Still more Obamamanianalysis

Jon writes:

Meanwhile, this is vastly less creative [than "Hillary's Downfall;" see link below --Ed.], but just as hilarious in its own way...



...This man, who has been bashing Bush for 18 months: "the old politics," "the tired old Washington politics," "the politics of fear and division," etc., ad naseaum, etc, now has the audacity to criticize Bush for a charge of "appeasement" that MAY have been directed at Obama. Given Obama's documentable, undeniable, and many times repeated offer to conduct presidential talks without preconditions with anyone, I guess the shoe fit. In fact, Bush might well have meant the shoe for Jimmy Carter -- who Obama himself actually criticized, because with finger in the wind (new politics style, of course) he knows he must.

As Newt Gingrich pointed out, had Obama not been as thin-skinned as a naked clam, and a lot stupider than he is given credit for, he could have just said, "I absolutely agree with the president and I said as much about Jimmy Carter's disgraceful kiss on the cheek of Hamas." But no, Obama's instinctive response is to go hyper-defensive ballistic about his defeatism in the very act of denying it. Of course, maybe he is not quite so dumb, and the game here is, aside from Obama's precious self-infatuation, that he thinks he can use this incident to go after Bush and then tie McCain to Bush over it. Why he wants to do that by calling screaming attention to his own worst political stance to date is beyond me. Maybe he really does think the public is as defeatest as he is. I hope he is not right, though I have my own doubts from time to time, I have to admit.

Hillary's Downfall

Warning: X-rated for blue language and gratuitous offense to various minority groups. Otherwise, listed on my top 10 funniest videos.



With a tip of the hat to Stephen Bloom for bringing it to my attention.

The Right-Wing Attack Machine Reporting In

Regarding Glen Greenwald's Great American Hypocrites, I admit it, this is me alright...

"most have dodged military duty, have strings of broken marriages and affairs, and live decadent, elitist lives, which they so ruthlessly condemn Democrats for doing."

Well, only one broken marriage, actually, but I did dodge the draft (sort of) and I am surely decadent (love those Culver's malts) and elitist (I am reading three books at once now, ain't that somethin'?). But if we Republicans are to be condemned for leading "decadent, elitist lives" now, does this mean this anti-Republican agrees with us that these are not good things? Or is he praising us, as in "hypocrisy is the complement vice pays to virtue"?

Seriously, what does any of this have to do with anything? I love it that this blurb, after spewing out the usual litany of ad hominem attacks on GOPers, tells us it's the GOP that is letting its "time-tested marketing ploy spin itself silly while avoiding debate on real issues." What issues does the blurb ask us not to avoid? I must have missed those.

This GOP attack machine line of attack lately has taken on truly preposterous dimensions, given that the anti-Hillary left has employed all the "time-tested" invective against the Clintons that the Republicans ever manufactured, plus a LOT more and a LOT worse invective all of its own making. Or am I missing something, and it is actually true that the "right-wing propaganda machine" (god I wish there were one) really does exist and really has taken over Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Moveon.org and all the other actual and really existing expletive manufacturing hate machines?

Right, I think we should put a Stetson on Hillary and get her on a horse
packing a six shooter over her pants suit!
Clinging indeed.
From my liberal anonymous friend:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/05/14/tarantella/print.html

Great American Hypocrites

Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics

Written by Glenn Greenwald

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Published by Crown

ABOUT THIS BOOK

A takedown of the GOP’s deceitful propaganda machine from the hugely popular blogger of Salon.com’s Unclaimed Territory and the author of the New York Times bestsellers How Would a Patriot Act? and A Tragic Legacy

Long since Americans were wooed by images of Ronald Reagan astride a horse, complete with cowboy hat and rugged good looks, the Republican Party has used a John Wayne mythology to build up its candidates and win elections. Their marketing scheme of evoking brave, courageous, heroic warriors has been so persuasive and strikes such a patriotic nerve, that many citizens have voted based on this manipulative imagery even when they’ve flat out disagreed with the GOP’s positions on key issues.

Glenn Greenwald puts this bogus GOP mythology under microscopic critique and successfully argues that none of these men is, in fact, a brave, strong moral warrior—far from it. Rather, most have dodged military duty, have strings of broken marriages and affairs, and live decadent, elitist lives, which they so ruthlessly condemn Democrats for doing. Such false archetypes—that GOP leaders are exclusively fit to command the military, represent traditional family values, and are fiscally restrained and responsible because they’re just regular folk like us—are so firmly entrenched in our culture as to allow the GOP to sit back and let their time-tested marketing ploy spin itself silly while avoiding debate on real issues. When they actually do voice opinions, it’s nothing more than a smear campaign of the supposed weakness and elitism of the Democrats.
To prevent this tired marketing scheme from succeeding again, Greenwald takes off the gloves and knocks down the hoaxes and myths, exposing the tactics the right-wing machine uses to drown out both reality and consideration of real issues. But he also calls on Democrats to shake off the defensive posture (“We love America too,” “We support the troops too,” “We also believe in God”) and start attacking the Republican candidates for the hypocrites they, in truth, are.

The first book to dissect the Republican Cult of Personality and leave it openly exposed in its unabashed, shameful depravity, Great American Hypocrites is a deeply necessary call-out to Democrats to attack the GOP with their competitor’s very own weapons.



Ever since the cowboy image of Ronald Reagan was sold to Americans, the Republican Party has used the same John Wayne imagery to support its candidates and take elections. We all know how they govern, but
the right-wing propaganda machine is very adept at hijacking debate
and marketing their candidates as effectively as the Marlboro Man.
For example:

Myth: The Republican nominee is an upstanding, regular guy who shares the values of the common man.
Reality: He divorced his first wife in order to marry a young multimillionaire heiress whose family then funded his political career.

Myth: Republicans are brave and courageous.
Reality: It’s a party filled with chicken hawks and draft dodgers.

Myth: Republicans are strong on defense and will keep us safe.
Reality: They prey on fears, and their endless wars make America far less secure.

Myth: The Republicans are the party of fiscal restraint and small, limited
government.
Reality: Soaring deficits, unchecked presidential power, and an increasingly invasive surveillance state are par for their course.

About the Author

GLENN GREENWALD is a former constitutional law attorney and now a contributing writer at Salon. His political reporting and analysis have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the American Conservative, numerous congressional reports, and various other publications.

McCain's Climate Cave

An email I just sent to BMI (Business Media Institute) on a piece they did on McCain's global climate change statements. Then I sent it to the McCain people themselves.

BMI
I wish the McCain people would realize how bone-headed their approach to the global warming issue is.

First of all, it is coming at a point where the case for global warming alarmism is collapsing badly, both due to research and due to the turn in the climate itself since 1998 -- which perhaps people in Arizona do not notice but we in Wisconsin ALL NOTICE.

Secondly, his efforts are a pander that the right will revile (I certainly do) and the independents and liberals will also see through completely as a pander. Why? Because they (the liberals) know in their heads, if not in their hearts, that NONE of the crackpot ideas floated so far about climate change will work one iota to change the climate, no matter whether its ups and downs otherwise are themselves a problem or not. I mean does McCain actually think the left is SERIOUS in its calls for draconian change to change the climate? He might start by wondering how it is any of them even knows what the right climate is, let alone how to get it. Then he might consider truly ludicrous nonsense such as John McCartney getting a hybrid Lexus for his enviro self-esteem but then going ballistic because it was airlifted to him. My point: None of them, absolutely none of them, is SERIOUS. And so when John McCain pretends to be, they know he is pretending, just as they know THEY are pretending. So they see his current game as his effort to fool them and even to mock them. I wish they were right. I hope they are right. Please tell McCain to send me a message back telling me they are right. He's only joking. No? Please.

Oh, well, pardon me. I have to leave now to go put some ethanol in my tank and starve a few more Third Worlders.

Jonathan Burack

More Obamamanianalysis

On May 14, 2008, at 8:29 PM, Evansen, Russell G wrote:

What is most galling to me is watching how the MSM has so thoroughly interjected itself into this whole political process, to the point where supposed “journalists” now take it for granted that they are charged with letting everyone know who will be the nominee and the next president – no matter what those annoying voters choose to do or believe. The talking heads of the Sunday chat shows and the insipid morning programs (“After the break we’ll discuss Hillary’s impact on the pantsuit industry – but first, what’s the latest on Miley Cyrus? We sent an investigative team to find out!”) have decided that we all need Obama the Healer to save us from ourselves, and they will brook no argument. This thing is OVER, they declare – so stop your stupid voting!!! Don’t you know that a bunch of elitist party hacks are going to decide this for you? Can’t you see that they are far wiser than you?

You’d think the fact that the Democrats’ hopelessly broken nominating system has yet again found a way to select the party’s most far left liberal candidate to be their November standard-bearer might give someone pause (Hello, Howard Dean? Do you recall George McGovern, or Walter Mondale, or Michael Dukakis, or John Kerry?). But let nothing stand in the way of the fairy tale that is “post-racial, post-partisan” Obama – certainly not those vulgar Clintons. The Dems are done with them, and now it’s time for them to begin the more acceptable former-first couple career of meddling in foreign affairs and writing fatuous books about how conservatives are bringing about the apocalypse.

Russ

From: Jon Burack [mailto:JBKburack@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 8:50 AM

David,

I was pleased to see the utter repudiation of Obama in W. Va., but I fear it will not deter the Obama juggernaut. I mean Obama's already explained it all -- those yokels are bitter and the victims of false consciousness. I do not know the answer about what happens after a first ballot, but it looks to me like the Democrats are determined not to let there be more than one. I also am not yet seeing that this fight is, as David says, "sharpening the focus on real issues" for Democrats. It might do that if the two candidates were the least bit clear about what the issues are and what they believe.

As for "corporate conglomerates or the mass media," a lot could be said. I just don't see what the "self-interest" is of either the conglomerates or the media intelligentsia in the choice between Obama and Hillary, or even McCain for that matter. No matter who wins, the mainstream media will continue to decline in the face of the pressures mounting on it, newspapers will continue to cut staff, the old ships will go down as newer ones arise. The same hacks, meanwhile, will get the same Pulitzers for writing about the same irrelevancies. They same numskulls will continue to pat each other's backs for the fine moral fellows they all will tell themselves they are. In fact, you could make the case that McCain will make it easiest on them (and sell more hype to profit their corporate owners) by keeping alive the insane Bush Derangement Syndrome (already transmogrifying into the McCain Derangement Syndrome) that has given them the frame for everything they say and do, forestalling the need for thought and making life easy for them.

Meanwhile, the U.S. waits, prepared as no one else is to rescue the people of Burma, reviled to its core by Burma's military and the humantiarians of the UN and the liberal "international community" all over the place, as is this president, who has done more to combat AIDS than any other single man on Earth, as the people of Iraq also wait to learn if they really will be delivered back into the tender mercies of fanatic killers, Israel waits to learn if total annhilation will move from rhetoric to action, and the rest of us wait to find out which of these three future presidents will raise taxes the highest on us to "give" us free health care and make the climate change stop, God help us. At least I hold out hope McCain's warrior ethos and opposition to spending will keep him from really doing much about that last one, despite his apparent readiness to go with the flow on they hype.

Jon

From: David Burack
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 5:57 AM

At this point in time, immediately post-West Virginia, I have to admit that I am enjoying it. Even the possibility of watching Obama learn on the job how to become king.

But I am willing to bet a small amount on Hillary, and I just sent her yet another 50 bucks. She is appropriately scrappy, and I sense, if not a turning of the tide, at least a stopping of it from running Obama's way. She will go to the mat to bring at least some part of Florida and Michigan to bear. I think it will be tough for the DNC to deny MI and FL, regardless of the "rules," which the DNC of course has the power to change if it suits their purpose. And how can it suit their purpose to publicly disenfranchise some of the same electorate that they so justifiably claimed was disenfranchised by the Supreme Court in the last election?

With Hillary's win in W. Va., reality has begun to sink in on the party and the party-ers. The super delegates have to ponder whether they want to do another McGovern-- and I think that they're going to stop bleeding off to Obama at least until June. But they might be the idiots they appear to be, and throw this thing to Obama on the flimsy basis that the fight hurts the party. It doesn't hurt the party; it is sharpening the focus on real issues.

Question: Is it true that if there is no majority on the first ballot, then the delegates are free to vote their consciences? Or is that no longer the rule, if it ever was? If so, isn't there the faint possibility of having the first true convention, floor fights and all, since the 1940's or 50's?

The delegates choose the nominees, not Newsweek, not CNN's "Best Political Team," not even the odious New Yorker's Hendrik Herzberg, or New York Times political reporters whose almost openly biased coverage is all slanted to get them a ratings-enhancing black vs. white confrontation and to elect Barack Obama President. I'm not sure who needs to be reined in more, the corporate conglomerates or the mass media. Wait a minute; is there a difference?

But where the heck are the women? Are they really going to chance passing up the only possible female candidate for President in their lifetimes?

Dave B.


On May 9, 2008, at 8:44 PM, eliot markell wrote:

Thank you all for your feedback, especially Jon's in depth analysis.

Of course this whole mess could have been avoided by a Clinton nomination but so it goes. I now have until November to be persuaded to either sit this one out or cross over to the dark side and for the first time vote for the party of Lincoln.

Will my disenfranchisement from the Democratic Party, and distaste for Obama be enough motivation for me to put aside my discomfort with the Republican domestic agenda to lodge vote against a left wing platform that leaves me out in the cold? I guess I'm saying that if I decide to vote it would be to help establish an anti-Obama coalition within the Independent Party.

Would enough Independent voting against the Obama send the Democrats a message? Probably not, but if it looks like theres some kind of momentum to go against Obama within the Independents come November I would probably side with that movement.

Eliot

JFK and Obama

I had trouble reading some of the things up here (David, what can be done about line breaks?). Here was one point I think I see:

"Kennedy denied necessary air support during the Bay of Pigs. Ordered the CIA to murder Castro (a fact that was covered up during the Warren Commission and beyond). Kennedy did make contact with Khrushchev during the missle crisis. It's what saved the world. It was Khrushchev's proposal that ultimately prevailed in the end result. As well a set of phones were installed to talk to our enemy. They were called The Hot Line, so the leaders of the nuclear powers could easily talk in the event of conflict."

I am a bit confused as to whether this is a defense of Kennedy and of Obama's comparison of himself to Kennedy, or not. I mean trying to get Castro killed does not seem like what Obama meant by talking with one's enemy. As for Kennedy talking with Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis, like I said, if this is what Obama means by talk I am all for it. As in the Swat team talking with the hostage taker to the degree of saying "Put down that weapon, step aside, and then maybe we can talk." In other words, if Obama is going to talk to Iran in the context of making it clear beyond a reasonable doubt as to the dire consequences of not talking, I am fine with that. But so far, that does not seem to be his intention. He wants to talk without preconditions (I know he denies this now, but the words are down on paper and he did say it.) JFK talked with Khrushchev in Oct. 1962 with the most dire preconditions imaginable.

Now Kennedy did have an earlier meeting with Khrushchev, wherein Khrushcheve appeared to role him and in fact came away believing he could be rolled. I cannot think, in fact, of a better example of what is wrong with talking without preconditions to one's enemies. They think you need them more than they need you.

Everything about Obama, from his refusal to disown Wright to his obfuscations about Hamas's endorsement of him, suggest the same thing to me. He will not take on absolute enmity with any realism or clean firmness. On the one hand, he protests that he doth disown them all. Yet his slippery words almost inevitably slide over to making excuses for them as well. Yes, he ultimately has come down strong on rejecting their ideas as utterly beyond the pale. But his heart is in the excuses he then makes, and you can tell it. They (Wright, Hamas) are the consequences of, on the one hand, white people's past racism, and on the other, the festering hatred our policies in the Middle East have ginned up. JFK did not have an once of this "nuanced" self-doubt (as Obama has also put it), and so I stick by my point.

Eliot wrote:

This is some chatter I had with a freind of mine who would prefer to remain anonymous:

Eliot wrote:

Well so far you and Miller are the only Democrats to enter the fray that have had anything interesting to say.

My Republican cousins (who have a lot of Democratic friends) have a blog where the rest of this dialoge will continue, I'll send you link. Although you might not agree with them I think my cousin Jon's (Jon was an educator and part of the '60s left in Madison WI after he left Harvard. His divorce from the left occurred shortly thereafter) commentary made a lot of very specific and cogent points regarding Obama and Clinton's primary contests.

There were certainly things about HC's positions that I found unappealing, the gas tax holiday was really off-base, but from my centrist perspective she's been a good senator, and would have made a trustworty president. I would have voted for her in a race against McCain. My main concerns about Obama are his relationship with Wright and his "soft" position on foreign policy. I think Obama's an intelligent, well meaning man who if we weren't engaged in long term war against determined enemies with no scruples could have made a good leader for this country.

But mostly I'm offended (and mystified) by his continued patronage of Wright's church after the 9/11 diatribe. To maintain a presence in that congregation is an egregious, inexcusable breach of trust and reliability for anyone who would claim to represent a broad constituency as president. Whether or not I vote against Obama in November as an Independent will depend on how much McCain plays to the Republican base and how close the race seems at the end. If I feel the need to send a message to the Democrats that I've been given the cold shoulder I will.

----- Original Message -----

From [Anonymous at writer's request]

I don't get the sense that you guys are actually Democrats, a lot of the people in this exchange are Republicans. Whatever, I voted for Clinton in the New York primary, but lately she's been pissing me off ("obliterate Iran"; her talk about her support among hard working whites; the whole under fire thing in Bosnia as misspeaking; that she would sit down at a table with Richard Mellon-Scaife, and be interviewed for his scum paper-it's all too much). There is also some recent hanky panky with Bill greasing the way for an individual to get oil exploratiion rights in Kazakstan that was only reported in the Times, but not seen again. Stuff like that will occur more and more.

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

A post on Talking Points Memo has this:

Never Thought I'd Say It

How far off track is Hillary's campaign? It's so bad even Peggy Noonan is making sense, painful as that is to say.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc

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

I have no problem with Obama. Well limited problems, his health plan isn't as inclusive (and therefore economically practical as Clintons). He's not the progressive that everyone thinks he is. The most liberal member of the Senate thing, is I think cooked up to get the right in a tizzy about him. Or more likely the Reagan Democrats in a tizzy. Being dependent on the black vote isn't such a bad thing. It's not like they aren't as good votes or something. He also takes the educated voters. The national may well play different than the primaries.

If the right can demonize him, make him seem unmanly ala Dukakis then they can reframe the race. Cause if they run on McCain's merits they've got not much.

McCain has no health plan to speak of. He'd like to dissolve the Veterans Administration's plan; He thinks the judiciary has been activist, while the President has been exerting the divine right of kings. He also associates with a right wing nut minister, who he sought out for support, and won't repudiate (Hagee). His wife refuses to release her taxes, and they are very wealthy -mostly her money. For all the torture issues that surround McCain, he refuses to repudiate it.

He is surrounded by lobbyists but says that he is unaffected by them. He gamed the Federal Election system to get money out of it, but so far has avoided action by them, because they lack a board member to act (the President has to put one on and he won't).

Oh, McCain will appoint more rightist judges to the court. Great just fucking great. More national security nightmare. Voted to suspend Habeas.

There was a particular piece of blather that I wanted to address in one of those emails:

> Obama (victory speech on Tuesday)
> I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness,
> but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like
> Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
>
> You know, that Roosevelt whose famous 'talk' with Hitler and Tojo
> consisted of two words -- "Unconditional Surrender." Or Kennedy, who sat
> down to shmooze at a picnic with Castro in the Bay of Pigs, made nice
> phone calls to Khrushchev one fine October (1962), and enjoyed tea and
> crumpets with the Diems of Vietnam. Then of course there is my
> pal Harry, whose "conversational wisdom" with the Emperor of the Sun was
> on full display on August, 6 and 9, 1945. If Obama is going down this
> road, I will be happy for him to "talk" away with our enemies. As long
> as he can just keep his wife quiet, that is.

Kennedy denied necessary air support during the Bay of Pigs. Ordered the CIA to murder Castro (a fact that was covered up during the Warren Commission and beyond). Kennedy did make contact with Khrushchev during the missle crisis. It's what saved the world. It was Khrushchev's proposal that ultimately prevailed in the end result. As well a set of phones were installed to talk to our enemy. They were called The Hot Line, so the leaders of the nuclear powers could easily talk in the event of conflict.

Diem in Vietnam, we had murdered.

I'm reading a good book these days. It's called Legacy of Ashes ( ISBN 9780385514453 ), it's a history of the CIA.

Hope you and yours are doing well

Is it site 9 or Roswell, Area 51?

David,

Glad to see this site revived. But will anyone show up here? Does this site exist, or is it a figment of the imagination? Time will tell. Post some Armenai pictures or something. I will be back.

Jon

The Great Divide

On May 7, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Jon wrote:

As of 10 pm CST, it looks like a dodge-the-bullet night for Obama. Hillary is squeaking by in Indiana, but Obama's has swept NC on the wave of the 92% of the black vote. This could haul him up over the great Democratic Party divide at last. He's probably got it close to nailed -- unless Hillary does go nuclear with a fight for Florida and Michigan at the convention in August. But for now, I think the circus we Republicans have been enjoying is about done.

No matter. What is startling to me is how utterly predictable it actually is that something like this would happen sooner or later. In a sense, it is exactly the pattern that first emerged fully in 1968, as the party of segregation -- a mere four years after its transformation into the party of civil rights -- became then the party of victimization, entitlement and vicious subgroup identity politics. It may be that Obama, with the nomination, can go on to beat McCain. This is the year for the Dems, and if they lose a general election in this year they may as well give it up as far as presidential politics goes. However, I still (marginally) do not think Obama can win the general election. His attempt to be a post-racial candidate has now collapsed in any case. He is entirely dependent on the black vote and the transnational new class, and in the case of blacks it is a black vote for a black man. In fact, within the Obama faction, it appears the Reverend Wright may even have helped him -- just as OJ also triggered racial solidarity in the age of paranoid victimology. The Obama victory is, in this sense, a tragedy for blacks, not a triumph. An enormous waste. Whites meanwhile, the bread-and-butter white Democrats, have (at least for now) abandoned Obama. What goes around comes around. Or as the Rev. Wright put it, the chickens are coming home to roost -- but for the Democratic Party. The Party cannot play the race card for 40 years and them pretend to have transcended the very life blood of what's kept it going.

Am I making too much of Obama's unique conundrum in seeing it as a mere culmination of his party's choice to mire us all in this idiotic group identity game for so long? I do not think so. Either he, or he and his wife (with her perhaps pushing hardest) chose Wright (and Ayers) because in the world the Democrats made it is not only okay to associate with leftwing racists and violence-infatuated fanatics, but it is almost mandatory if you are seeking to rise as a black Democrat. I doubt Obama buys much of Wright's poison, but he cleary was not bothered enough by it or if bothered did not see it as all that much of a threat to him. certainly not enough to trump expediency. His first words about Wright's words, in Philadelphia remember, were that Wright's views were "controversial." You can live with controversial. Only in a very rarified political bubble can you see someone of Wright's calibre as merely controversial.

So now we have the situation in which the black vote and the upscale academicized left-liberal vote, both of which the Clintons once owned, have been split from the white, lower middle and middle class vote, which they also owned. Over the past 40 years, the Clintons were the ONLY national candidates the Democrats have ever come up with who healed this split. Now, the split is opened up wider than it ever was before. Obama is not merely the vicitim of this, he is to blame for it as well. Had he truly been the post-racial candidate, he'd have disowned Jeremiah (and the odious Farakhan as well) long before this spring, and he'd had have honestly owned up to a mistake for ever having had anything to do with him. Had he done those things, he'd have weathered the storm, the biggest part of which now still awaits him. Instead he gave a speech in which he said he could NOT disown Jeremiah. In the course of that speech, he played so many double-meaning rhetorical games that many said he had given a great speech on a par with FDR, JFK and Lincoln at Cooper Union. I dare say, now not a word will be remembered of that speech in days to come. Obama will not be making campaign ads out of it, that's for sure.

The Clintons also bear some blame. Hillary until PA ran the worst campaign in history practically. She should have gone for those bread and butter voters with a New Deal pitch and a tough foreign policy pitch and an emphasis on all the ways she has reached out to Republicans and tried to get things done. The Scoop Jackson/Pat Moynihan role was beckoning. Instead, she at first acted with utter complacency as the annoited one. And who could blame her. In today's Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman is what happens to Scoop Jackson types. You can almost excuse Hillary for passing on that. Yet she could have pulled it off. In any case, after Obama unannointed the annointed one, she then panicked over his mesmerizing the Democratic left and tried for much too long to kow-tow to it herself. Had she said, instead, I will get those oil companies, get those terrorists, fix medicare, clean out the Augean stables, win the right way in Iraq and make you all proud to go out and lift a tall one for the good ole USA, she would have had it sewed up by now. Hell, I might even have voted for her.

Instead, the left, the moveon.org, George Soros, Daily Kos, smart alecky hip young Internet left and its pandering admirers in the media spooked her. The very people who created the great divide that she and her husband were the only ones ever to bridge. But she could not get to Obama's left. Her lurch left failed. That's because Obama telegraphs his leftism in such a subtle and devious way that that farther to it he moves, the more reasonable he seems. Until Jeremiah, that is. It's amazing. This man who talks about reaching out across the isle and healing the nation. The man with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. When it came to voting for Chief Justice Roberts, for instance - as McCain so well and aptly pointed out today - Obama was in a minority of 22 in a U.S. Senate of 100. Meanwhile, it was McCain who took part in the gang of 14, to the great annoyance of many conservatives, to get the SCOTUS nomination process back on track. That's reaching out. (By the way, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is easily as far to the left as Roberts is to the right. When she was up for nomination, she won 98-2. So who exactly is doing the reaching out Obama says only he will do, eh?)

Unfortunately for my side, I expect Obama to use his prodigious sophistic skills (I think he already is now) to paper this over and move the party into the Republican-demonizing, white-guilt tripping, patriotism-dissembling bamboozle in order to get everyone to again look the other way. But in fact, Obama is the candidate of a faction. Many of the best and brightest among us think it is a growing faction that will swamp all the old Bubbas out there who vote against Obama now by 60% plus. It can't. And so Obama will deal, and drink beer, and pretend to care about people who think they might, though they in fact will not, lose their jobs, and surely not because of NAFTA, but whose resentments are there for the taking. Many of the states in which Obama won big are states he cannot hope to win in the general election, however, so I expect the new Bubbaized Obama to be working overtime from now on to salvage Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, etc. Do not expect too much of the "we are the ones we've been waiting for" high flying. Those who think this is Obama's real persona will have to wait and hope to see it resurface after November. The Democratic Bubbas are not alone, and it will take Obama a lot less talking down and a lot less talking past to win them over.

What could be at stake in the Obama campaign is a decisive U.S. turn toward the statism and defeatism of Europe, which is really what Obama and his transnational progressivist radicalism is all about. (You see, the guy really does have his "community organizer" ideology intact, and it is certainly not the bring us all together blather he has been selling.) Given the baby-boom wave now starting to crash onto the shores of the entitlement state system, that will probably mean very high taxes, regulation, regulation, economic stagnation, flabbiness and isolationism in the face of Islamic radicalism, and preening self-righteousness in cultural matters for the rest of my life. Oh well, I've got my books, so when the tax man comes to tax my feet I can still sit down.

But I will be giving my last hurrah for John McCain this year, you can bet. After that, I say to hip young we-are-the-worlders coming on now, it's all yours. Good luck.

My thoughts for the night.

Jon

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

Iraq redux

Brother Jon writes:

Some good news would be welcome about now, so I hope you have some to pass along. Sure won't be any from the political establishment, which is as far as I can tell in full retreat mode, mired in utterly pathetic fantasies about the "realism" of "dialogue" with Amadinejahd, Syria and other enemies in order to sell ourselves and our one friend in the region right down the river. Will we soon find out why they call the pond at its end the DEAD Sea? It's going to be a long and dismal two years, I fear. And if it's Hillary we get, God help us. I may be wrong, I do not think this is 1974 again. But I just do not think the Islamofascist tide as yet lapped up anywhere near enough of us to ignite the inevitable response. Bush may one day be seen not as Truman, which I had hoped, but as a long twilight pre-1941 Roosevelt, hemmed in by appeasers, believers in Neutrality Acts, America Firsters of right and left, transnational morons enlessly seeking to outlaw war. I also accept this analysis of his own mistakes, with which you of course will agree.

Whither US Iraq Policy with Dems in Control of Congress

Holmes,

I am going to post to site9 your response to the New York Times article I sent you all, and invite my brother and his colleagues to do the dissection, since you have obviously had time to learn some political facts, which if they are "true facts" are impressive. I forget that you were once advisor to a progressive mayor of one of our great American cities, New Haven. Good luck to you all. I am going to be impressed if I see the Congress wheel all the way around from the Democrat's cut-and-run "policy" to something resembling a troop increase, which is what should have happened years ago. Interesting to see that the "ostracized" and fired Sinsekei is being rehabilitated now. Anyway, if the Democratic ship of fools can be turned by reality, great. Otherwise, we are in for another liftoff from the embassy by helicopter a la Saigon-- excuse me, Ho Chi Minh City-- and a blood bath that should compete well with the partition of India and Pakistan. Although, who knows?, perhaps with US outof the way, they wil settle their affairs peaceably. Another interesting current going -- we are living through a transition in which many ideas are flourishing-- is the idea of a strongman for Iraq. I have felt since early on when things started going badly that the best going away present we could probably give them is Saddam Hussein instead of the government now installed. What ever happened to that great American tradition of putting tinpot dictators in place all over to protect our interests and those of Dole Fruit?

Dave B.


On Nov 16, 2006, at 8:15 AM, David L. Holmes wrote:

I’m not sure I “get” why you and (coincidentally, I’m sure) the Neo-Con/Likud policy wonks (not to mention the mainstream “liberally-biased” media) are so down on Murtha as some Pinko, cut-and-run, pacifist lefty.

He’s a long standing member of the Blue Dog Democratic Caucus. He opposes freedom of choice and any form of gun control. He has never opposed a military appropriation bill and has in the past – and I believe most recently – been a parrot for the uniformed services. He is a decorated war hero and adored by the military whose bidding he is doing right now with his calls for redeployments in Iraq.

Steny Hoyer has opposed and betrayed Pelosi for years, supported Bush in his Iraq adventure, and expressed disappointment about the recent apparent democratic “mandate.” Moreover, most of the whining about Pelosi’s embrace of that leftwing, MoveOn-loving Murtha and her abandonment of her one true friend, Hoyer, has come from precisely the same Amen corner that was outraged at the Dem’s treatment of Lieberman, piled on Howard Dean when he ran in the presidential primaries – and has not let up since and is suggesting that any Democratic investigation of war profiteering or giveaways of U.S.-owned real estate to resource extraction industries would be damaging to the Dem’s long term interests. And, oh yes, if the Dem’s have any sense, they will support Obama for president. That last one has me mystified and a bit on guard.

I think Dick Morris, David Brooks, Richard Perle, Bob Novak, Charles Krauthammer and William Safire – to name a few – have always been out for the best interests of the Democratic Party. I thin Pelosi and others should listen to their every burp.


On or about November 15, 2006 David A. Burack wrote:

The Senate should become interesting over the next few months. McCain will have to hold the fort for the Republicans. Maybe it is a good thing that he is not a Democrat. They would just steam roller him into a back room, where they should have held Murtha instead.

Democrats Push for Troop Cuts Within Months
"The White House said it is open to 'fresh ideas,' but rejected setting a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq."

Today, Germany. Tomorrow...

by Jon B:

I may perhaps at times have mentioned my ongoing worries about transnational progressivism and its drive to undermine the nation state in the name of some global constitutional order. This is a good sign of what we can expect more of until such time as the EU and/or UN collapse, since they are the sites of a good deal of it.

Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse

It is not to be taken lightly. I do not think Americans realize how thoroughly much of our legal establishment, for instance, has thrown in with this perspective. You occasionally see items about Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Steven Breyer making references to international conventions, values, judicial proceedings and cases in some of their decisions. It's worse than that. These people are the elites, not the rag-tag alienated of the Arab street.

Don't you just love the utopian hubris: German law provides for "universal jurisdiction." Seems to me, some guy over there tried that already once several decades back, but what the heck do I know.

I am sure the Germans waited to get a Democratic Congress and for Rummy to leave office to try this breathtaking invasion of US sovereignty, but believe me sovereignty itself is in their sites. In some ways, the goo-goos of the UN, EU and the NGO networks are totally in sync with the terrorists in their hostility to the nation state. All this will be with us as long as terrorism itself, and we better get ready to take it on.

--Jon

David L. Holmes reports in

Below is an exchange between Dave B. and David Holmes, with my reply first.

Holmesiana,

That your mood has palpably brightened since the election is reason enough for me to rejoice in the Democrats victory. It may surprise you that I tried to help things along by voting straight Democratic, although in the cesspool of vegetarian pro-Palestinian politics that passes for liberal democracy up here in Vermont it was like pissing into the sewage plant. Anyway, your writing is delightful enough that I am going to post it into my nearly completely unread new blog, and will send you the link once I think of it, since it has been so long that even I looked at the site I have forgotten.

Things fell apart for me, thankfully, at ARD, and I am liberated for individual consulting in water and environment internationally, or just about anywhere for that matter. I am thrilled, and the burden of not having to fight the rearguard corporate battle lifted away as I drove away last Friday, with my traditional eight boxes of effluvia.

My best regards to you, and my very best regards to your bookkeeper. You just don't understand, do you, Holmeski?

Borax

On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:45 AM, David L. Holmes wrote:

I hope things are OK with you.

Well, the elections are finally over with. And best of all, Mr. Rumsfeld is off to brighter horizons! What a pity Senators Macacawitz and Santorum lost.

Following up on my last epistle, I offer the reflections of Chris Hedges on the U.S.’s and Israel’s prospects for long term peace-creation in the Levant as an attachment. Hedges was Mid East bureau chief for the New York Times and has written several books which I own. But most interestingly, he is a fellow who had the temerity to express some doubts about the wisdom Mr. Bush’s then-brand-new Iraq adventure at a commencement address at my Alma Mater, Rockford College in IL. The outrageous behavior of the students and their parents made national news. It bordered on violent, the microphone was unplugged and he was asked to stop by the president before he finished the speech. All of this notwithstanding the fact that he’s an ordained minister, had at that time a couple of decades of first hand experience in the region under his belt, and the speech itself was pretty mild (I noticed just now that when I Googled “Chris Hedges,” that the 3rd entry -- after 2 relating to a Bill Moyers interview – is Text of the Rockford College graduation speech by Chris Hedges in the Rockford Register Star.

It was that event that made me realize that we had come to a sad and uninquiring state of affairs in the U.S. It persists to this day. I printed a copy of your hero, Tom Friedman’s, Insulting Our Troops, and Our Intelligence column from last week to share with the bookkeeper who shares space with me in this office on a part time basis. She was so outraged after the first paragraph, she refused to read further and threw the print out at me. Like the students and parents at Rockford 3 years ago, our bookkeeper has a palpable and visceral reaction to even the suggestion that our “Global War on Terror” may need some tweaking. It’s all so sad.

My best to you and your lovely bride.

Holmesini

First New Yorker Cartoon to Make Me Laugh in Quite Awhile

Ca. Sept.4, 2006

How Bad Is It?

Well, what's your take on things? I was busy this weekend with a friend from LA (Jay Holloway, accountant) and a wedding (Patrick and Joan Flynn's son. Flynn is former art director at The Progressive). So needless to say, I have been out of the loop.

My sense is, Israel blew a big chance, and the U.S. had to pick up the pieces with a deal in the UN that has as much chance of going anywhere as I do of winning the lottery. I see Iran and Hezbollah are crowing, but that would happen no matter what. So what is the meaning of it all?

I am going to read Podhoretz tonight --"Is the Bush Doctrine Dead? Epitaphs are multiplying for the President's revolutionary foreign policy; they are premature."-- because it's one of these moments when only the long-run perspective can cheer me up.

--Jon

Overall, it is as good a deal as Israel, and the US, could get, given that the IDF found its adversary to be a lot tougher sledding than it thought it was going to be. (I really don't know what effect "world opinion" regarding the slaying on so-called "innocents" had on Olmert, but the general take on that question is not encouraging. Anyway, the cease fire gives Israel a breather, which is more important than its also giving Hizbollah a chance to "re-arm," which it doesn't really need to do. And, either side can start it up again whenever it thinks the time is right, which I think means sooner rather than later, or I guess I should say I hope means sooner rather than later, because time is on the enemy's side. So far, it has come out about the way I predicted.

On July 23, 2006, David Burack wrote:
"Israel will keep pounding if not pulverizing all of Hezbollah's known missile emplacements until they are reduced to a safe level. [Well, that last phrase didn't prove out, apparently.] At the same time, they will not discourage a third party intervention, such as a NATO-manned buffer force on the border (which side or sides remains unclear), some few weeks down the line. Also, Iran is definitely behind the whole missile program, with Syria as its intermediary and Hezbollah as the operator. Finally, and perhaps one main motivator for the attack now -- not two Israeli soldiers casualties of war for gosh sakes -- Hezbollah, it is rumored, has intermediate range missiles capable of reaching Tel Aviv and Jerusalem carrying very heavy warheads."

My hope is that they took out those intermediate range missiles, and no one wants to talk about that.

The elephant in the living room is, Iran's nukes and when our government will make good on our promise to prevent them from happening. I am praying that W's atonement and legacy act will be to do what has to be done. Everything else, even Iraq, is a sideshow. Even without that scenario, the whole thing is pretty scary, but it would be a lot less scary if the mass media could somehow be taught to take a sensible line. Not much hope on that score, either.

Meanwhile, during this breather, you can study or reference the particulars of the ceasefire (UN Security Council Resolution 1701) here.

And, as if to prove the point that this truce indeed is just a breather for Israel, check out this item from The Jerusalem Post, especially:

"Annan upset officials further when he said that deploying international forces in Lebanon would take "weeks or months," and not days as expected. [Ahem. I never expected "days." --Dave] Israeli officials said the IDF would not complete its withdrawal from southern Lebanon until the international force was deployed - even if it took months - to prevent a vacuum in Lebanon that could endanger Israeli civilians."

--Dave

Well, they set out to "crush" Hezbollah, right? Perhaps they did seriously diminish its terror-making capabilities...but Hezbollah has definitely survived to fight another day (which, as you say Jon, is a
certainty).

Israelis have to be asking themselves...what was the fighting over the last month all about?

What am I missing?

--Paul S.


I don't think you are missing anything. But I also think it is important, as I said, to keep the perspective long run. Here is Powerline with Netanyahu, who I have always felt should be prime minister of Israel.

Powerline, "Half Hour with Benjamin Netanyahu"

--Jon

Whither the Economy? Reprise

This articleseems like a good place to start off the interchange again. It answers my brother's remarks, some way down, that he is sitting pretty in his house "somewhere in the mid-West" ("Diamonds and Rust," Joan Baez), so why worry? As is told here, Jon, the interactions among the slow-down factors, always imponderable to the pundit-specialists who focus on one or two segments, are what will drag us into the abyss, coupled with the fooling power that riding on the crest of a really huge wave, in this case, the $12 trillion U.S. economy, often brings. This is a great, gradual ride, with little ups and downs, but going all the way down, and below and which, by the way, has little to do with Bush's obliviousness to the whole concern; it started long before him, and will come to rest long after he and the Republicans leave the scene like Greenspan, whose many talents included getting out while the getting was good. Let me take you on a surfin' safari. --Dave



On July 17, 2006, Jon Burack wrote:

I am just back from Orlando (AP College Board conference). Á la Jed's report, I can well imagine there is consumer anemia in California. (I hope that fact is not presented as an argument against low taxation. In California?) A house like mine here in Stoughton would get me half a trailer in a trailer park out there. (But at least it would only get done in by earthquakes and not tornadoes, which out here target trailer parks with uncanny accuracy). Seriously, the Orlando airport is a bit different from the one Jed mentions. Shops, restaurants, internet cafes, Starbucks, waterfalls, stainless steel everywhere, screaming kids and Mickey Mouse. It's enough to make a Frenchman out of me. But poor it is not.

I did read the Harper's graphics, some of which impressed me more than others, though I can't recall which was which. [See link below. --Dave] I do not doubt for a minute a big welfare state entitlement crisis looms. W, a big spending Republican, is nevertheless the only president who has dared to touch that third rail. It nearly did him in. He wasted a year on it, and all he got from the Democrats was "don't you kill Social Security, you SOB." Some other president will have to take it on. No doubt in my mind that free enterprise capitalism is key to solving the problem. Still, Social Security-Medicare-Baby Boomer storm clouds approach. Okay? How's that for non-Polyanna.

So, to get back to the short run, which as a historian, I would insist is all you can have faith that anyone knows how to predict, if even that, I explicitly did not accept all of Kudlow's optimism -- as in, to quote myself, " I do not necessarily subscribe to all of the Polyanish stuff below..." I simply called attention to the prediction you all made in Nov. 2004 that the disaster was at hand because Bush was artificially proping up the economy. You guys can talk around your predictions then with all the long-term disaster-mongering now, but my focus is on your being wrong then. I don't ridicule you for it, since I am wrong about similar matters all the time, but I will ridicule you for denying it now. It was not based on all this long-term forcasting you like. It was based on a reading of George Bush as a cynical and stupid pol. I do not think he is that, except of course that he is a pol. I think it was unfair of you to see it that way and, to boot, was a sign that you mistake the way reality works.

It is clear enough to me that the tax cuts do appear to have worked as supply siders predict and generated extra investment, job creation, and revenue. I don't say they always do that, just that they do it under certain circumstance and appear to have done it here. If you disagree with that analysis, supply reasons for why you disagree that account for the same set of facts (4.6% unemployment, soaring tax revenues from the rich, growing GDP, inflation not seriously out of control despite war, the horrrors of Mideast Oil fanaticism and hurricanes in the South.)

Whether any of Bush's economic policies work over the long run is another matter. I would guess it depends on many, many other factors. The Chinese may be one. On that, however, I simply do not see them as the destabilizers you do. Yes, they are holding and investing dollars and could decide at some point to stop -- if they want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs that keep their billion-plus working. I do not doubt they are every bit as cyncial and ruthless as you all appear to see Bush, but I do not think they are stupid. They have tied their (Red) star to the global capitalist economy, and they are not going to court the billion-plus upheaval of the century at home by destroying its engine. The demographic factors here also could disrupt the long run. As I say, Bush tried and failed to move the nation on these. However, and here I am being a bit Polyanish, I do not doubt for a minute this nation can figure out how to take care of old farts without bankrupting itself. A restoration of the notion that people ought to work most of their life (i.e., until their late 70s, the equivalent of 65 when FDR was around) would be a good start, good for old people, good for the economy, good for the entitlement diseases, etc. Learning how to keep old people productive, on the right meds, out of nursing homes and off the highways. That's my "chicken in every pot" slogan. I realize I won.t get elected on it. But I do think the good old USofA is going to find a way to keep itself going for a long time to come, however it does it.

One final point. Gibbon was wrong. Christians did NOT do in the Roman Empire. Spengler and Toynbee and all the rest were also wrong. Empires do not rise and fall by proceeding from stern virtue to corrupt laziness. There are no laws of history. It's all up for grabs.

On July 12, 2006 David Burack wrote:

An additional ecological add-on to the economics, about interaction of these factors as escaping the grasp of today's "business economist" journalists: What you look for in a self-stabilizing system are positive feedback loops. I do not see any. Quite the reverse. If interest rates and mortgage paykments go up, investment and jobs dip, then you have a strong negative feedback loop, one of many others we can describe that drag the system further downwards.


On Jul 11, 2006, at 10:14 PM, Jedidiah Burack wrote:

I agree with my father since he agrees with me but seriously did you send Jon the graphics from that spread in Harper's?

jed

For reference, here is a link to the Harper's Magazine"The New Road to Serfdom,", a brief PDF download. --Dave


On Tuesday, July 11, 2006, at 07:21PM, David Burack wrote:

After a hiatus that wasn't really a hiatus because we moved the whole household down the street to our new address,
I returned to the office and got loaded up with all kinds of new work. Summers are our busiest season, it seems. Plus, were housing one of Bronwyn's grandaughters this week, so my time is not my own.

I reject your Polyanna-ish view of the economy. This is such a huge economy that the effects are going to be long time coming, long time gone. We're going down slow. I will elaborate, but I think that Dr. Jed's analysis of many months ago, the one showing how much debt the Chinese hold is still apros pos. The thing that the pundits do not take into account is the interactions. You have huge debt and deficits, and minor tick down is not going to stop the trend up, despite the nice headlines it makes for Bush for one or two months. The combination of deep debt, weak job c reation, higher interest, so much consumer credit and no money down ARMs that will be hit badly once the interest rate starts to bite, the utterly stupid tax cutting over the past decade when we should have been raising taxes, the lack of investment, the glut of housing, etc, etc.. We are in deep trouble. You will see.

Dave

On Jul 10, 2006 Jon Burack wrote:

Still waiting for the trenchant economics lesson in response to what I sent a few days ago.

On July 8, 2006, Jed Burack wrote:

David and Jed,

Okay, come on, I will give you guys a chance to give it back to me (I know you can do it). Back in November, 2004 [It seems to have been March 2004. --Ed.], I heard from you how Bush had cynically manufactured a temporary prosperity and after the election, le Deluge.

Now I do not necessarily subscribe to all of the Polyanish stuff below (one item is from The New York Times, after all), but I do think the media has outdone even its distorted Iraq chicken-littling with its horrendous anti-Bush economics reporting. (I love the NYT's absolutely predictable and precious "unexpectedly" here). So what say you all?

Item 1 (NYTs)
WASHINGTON, July 8 — An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago.

Item 2. Larry (the optimist) Kudlow (á la Powerline)

Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland and Belgium.

This is an extraordinary fact, although you may be reading it here first. ***

For those who bother to look, the economic power of lower-tax-rate incentives is once again working its magic. While most reporters obsess about a mild slowdown in housing, the big-bang story is a high-sizzle pick-up in private business investment, which is directly traceable to Bush's tax reform. It was private investment that was hardest hit in the early decade stock market plunge and the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist bombings. So team Bush's wise men correctly targeted investment in order to slash the after-tax cost of capital and rejuvenate investment incentives.

Here is Dr. Jed's original, March (?) 2004 screed that Jon recalls for us:


Like much of history, economic history is a repetition of the past but with a new and unique twist each time.

At present we have the latest cycle of a Republican administration borrowing its way into a false and dangerous boomlet.

The illustration shows the crux of the matter:

The Japanese, in an effort to weaken the yen and support the only source of growth in their economy—exports, will print yen and buy US treasuries no matter what the long term consequences for them.

The Chinese, on the other hand, will not decouple the yuan from the dollar in spite of enormous pressure to do so. They will not tolerate a strengthening of the yuan which would make their ultra-cheap exports less competitive in the US and abroad. They want to maintain explosive growth, again regardless of the long-term consequences.

The US, forming the third corner of this triumvirate, also is very happy with the situation. While the Treasury Secretary gives official statements supporting a strong dollar, it’s all very tongue in cheek. He practically gives a sardonic smirk as he says the US has a strong dollar policy—We all know that everything we DO indicates that we absolutely do not support a strong dollar. Why? A weak dollar continues the pressure favoring foreign purchases of Treasuries, which is really lending to finance the Federal deficit. This allows us to keep our idiotic tax cuts in place without raising interest rates or causing inflation. The tax cuts for the wealthy, while doing nothing to redistribute money and keep consumer demand high, do have the benefit of placating Bush’s most important political constituency, the corporations and the wealthy. Further, this currency/fiscal policy keeps cheap imports flowing from China—imports that we don’t have to pay for now since the Chinese will sell goods to us in exchange for owning US treasury bonds.

So, we have the Far East—Japan doing relatively more of the lending, and the Chinese doing relatively more of the producing—maintaining cheap goods and easy credit for us. Doesn’t this give you the slightest inkling of concern? Do you think this all comes for free? Of course not; it should make you nervous.

All this talk of “deficits don’t matter”—bullshit. There is a big difference between fiscal deficits financed internally and those owed abroad. Lack of concern about deficits is somewhat true when they’re used as a way to print money to stimulate a recessionary or depressionary economy, especially when the deficit is financed internally, not when it is financed externally. That is part of what Warren Buffett was getting at in his article Write him off at your peril. Do you really believe he is an anti-Bush partisan? He’s writing in Fortune ‘cause he’s scared of this.

Here are some of the down sides:

The more we owe abroad, the more interest we will pay for decades to foreign governments. We have been a creditor nation since the nineteenth century to the rest of the world. The present level of foreign debt is unprecedented. This will provide a constant sap on our resources and a constant weakening pressure on our currency.

International political implications are daunting. If you don’t think the Chinese plan for the long run and if you don’t think that the Chinese understand the political power of being the lender, you’re a fool. They understand very well that when they hold hundreds of billions in US treasuries and other securities (The above graph shows only the government holding of US treasuries, a tip of the total investment iceberg.), and they decide it’s time for them to take over Taiwan or whatever their agenda, then being the banker to the US is a far more powerful power instrument than military might. An instructive lesson in my mind: Ayatollah Khomenei immediately after the revolution, a more bitter enemy hard to imagine, announced that Iran’s foreign debt to the US was void. David Rockefeller was interviewed on PBS a few days later and asked about this. I remember the shot of him sitting in a 1970’s Swedish type modern chair, corner office of glass windows behind him, high up in lower Manhattan, in his quiet and very understated way, fingertips delicately pressed together, slumped in his seat, saying “They may choose to do so but that will be the end of any foreign lending to the regime.” Next day, the Ayatollah reversed his position and the debt was honored.

Trapped. Just as the present situation is a sweet irresistible convergence of low inflation, cheap imports, low interest rates, rising asset prices (due to the low interest rates, not real growth of productive capital), the contrasting situation is an inescapable vicious cycle. For at some point, the above exponential curve (as you like to point out all exponential curves do) must reverse. At some point the Chinese will have to decouple the yuan from the dollar, and Japanese internal production and exports to other economies will allow them to stop printing yen to buy Treasuries. What will happen? No financing of our deficit externally. Rising interest rates at home and increased cost of our deficit. Much weaker dollar, rising prices for imports (Please don’t tell me that we’ll just start making the goods instead; we don’t make a single TV any more.), higher inflation, and drain of capital to pay the foreigners interest on all the debt we owe. Better known as stag-flation, the delightful combination of economic stagnation and inflation.

Thank God we’ve been redistributing wealth to consumers so that internal growth and demand could pull us out of this debt? The only problem is: we haven’t been doing this. Personal income for the last 20 years is flat.

Call me a hysterical democrat with a political agenda, which I may be. Unfortunately, I don’t think that changes the situation.

My notebooks

There was a long phase in the 1970s-80s of drawing, watercolors, notebooks. I want to organize and edit this material, perhaps publish it, or just blog it to the noosphere<-- that phrase actually has specific meaning. My, how language has evolved. --Dave

Who Is Happy?

I've been looking for an article like this, studying the question as much as I have, both in myself and in those around the world that I've met or seen close up, perhaps more than any other question that I have studied.











In Africa, I wondered, how can these kids, living in squalor, be so obviously happy? It can't be an act, can it? Man, I wish that I could smile like that most of the time! For the moment, it seems, it's nature not nurture. And it casts doubt on a lot of utilitarian thinking that I was embued with in college.--DAB

Reviews

Favored by the Gods
by George Johnson*
Scientific American
June 2006

Happiness, according to current scientific thinking depends less on circumstances than on our genetic endowment
Stumbling on Happiness
by Daniel Gilbert
Alfred A. Knopf, 2006 ($24.95)

The Happiness Hypothesis
by Jonathan Haidt
Basic Books, 2006 ($26)

Happiness: A History
by Darrin M. McMahon
Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006 ($27.50)

The sky was smeared with the lights from the midway, spinning, blinking, beckoning to risk takers, but I decided to go for a different kind of thrill: Ronnie and Donnie Galyon, the Siamese Twins, were at the Minnesota State Fair.

Feeling some guilt, I bought my ticket and cautiously approached the window of the trailer they called home. Thirty years old, joined at the stomach, they were sitting on a sofa, craning their necks to watch television.

Twenty-five years later I am still struck by this dizzying conjunction of the grotesque and the mundane. Trying to project myself into their situation—a man with two heads, two men with one body—I felt only sickness, horror and a certainty that I would rather be dead.

Yet there they were, traveling from town to town, leading some kind of life. When we try to envision another’s happiness, we suffer from arrogance and a poverty of imagination. In 1997, when science writer Natalie Angier interviewed Lori and Reba Schappell, connected at the back of the head and sporting different hairdos, each insisted that she was basically content.

“There are good days and bad days—so what?” Reba said. “This is what we know. We don’t hate it. We live it every day.” Lori was as emphatic: “People come up to me and say, ‘You’re such an inspiration. Now I realize how minor my own problems are compared to yours.’ But they have no idea what problems I have or don’t have, or what my life is like.’’

Three recent books—two by scientists and one by a historian—take on the quest for the good life, in which common sense and the received wisdom of the ages is increasingly confronted by findings from psychology, neuroscience and genetics. In the fight for survival, evolution has naturally molded our nervous systems to respond more quickly to the negative than to the positive. Before the late-blooming forebrain can reason that the hiss we hear is from an espresso machine, the primitive amygdala whispers “snake.” Depending on which part of the brain is paid more heed, a person will tend to be glum and anxious or cheerful and daring, but the choice may be beyond control.

Each of us, it seems, has an emotional “set point” or “cognitive style” that is genetically rooted and hard to budge. In The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan
Haidt, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, observes that lottery winners and paralysis victims quickly return to equilibrium, regaining the level of joy—or sadness—they felt before their brush with fate. How Ronnie, Donnie, Lori, Reba and the rest of us feel about life may depend less on circumstance than on natural disposition, the shape of the brain.

Knowing nothing of neurology, the ancient Greeks equated happiness with being favored by the gods, something over which they were powerless. This fatalism is frozen in our language. Happiness, happenstance, haphazard, hapless— all derive from the same root. In Happiness: A History, Darrin M. McMahon, a historian at Florida State University, charts how this germ of an idea changed over time. With Christianity, happiness became something to aspire to in the afterlife, and with the Enlightenment something to pursue on earth. From there it was a natural progression to the smiley face (invented in 1963, McMahon tells us, by one Harvey R. Ball) and the decision by the country of Bhutan to measure its economy according to “gross national happiness.” [See figure]

With evolutionary biology we have come, full circle, back to the Greeks: happiness is in the luck of the draw, how we fare in the genetic sweepstakes, the modern name for Fortuna’s wheel. Not even geography or economic position is as influential a factor. Several years ago in the journal Science & Spirit, another psychologist, Robert Biswas-Diener, wrote about the remarkably high spirits he found among people in a Calcutta slum and on the harsh northern coast of Greenland. “Research shows that we are the fortunate inheritors of a highly evolved emotional system that leads us to be, for the most part, somewhat happy,” he wrote. “We have a tendency to interpret things positively and to adjust quickly to most events.”

The downside is that this reflexive optimism can keep us from making good guesses about what will or will not bring us joy. It is not just the hard lives of others that we have trouble imagining but also our own. In Stumbling on Happiness, Daniel Gilbert, a Harvard psychologist studying “affective forecasting,” shows that people have inflated expectations about the joy they will derive from a vacation, a new car or child, or a second dessert. But our failure as futurists also cuts the other way. We overestimate how bad we will feel if we get fired or lose a tooth or even a friend or mate. Rationalization, our emotional immune system, insists on putting the best face possible on even the saddest events.

“We treat our future selves as though they were our children," Gilbert writes, “spending most of the hours of most of our days constructing tomorrows that we hope will make them happy.” But the children turn out to be ingrates, complaining that we should have let them stay in the old house or study dentistry instead of law.

Taken together, all these findings may seem a little depressing. But true to our nature, we can see them in a sunnier way. A whole industry has sprung up— mass-market therapy, cosmetics, cheap luxury cruises—promoting a kind of gross national sappiness, an obligation to have fun. A little knowledge from the psych labs may take off some of the pressure, providing grist for the inverse of a self-help book—not a guide on how to achieve happiness but on understanding why, in the end, you probably won’t.

* George Johnson’s most recent book is Miss Leavitt’s Stars: The Unknown Story of the Woman Who Discovered How to Measure the Universe (W. W. Norton, 2005).

Copyright 2006 Scientific American, Inc.

Here's the Iran President's letter in full

There is part of me that says, this is nice.

There's part of me that says, whoo boy, watch out.

But the main thing that I think of is, Rodney King saying, "Why can't we all get along?"

--David A. Burack