the US military. Outrageous--but inevitable in our evil world.

Faux News

Literally. (Video)

Interesting interview

especially on topics that concern me most: How to write meaningfully about meaningful subjects, and how to make story tell more than story.

Do you want fries with that?

Here's a shocking---shocking--story about the wage level of those jobs that America is creating in the wake of the recent huge bubble-burst. Imagine my surprise.

Sometimes you wonder

who in their right mind would do this (video)

and then you realize, he's not in his right mind.

Rethinking America's foreign policy

It seems to me that we (I include myself in this) Americans need to pause and reflect upon the individuality of our fellow humans. (A vague, ugly sentence, I know.) What I mean is this: We are a world of individuals, not, as is so often assumed, a bunch of nations filled with folks who have adopted that nation's persona, as depicted in the media and by our governers. Of course we Americans know that about ourselves. We know we're not all loud, assertive credit-hungry wastrels who worship movie stars and devour McDonalds twice a day. But we do tend to generalize about residents of other nations, don't we?

This facet of our culture (and it's likely not just an American trait) is called to mind by this brief article, quoting the Chinese woman who just won a tennis match to become that country's first finalist at the Australian Open. She doesn't sound very "Chinese" does she?

If you want to know where I stand on Obama and "liberals"

check out these two articles that appeared today: One is by a mainstay of mine, Chris Hedges, on Truthdig, and the other by a fabulous thinker/writer Michael Brenner who, in his HuffPost article, describes present-day "progressive Democrats" as "the kind of people that your mother wanted you to hang out with in high school -- short of Canadian exchange students being available."

For those of you who are familiar with my novel, Gaviota

here's a website that argues--as did my protagonist in that novel--in favor of "jury nullification" as a means of ensuring truly populist justice in criminal trials. The Wikileaks founder would surely need such a doctrine to obtain a fair adjudication if he were to stand trial in the US on some technical violation of our manifold secrecy laws.

A new political movement, or even a party?

What about a movement of those of us who supported Obama in 2008 but are no longer enamored of him, even to the point of rebellion? We could call ourselves Disaffected Obama Voters. Get it?: the DOV movement.

In case you're wondering....

I'm still here, but without anything to say. Anything worth blogging about, that is. Maybe that will change and if so, I'll let you know.

On language

Here's an interesting piece on the difference between English words that are French/Latin based and those that are German based. I've always wondered why my lawyer-talk never got me laid.

Galbraith rocks

And he's from a university in Texas, of all places.

Talk about prescience

He was twenty-four years early, but Orwell was spot on.

Do you want to see genius at work?

Check out the pdf. file of Franklin Roosevelt's interlineations on the first draft of his address to Congress on December 8 seeking its declaration of war against Japan. Not just his inclusion of "infamy" in place of "history" in the first sentence--a history-changing alteration--but the revisions of tenor and insertions of urgency throughout.

Amazing skills, both political and oratorical, sixty-nine years ago today.

Letter to the editor

Here's the text of a letter to the editor of the SB NewsPress that I sent today. I'll update this post with the publication date if it's published.

Update: The letter was published on December 9, 2010.

The first amendment to the United States Constitution grants the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” In view of this fundamental right, one wonders why Americans remain silent while their leaders wreck their nation. Our workforce is demolished, ruined by decades of corporate-friendly legislation that has destroyed unions and fostered off-shore profiteering. Our economy is mired in debt, drained by militaristic adventurism and state-sanctioned financial greed. Our fiscal future has been sold to foreign creditors while our assets—homes, savings, pensions—decline in value as money-lenders’ bonuses spiral upward, fed by government largess.

“The opiate of the masses” may, in Karl Marx’s time, have been religion, but in today’s America the opiate is a toxic mix of complacency and insecurity. We are lulled into dormancy by a barrage of flaccid entertainment, and we shrink from protest because we fear loss of our jobs and homes. We are ensnared in a web of avoidance and constant striving, too busy keeping our families fed and housed to resist the steady dismantling of a shared and sound America. We don’t have the energy or inclination to resist because the corporations that feed our leaders and their enablers, the “mainstream media,” keep us distracted and cowed.

So why are there no “bread riots”—not even bake sales—in protest of the continued destruction of the American Dream? Because we’re too busy, too frightened and too conditioned to care.

Ya know, there are some civil rights issues I just can't get fired up about

and this is one.

Action, or futility?

Leftist activists--including Chris Hedges--are going to chain themselves to the fence at the White House on December 16 to protest the ongoing wars and occupations of the US. Effective? Meaningless? An act simply to vent the frustrating hopelessness of protest? A bit of each of the above?

At what point does one's blood boil?

Perhaps upon reading this article in the NYT?

Here are two related hypotheses about Obama's maltreatment of progressives

Related: We're in denial about Obama's true position because we can't face that he's not now and never has been progressive; and/or what he says is subject to the McGurk Effect, so that during his campaign his transformative image caused us to receive from his lips the message we wanted to hear rather than the meaning he spoke.

Economic analysis

Look, I nearly flunked Econ I at Stanford but I nevertheless feel I have good instincts about the subject. However, that's all I claim: instinct. And although I've long thought of myself as a "liberal," I've recently felt misgivings about a central tenet of Paul Krugman's solution to the present stagnated American economy, chief among them is his strong reliance on increased "consumption" as our path to recovery. While I agree that it's an important component of America's economy, it's also true that our reliance on it so strongly is what led us to the present mess.

I'm more in accord with this analysis, which views a sound economy as one which balances consumption with a sound presence on the planet. I mean, what's the matter with sustainability, with merely existence and not, always and forever, growth?

A choice, not an Obama

Here's a letter to the editor of the SB NewsPress that I sent today. I'll update this post when/if it's published.

Update: The letter was published in the NewsPress on Saturday, November 13, 2010.

Obama will be a one-term president. Oh, he’ll survive incessant nagging from the Right for the next two years, but in 2012 he’ll be “one and done,” no question. And as a progressive who worked mightily for his election in 2008, I say, Good riddance. Obama’s the worst thing that’s happened to American politics since…forever: He’s trodden on the hopes and dreams that he exploited to gain the presidency, making cynics of young voters, turning them against politics as a vehicle for positive change—as recently evidenced by their abandonment of polling places in the mid-term elections.

There arises, therefore, this question about the Democrats’ prospects in 2012: Will some (yet unnamed) progressive run against Obama in the primaries, a la Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter in 1980? The argument against this development will likely be that a schism among Democrats will hand the presidency to the Republican nominee, as happened in 1980 in Reagan’s favor. But the obvious rejoinder is that Obama won’t be re-elected in any event. He’s lost both his base and the center by his obsequious cow-towing to Wall Street, the insurance industry and the military; and he’s already indicated he’ll drift further Rightward hereafter.

So, what’s it to be progressives? Shall we remain inert and hold our collective nose in 2012 while voting for Obama, a sure loser? Or shall we act decisively to support a candidate who will truly—not just in rhetoric, but in deed—bring to America change we can believe in?

Too good to be true

Doesn't this news item from the Guardian appear to be from the Onion instead?

The Real News

A worthwhile site, source of this incisive video in which the Democrats and Obama squandered the mandate they carried into 2009.

I'm not sure why, but for some reason

(and I think it's perverse) this bit of news made me LOL. Maybe I was imagining how some folks would react if it happened in the US.

Well, whaddaya know...

The law of the land even applies in Arizona. (Note who--an Arizonan, former US Supreme Court Justice--voted with the majority.)

Out of Afghanistan in my lifetime?

Fuggedaboudit. Check out the construction of military installations throughout that country, presently underway and proposed. Incompatible with our withdrawal from Afghanistan anytime soon? Ubetcha. Obama, aren't you commander in chief of the armed forces?

I take it all back.

This video alone justifies the existence of the personal computer, the Internet, YouTube and all such devices.

P.S. You don't have to be a Gilbert and Sullivan fan to enjoy this.

So much for moving to Sweden

What a revoltin' development this is.

An exquisite example of the adage, What you don't know won't hurt you.

Lisinopril, the generic name of a drug of which I am prescribed--and which I for years have taken--a daily dose of 20 mg. to lower my blood pressure, is, I learned during this early, early morning spurt of web-surfing, derived from the venom of the jararaca, a Brazillian pit viper.

I'm curious about your reaction

to this New Yorker article. It's about procrastination, specifically a review of a book--a collection of essays--about procrastination. My reaction: I have no inclination to read the book because, to me, the critique of it was so singularly uninsightful and uninformative that the book could not help but be even more so. The lesson I took away: Even the New Yorker can publish pap.

Do you ever get the impression that

some folks just can't catch a break?

A ditty about responsibility

Why has America fallen so low?
What’s the cause—We need to know!
Surely there’s someone handy to blame,
Someone called Bush, or an African name.

It can’t be our own insatiable greed
Consuming more goodies than ever we need,
It can’t be our wars, can’t be our cars,
Can’t be our refusal to tax what’s “ours.”

It must be those others—the government pols,
Who’ve run us amok, who’ve twisted our goals,
Who’ve made us a nation with no more to spend,
Borrowing madly, as if there’s no end.

And yet, on occasion, it does give one pause
To see, at its root, what—and who—is the cause.
It’s we, the people, who’ve given them rein,
And who now, if ever, must reign once again.

As usual, Justin Raimondo, Libertarian though he may be, nails it. The teabaggers--if they be true to their principles of diminished federal government--could well be a signal to the Republican Party to question this nation's imperial push, and could well attract those on the Left for whom that issue is critical. A realignment of interests along the lines of military downsizing, with the "progressives" on this issue combining with the Far Right? Not just interesting, but tantalizing.

Letter to editor

Below is a letter I've written to the SB NewsPress editor. I'll update this blog if/when it's published.

Update: It was published on October 12, 2010, and a second time (don't know why) the next day.

I’ve lately been hearing from Obama, Biden and, before that, from Press Secretary Gibbs, that we progressives should “stop whining” about shortcomings in this administration’s achievements and get out and work for the “change you can believe in” by supporting Democratic candidates in the upcoming elections.

My answer to these pleas: I would work now—as hard as I did for Obama’s election—if over the last two years I’d witnessed a strong, principled effort toward fundamental change. Instead, here’s what I’ve seen. (1) A backroom deal with Big Pharma and capitulation by the White House on the “public option” for healthcare, an option Obama repeatedly asserted, while campaigning, was essential to meaningful reform. (2) Abandonment of his pledge to close Gitmo; of his pledge to restore habeas corpus and to reverse the Bush administration’s intrusions on our privacy; of his pledge of transparency in government; of his pledge to “stand firm” against “entrenched monied interests” in Washington. And (3) a heartbreaking reversal of his commitment to seek a path toward peace through making peace, supplanted by expanded wars—hopeless, pointless wars—in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If Obama had stood up to demand the promised changes from his presidential pulpit, his present calls to work would ring true. But Obama didn’t even try to “change the way Washington does business”; instead, through backroom deal-making and compliant Congressional politicking, he has delivered to us only half-measures or no measures at all. And I, for one, intend to return the favor.

The Generals are taking over the executive branch

Bob Woodward's latest book--Obama's Wars, on the shelves today--tells of the president's wrestling with his generals and military advisers to get some sense of a withdrawal schedule from the mess in Afghanistan. The generals, apparently, don't think much of Obama or his schedules. On top of that, here is, to me, an equal outrage: Petraeus laying out what has got to be a nonstarter for the Afghanis' negotiations with the Taleban, namely the latter's acceptance of the US-authored Afghan constitution and their disarmament. There's no way either of these is acceptable to the Taleban, no way toward a negotiated settlement of that ugly war.

Which is, of course, is precisely what Petraeus and the generals want: endless war.

A message to Chris Hedges...

Gee, Chris, why don't you say what you really mean?

I don't know about you, but

this news report about a US military campaign starting in Kandahar sounds exactly like the reports coming out of VietNam in the final years of our failed warmaking there.

Here is a set of interesting poll numbers, comparing European attitudes to American. Check out the disparity between them on the war in Afghanistan as well as on Obama's favorability. Odd incongruity, eh? Strong disapproval of "Obama's war" in Afghanistan across the pond, but strong approval of the president over there; whereas in the US the reverse is true. Whaddup?

I'm no computer geek, but

this mashup's too good not to pass on.

A thought about the first amendment

Some liberals are outraged at suggestions that the "ground zero mosque" shouldn't be built at the location that is proposed by its imam. "Freedom of religion" and "tolerance of first amendment exercise" are the cries. To argue that it should be built elsewhere sends to Muslims and others a signal that we are intolerant, say these liberals, whereas to allow it to be build near "ground zero" shows how tolerant we are and demonstrates our willingness to live up to our constitutional ideals regardless of the impact of the protected action on those who find it offensive.

At the same time, however, some of these same liberals are outraged at the exercise of free speech that inheres in that pastor's proposed burning of the Koran. "It will inflame Muslims; it will endanger the troops," are the cries.

So which is it? Is the pastor's action, undeniably protected by the first amendment, nevertheless to be condemned because of the effect it may have on some who witness it, whereas the mosque should not be moved notwithstanding the effect of the act on those who oppose its location? Is the propriety of exercise of first amendment freedoms--freedom of speech, exercise of religion, to assemble and to petition the government for redress--dependent on the reaction of those who oppose the exercise? Not in my America, it's not.

Take to the streets!

What does it take to stir up Americans? These aren't the issues the Teabaggers are talking about. They're real issues, affecting real people, now and well into the future. So...where's the outrage?

Why am I not surprised

that the medical insurance that's provided by employers--a staple of the fake "insurance reform" passed by Congress last spring--is costing employees more and is providing less coverage. It's all a fraud, this Obama-Care package; it plays directly into the hands of those who have no interest in cost-containment. The insurance companies simply increase their premiums to employers, and the employers simply pass those increases on to employees, as well as increasing the percentage of premiums they require employees to pay. This isn't universal health care: It's government funding of insurance companies, pure and simple.

A new beginning?

I'm looking into the possibility of starting a new political party named, inoffensively, The Progressive Party. I realize it wouldn't be the first party so named, but Teddy Roosevelt's central theme--populist reaction to corporate dominance of American politics and economics--ain't a bad idea, given the current state of affairs in the US.

And the idea of rolling back the multi-national corporate (and political) war on the working classes by means of international trade unions to challenge the power of international corporations ain't bad either.

I even have a slogan--a catchy one: "Workers of the world, unite!"

Telling it like it is

This piece by Christopher Cooper (his "bio" appears at the bottom) is brutally frank about Obama's position in history, and cleverly composed. I wish I'd written it.

Obama analyzed

I'm no Obama-lover, not any more. He, and his party, have disappointed me too often, and too seriously, for me ever to relent (or is it repent?) from my disgust at their governance. I will, however, refer readers of this blog to this month-old Frank Rich review of Jonathan Alter's book about Obama (Promise) because Rich (and, if I cared to read the book, Alter) do capture what's wrong with Obama's presidency and why, in my view, it's doomed to consist of but a single term of office.

The flaws they see in Obama--read the review--are, it seems to me, too ingrained in the man to be fundamentally changed. Obama's a creature of his culture--as varied as "his culture" at first blush appears--which holds to a view of America as historically blessed, fated to succeed by history and chance. He is too young, too immature in perspective, to see that America is no such thing. It's just another national gathering of folks who, like all such gatherings in history, are stupid, selfish and mean--doomed to be replaced by a later such gathering. He's too grounded in process--in political minutia and manipulation--to reach for the only chance he (or we) have to survive the present slide into the "dustbin of history." He is, after all, just another smart fellow, another fine politician. And that, my friends, just ain't gonna cut it anymore.

Finally---

Some good news.

Humane imprisonment, American style

Sensitive to the fasting rules of Ramadan, and with butterscotch flavoring no less.

Coming soon...

A grain bubble.