For the past 25 years or so, Republicans have pursued two branding campaigns: One to associate itself with every good thing, and another to associate Democrats and liberalism with everything evil.

The measure of success they have achieved has only become readily apparent in the last few years. We find ourselves on the precipice of catastrophe after financial collapse, thousands having been killed, a city lying in ruins. (These things have been a long time coming and there's plenty of blame to go around [3]).

And yet it didn't take just a bad administration or poor policy decisions for people to notice the issues. The populace didn't notice until the point at which we can now argue about how far off the cliff we are.

And it is still not entirely clear that the population at large understands why they find themselves at this point.

The Republican party has waged a successful war to equate taxation with moral evil, to equate liberals with dictators, fairness with interference, and tyranny with order.

In the last election, Republicans accused the middle classes of irresponsibly voting to enrich themselves at the expense of the upper classes.

But in order to get elected, this is precisely the path Republicans have traveled. They have promised low taxes, easy riches, and no regulation to the upper classes, all the while telling people that this was compatible with the continuation of America as we have known it. Not only that, but they have convinced many in the middle class that these actions are beneficial to them and that they are just an asset bubble away from joining the ranks of the ultra-rich.

They have essentially waged war on America's historic values.

It is easy to see how one might be misled. As a kid my family often took long car trips across the country on the Interstates. As far as i could understand, the Interstate system had always been there. And as far as i could tell it would always be there. It was after all built out of earth, gravel, and concrete.

But it turns out the Interstate system did not magically appear, and will not last indefinitely after having been built. It was a substantial investment made to foster defense and commerce. Even if one never sets tire on an Interstate, one benefits from it whenever buying practically any good or using any service. [1]

The fact that most of the Interstates are not toll roads has insulated the direct costs from us. That they have existed for all if not the majority of many's lifetime has insulated us from the fact that it had not always been this way.

I would assert that this has been happening to a larger extent over a greater period of time with regards to our way of life. Our country and indeed our civilization is not the result of our generation, nor the previous generation. It is the sum of 200 plus years of work, and another 1000 or more years even before that to lay the ground work of ideas of rights and civil justice.

In short, like so many things, we have taken our civilization for granted. We may pay lip service to our founding on the Fourth of July, but it seems like people understand our civilization as having been created out of whole-cloth after WWII.

So where we find ourselves now is at the end of a historic aberration and at the beginning of the consequences of that aberration.

To combat this i would propose another branding campaign. Not one that says that the Democrat Party is the source of all good, and the Republik Party is the source of all evil. But one that promotes a little historic understanding:

• That Liberal Democracy ensures a government which is limited, that guarantees rights of speech and assembly. That private property and individual freedoms are rights derived from liberalism. That those liberals, the Founding Fathers set up our liberal government. That liberalism ensures that we can worship (or not) as we please.

  Again we are not trying to say Democrats are the embodiment of these things or that all good things issue from there. What we should attempt to do is underline the fact liberalism brought us our way of life and that it is a superlative of excellence and not an insult.

  That we should recognize we are all liberals and we should use the term with respect to the benefits we derive from it.

• That labor unions have brought us many things which we take for granted, like having a fighting chance of not dying at work, getting vacations, working hard for 5 days a week (and not 7), for working hard for 8 hours a day and not 15. (I'm talking to you all you fat cat lazy, commie bums who only work 8 hours 5 days a week).
• That feminism is why women can vote, own land, and enter into contracts. It's why they can go on TV and talk about the evils of feminism instead of being told to go home and find themselves a man.
• That taxes are what funded the construction of our nation. That taxes today are historically low. That civilization costs money and does not happen by itself. (If it did, then you could maybe justify saying taxes were immoral). That taxes have ensured the progress of our society through research, oversight, law enforcement, and many other things it funds[4].
• That intellectualism is what made possible better health, longer life, the Internet, transportation, radio, TV, phones, ....
• etc, etc, etc.

In many of these cases, we would find many Republicans who agree. I'm sure lots would say that they only dislike the excesses of these things.

The problem is that they have based their entire political fortune on demonizing them. And while it wins them elections, it is having the unintended(!?) consequence of making people hate the very foundations of our civilization.[2]

[1] Leaving aside comparisons to railroads, and negative effects like pollution, etc.
[2] Not unlike the unintended consequences of demonizing people and groups of people leading to violence.
[3] Again to underline: i'm not saying these things were Republican's fault or that a Democratic administration would have prevented them. I'm saying that even after these quite extraordinary events, people are only now beginning to ask questions about their government's (and its policies) effectiveness.
[4] I still hate paying them.

Before posting this i looked on NPR's site and had a tough time finding the story to which i'm referring. I believe it was this one. Oddly enough it doesn't have the audio posted alongside it like many other stories. Does anyone recall this piece and the specific phrase? i can't have been the only one it jumped out at. Perhaps i merely misheard.

So i was listening to NPR today and heard a curious thing.

Julie Rovner was reporting on a CBO official saying that the House health care bill might increase medical outlays in the long run because it didn't include enough fundemental changes of the health system to control costs.

The thing that jumped out at me was that she used the modifier "Democrat" saying something like "Democrat plan".

This jumped out at me immediately because outside of some more partisan outlets i don't recall having heard the term used by an NPR reporter.

"Democrat"-for-"Democratic" is a well known shibboleth amongst partisans which is intended solely for the sound of its discordant meter and awkward pronunciation.

The question then is does NPR have a policy on this? If not, who is the reporter hanging out with to let this slip in; nothing seems particularly egregious in Rovner's bio.

I really dislike name-calling. It's childish and unbecoming, even name-calling in kind. So i can't say i enjoy the thought of having to pronounce Republicans /repub lick' cuns'/

Of course, i hate the "rethug*" label even more. I mean do people really have to be such immature retardo poop-faces? Let's have a little decorum.

Today NPR had two long-time doctors on the show talking about their experiences.  Towards they end of the interview, they asked one what he would do about the health care system. 

He said he wanted a single payer system implemented.  They didn't bleep it out or nothing.  Usually i only expect to hear phrases like "single payer" on DFH sites like DailyKommie and CommunistUnderground [1].  To top it off, the other guest (who is customerally, the counterpoint), brought up the spectre of rationing....but not as a boogie man, just to say, that private insurances should still be available for those denied procedures.  (I find it funny to think that private insurers will be more lenient with their benefits, but i guess if you pay enough).

Oddly enough they didn't explain what single payer was, (i can't imagine everyone knows all the buzzwords).  Maybe that's what NPR thinks of as balance.

Or maybe the media is liberal...i guess we should prepare ourselves for the onslaught of angry mail complaining that they had two doctors on instead of a more balanced story with one doctor and one cold-hearted SOB.
     


[1] just in case: sarcasm

From the TPM front page:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), speaking earlier this month on Fox News, called President Obama's plan the "first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known." A public option, Shelby added, would "destroy the marketplace for health care."

I'm pretty sure this is completely false.  The first statement is laughable, and most everyone has a first-hand example of how the health care system has failed them.  The second statement is also false.  Obama has gone to great pains to ensure that there is a place in his plan for private health insurers,  (much to the consternation of some of us).

But let's assume for a moment, that it will destroy the marketplace.   

Marketplaces are good for a few reasons: (eventually finding) efficient allocation of resources, a mechanism for consumer feedback, etc[1].  Markets will exist whether or not they are government sanctioned.  Government enforcement of consumer protections and contracts between private parties helps lessen the risk for market participants, but even without those protections black markets thrive.

However, there are markets which the government not only doesn't sanction, but actively seeks to destroy.  One example is the market for people and in particular child prostitution.  We all agree that even though we like free markets, we like personal liberty more, and we believe that slavery is immoral, and children should be protected above all.

Markets, like governments, are good only in as much as they serve the people; they are not an end onto themselves.  The core principle underlying it is the idea people should have as much freedom from government interferance as is possible.  Buying and selling goods and services is one of those things that people do with their freedom, and markets are created and nurtured as a consequence.  But the People ultimately define the terms under which the market operates.

If there is a choice between a health care marketplace and the health of the population, i think it is clear which we need to choose.  If the market is a detriment to society, then something should be changed.

There is surely a danger in a system which is controlled from the top down (a planned economy, although one might be tempted to compare the current system to a top down control by various health care companies).  Markets are a good way to deal with that danger, but they're not the only one. 

Our lives would be a lot easier if we could say, free market always, or command economy only.  It takes away all the hard thinking and the difficult choices about trade-offs between competing interests.  Everything can be reduced to slogans and chants. 

The foundations of our government though are built on the idea of striking the right balance [2], and it is a tradition we should continue.   

In anycase, the demand for the current kind of healthcare marketplace has hit rock-bottom in the meta-marketplace of marketplaces.  Except for antiques collectors and afficianodos of kitsch no one is buying.  There are better products on the market.

[1] I have no poli-sci or economics credentials and it shows.
[2] For example, The Articles of Confederation gave way to the Constitution, the bicameral legislature with split responsibilities, separate but nominally equal branches, etc.

How i learned to stop worrying and love sexism

I have been watching with rapt attention the events of the past week occurring in Iran. At a time, when i am often pessimistic about society, especially in the US, Iran's protest movement provides a ray of warm sunlight through my otherwise cold and dreary conception of humanity. I find in it a glimmer of the nobility of which humanity is capable, even against a backdrop of the dark blemishes to which we are all heirs.

So i watch with admiration as they stand up, these vibrant, learnèd, politically-engaged...intelligent...hot Persian women, i mean, O. M. G., have you seen some of these pictures?

Quit making 'oinking' noises, i'm trying to talk here.


So, i figure that sooner or later there will be some sort of twitter dating service or something, and i'm working on my personal ad to get ready.

Now, i've changed it a bit for the audience, and in deference to the more traditional culture of Iran, i've removed the picture of my engorged genitalia that i usually use for my Craigslist ads, (perhaps you've seen them: "Hot Lover 4 U 2 Nite" and "Curious in Connecticut").

About: Fun, young male, gainfully employed professional, good with children.  Knows the difference between Arabs and Persians. Thinks kababs are a pretty cool idea.
Likes: Enjoys long walks on the beach, religious syncretism, scarves.
Dislikes: Ties, beatings, secret police, foreign women leaving when they realize there are much more attractive guys than me in the States.
Looking for: Hot Persian lady pref. with background in science or the arts who wants to experience the world.

Can anyone give me tips on sprucing it up and translating it into Farsi?

PS. don't make me do my holocaust routine...you don't want to see me when i do my holocaust routine....[Cue Incredible Hulk TV end theme].

PPS. For a less offensive post on the issue see previous entry.

Juan Cole has posted an account from an eye-witness at Monday's rally in Iran.  I found it quite inspiring.  The Iranians seem to have found a singularly powerful voice in which to express themselves.

A few posts ago the topic of the marginalization of street protests as a tool of change in the US came up.   A couple of things struck me in the witness' account of the march concerning this.  Most notably the contrast between humanity at its most noble vs humanity in its basest form.

Gandhi relates in his book Satyagraha (if i recall correctly...a book i recommend highly along with his 'Experiments with Truth'), the purpose and mechanism of non-violent resistance : The point is to connect at a very basic level to the people you hope to influence (both society at large and your enemies).  

Gandhi starts by assuming that we are all humans, who despite whatever glaring differences are basically the same.   Namely, most everyone has the capacity for empathy.   By demonstrating one's earnest belief in one's cause even though it may cause inconvenience, harm, or injury to oneself, you can force even some of your enemies to ask themselves why a person would do such a thing and re-evaluate their own position.  You use their empathy as a way around their biases, hate, or indifference.    (That's the concept in a very rough sense anyway).

He also notes that in order for such a technique to work, it is important to act with the highest integrity.  Here that means that one must practice only non-violence  and that at worst one can only harm one's self (anything else is immoral no matter how good your cause is and will ultimately be ineffective).   Furthermore, you can not use such techniques capriciously for emotional blackmail.

As implausible as this approach may seem, Gandhi used it a couple of times, and it seemed to work.

I'm not really doing the concept justice, but in many ways i feel that Gandhi in Satyagraha gives the most definitive and coherent statement of what it is to act morally.  It is very much the capstone of the past 2000 years worth of moral development.

In any case, i think this is at least a part of what gives impact to a protest movement and in some ways is missing from latter-day protests. 

 

If you're anything like me, you spend most of your waking hours in a state of constant abject outrage.  It can be overwhelming.  Sometimes, i can't even decide who to despise first.

Well, friends, i found the cure, and so can you, for only 5 easy payments of $19.95.  Developed for the government, it was once available only to top officials at the White House and elite business people.  But now, in this special limited-time offer, you too can know the peace and tranquility that an unfounded belief in your own moral righteousness can bring.  If you are over 55, you cannot be turned down for this special offer.


Introducing the New and Improved Moral Compass:



Here's just a few comments by satisfied users:

"American power should be used not just in the defense of American interests but for the promotion of American principles."
          William Kristol

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace".  George W. Bush

"We do not torture" Georgie W. Bush

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." Dick Cheney

"I heartily endorse this event or product" Art Linkletter

"In light of the well-settled understanding that constitutional constraints must give way in some respects to the exigencies of war, we think that the better view is that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to domestic military operations designed to deter and prevent further terrorist attacks." - Yoo & Delahunty

And if you liked that product, also check out the Torture Home Security System from Haliburton: it's the best defense money can buy!



What satisfied customers have to say:

"I never would have known my neighbor was an al-qa'ida operative and a practicing witch without the THSS.  Thanks Haliburiton!"

"I've already caught two confessed aliens and a yankee spy!"

"My own wife was a concentration camp guard at Auschwitz and later shot JR!"

Before the election last year, i kept repeating a statement to everyone who would listen (which, in fairness, was about 3 people). The statement was this: A lot of the people clamoring for an Obama presidency are deluding themselves by thinking that once elected he would fix "everything"; they don't seem to get that after the election, that is when the real struggle will begin.

(Well okay it was two statements and a comma splice. whatever).

But now that my private pronouncement seems to have been born out, i feel like i can publicly congratulate myself and accept the accolades i so richly deserve for my courageous pronouncement and unique insight.  At the moment, i'm throwing a ticker tape parade for myself with the trash on my desk.

Now we are beyond the elections, the tears and the cries of betrayal have begun.  It turns out they would rather vote for a Republican next time, or leave the party.  After all, they had sacrificed so much by taking time out of their busy lives to stand in line to vote, and it turns out things hadn't changed how'd they like.  Voting clearly doesn't work.

Bill Moyers [Bill Moyers Journal, 2008/01/18] tells this story about MLK meeting with LBJ during the struggle to enact the Civil Rights Act:
  

As the pressure intensified on each side, Johnson wanted King to wait a little longer [ie, call off the demonstrations, protests, and marches] and give him a chance to bring Congress around by hook or crook.  But Martin Luther King said his people had already waited too long. He talked about the murders and lynchings, the churches set on fire, children brutalized, the law defied, men and women humiliated, their lives exhausted, their hearts broken.  LBJ listened, as intently as I ever saw him listen.  He listened, and then he put his hand on Martin Luther King's shoulder, and said, in effect: "OK. You go out there Dr. King and keep doing what you're doing, and make it possible for me to do the right thing."

There are a few lessons that might be drawn from this, but i won't belabor the point:  I have my adoring fans to attend to and missed opportunities to regret.

Many of you have already seen the pictures from Obama's trip to the Summit of the Americas, but a closer look into the details reveals a harrowing vision of the true nature of our "president".

First of course is the image most of the media has been covering:


Obama with admitted non-citizen and book lover Hugo Chavez
They share not only a common hatred of America, but a hair style.

Next a far more disturbing sight:

Obama prostrates himself before Mexico's president and dog (not shown Adolph Hitler (holding dog), Mrs. Obama)
As Calderon's children laugh and jeer at America's falling stature as a world power, Obama pledges allegiance to the First Dog of Mexico. Would it surprise you, if I were to tell you, that none of these Mexicans that Obama so freely cavorts with can legally work in the United States? Or that they do not believe that the US is the greatest country in the world? Would it surprise you to know that they believe they have a right to a sovereign country just for Mexicans?

Behold, sheeple: the truth!

But there is more to this story than full-figured dictators and dog tricks, you see the first dog also gave Obama a book.

Clifford the Big Red Dog: Clifford's Manners
This book presents Obama's true agenda: The indoctrination of America's children into a brave new world of servitude.

In this book, a towering Red Dog named Clifford (representing Communism) introduces children to the cuddly face of evil. It advocates communist principles like sharing and puts forth the idea that they will be liked in society if they do what they're told (by the government) and don't bother anyone like good little slaves.

Clifford: The Big Red Menace

Like Palestinians who are so ensnared by their own hate that they dress up their children as suicide bombers for fun, Communist advocates have begun dressing up their children like Clifford.

Image of child being taught to hate America.

Where does this end people? When do we say enough is enough? I urge each and every one of you to personally take a stand. To draw the line by saying, "I am not going to put on a large red dog costume and hate America."

Finally, I will leave you with another image.

Poorly photoshopped image of Obama as Hitler (Courtesy of Satan's Wife).

If this doesn't prove something, I don't know what does. This time, it's not just the Nazi in the background that has to urgently go. Citizens of America must feel a renewed sense of urgency to stop this threat, if we are to avoid soiling this great nation of ours.

In the letter AIG's Liddy sent to Geitner concerning AIG's payment of bonuses, he mentions that 25 of the highest payed AIGFP contract employees were voluntarily working for $1 for the remainder of 2009 (pg 2 paragraph 2).  One presumes Liddy sees this as a sign of good faith in working towards repayment of the taxpayer infusion into their company.  A few months back, an automaker exec made the same magnanimous gesture. 

To me this is a demonstration of how bloated the system is and how overpayed they are.   Now they're rubbing it in our faces and patting themselves on the back for their noble sacrifice.  

This is no sacrifice for them;  Very few if any people in the middle-class could ever afford to work for $1 no matter how much they wished to help their company or country.  At best they would be unable to retire at any reasonable age, and at worst, they and their families would be homeless and starving.  Middle-class folks don't need big retention bonuses: the thing that keeps them coming back is that they like food and shelter and hope one day to be able to retire for a few years before they die.

I don't think any of these banking execs are risking living on the street or even a substantial change in their material standard of living.  This is an empty gesture compared to folks whose livelihoods are threatened and who are trying to figure out how to put food on the table. 

An industry with margins like this seems a tad inefficient.  An inefficiency which the "market" should cure one way or another. 

A quick thought:

Entities opposing health-care reform often invoke the specter of long waits for procedures, bureaucratic meddling, rationing, etc.  One can appreciate that these are powerful images regardless of the reality of the current health-care system vis-a-vis a reformed one.

It would be nice to see a direct connection drawn illustrating that these things are here now as a result of our current system (or lack thereof).   People are already angry with huge corporations acting irresponsibly given the on-going financial chaos.  It is no stretch of reality or imagination to link this to the huge corporations and vested interests opposing reform. 

You can have two sorts of commercials: one tugging at heart strings, and one pushing for action.

An example of the first: a mother watching over a sick child who gets a form letter in the mail from her insurance company rejecting coverage for some random reason.  You can see how this would go.  Another would be losing coverage when the person is laid off; A parent at the pharmacy with a sick child being confronted with the huge cost of a medicine her plan doesn't pay for.  A small business person trying to figure out how they will provide coverage for themselves and their workers

The possibilities are endless, and they are situations which many people find themselves faced with. 

The second type would basically be the fat-cat CEOs partying and living it up and then coming to congress and sheepishly claiming they need their huge margins, are struggling to make it by, and are worried about how it will hurt their hapless clients.

This is one half of the battle.  The other is delivering a health-care package that actually works for people. 

CNN's website published an opinion by Romney which contains most of what you would expect plus a few of these outright "gems":

First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.

Now, i'm not a big-city economist (or one at all), but i believe the consensus is that you get a larger effect from spending increases vs tax cuts.

(http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2009/01/ricardian-equivalence-does-not-imply.html, http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/bang-for-the-buck-wonkish/) 

He then suggests that spending won't stimulate the economy because the rebate checks didn't increase consumer spending.  Of course, the stimulus bill looks to the government to spend the money rather than relying on consumers to spend the money, (consumers who would be foolish to spend given the economic outlook).                                  
                                                                               
(Consider: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/i-do-not-think-that-word/ concerning this confusion).                         


Romney again:

As we take out nonessential projects, we should focus on funding the real needs of government that will have immediate impact. And what better place to begin than repairing and replacing military equipment that was damaged or destroyed in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?

Though i believe non-military spending again gives more bang for the buck.
                                                                          
I'm glad to see Krugman making the rounds and disabusing people of various things.                                                                                        

the title.

anyone have info?

Now, i'm no constitutional law expert, but it seems to me like this AP story has left out some important information:

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/08/war.powers.ap/index.html">
Bigger war role for congress proposed</a>


The highlights according to CNN:

• James Baker and Warren Christopher chaired bipartisan panel on war powers issue
  
• Former secretaries of state propose new process between White House, Congress
  
• President would have to consult Congress before starting conflict longer than a week
  
• Congress would have to approve or disapprove within 30 days

and starts out by saying:

"
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher say the next time the president goes to war, Congress should be required to say whether it agrees.
"

And from there the article doesn't get a whole lot better. 

Is this supposed to be a professional news organization?  I kind'a would'a expected them to bring up the Constitution and The War Powers Act.