That was the shocking headline the other day on the generic Yahoo page that one gets before logging in. Some glamour website had mistakenly (sic) posted an un-retouched photo that exposed the revolting globules of cellulite afflicting the model/notorious floozy's well-turned thighs.
Before-and-after photos accompanied this unsettling story. An overly made-up Kim, wearing a Wonder Woman outfit and striking a Bob Fosse pose, stares at the camera. She's more curvy than full-figured, really. I couldn't detect any cellulite (they had shaved off some belly and hip in the retouch), but she looked pretty hot to me in either shot. Cellulite-gate was obviously a publicity stunt, but I'm glad the lovely and untalented Ms. Kardashian did it. In her words, "I'm proud of my body and my curves and this picture coming out is probably helpful for everyone to see that just because I am on the cover of a magazine doesn't mean I'm perfect." Can the arc of Kim K's fabricated story in some small way help amend our culture's twisted image of beauty?
Subliminal and pervasive, cultural messages seep into our psyches from all around. Youth are especially susceptible, and our girls and young women are bombarded by one particularly destructive message: "you are irredeemably fat and unattractive!" Sure, girls will always critique each other and themselves, but they get their blueprint from Cosmo. Yet Cosmopolitan, a magazine designed by male homosexuals and featuring photoshopped Dachau inmates, is just the tip of the iceberg. Hollywood is shamefully complicit as well. I happen to be friendly with a couple of actresses, and have bumped into others at events. In person, most are pretty, some merely "striking", but all are really thin. Casting Anne Hathaway as the chubby, frumpy girl in Prada is a joke. Real women have curves. Cellulite happens.
As a riding instructor, I've gotten to know many teenage girls. Even the skinniest and prettiest have lamented their 'disgusting fatness'. The 14 year-old who rides with me every summer is easily one of the prettiest females I've ever encountered (actresses included.) Over the years, I've watched gangly cuteness sublimate into an exceptional beauty and grace. She is athletic, well-proportioned, a bit on the slim side. She exudes a cheerful, confident personality, and has a rare gift for working with horses. Yet this past summer, when I asked how she liked her winter barn, she mentioned neither horses nor instructors, but rather how horribly fat she was compared to the other girls there, singling out her "gross" legs. As discretely as possible, I assured her that she was very pretty, and jokingly warned that by the end of the summer, those legs would be even "grosser"- that is, more muscular - from riding every day.
My 20 year-old intern, who is tall, slender and lithe, with a radiant face and a brilliant mind, for years considered herself hopelessly fat and ugly. Only after boys went wild for her in college did she accept that she might in fact be ridiculously attractive. Still, she complains about her "huge" butt, when it's only that her meager hips are set a bit wide.
Girls don't simply grow out of these negative self-images, either. My close friend is in her early forties and has a stunning, pear-shaped figure. Since we're adult friends, it's safe for me to remind her that her figure drives me to distraction. Nevertheless, she agonizes about her cellulite, and after dinner, she'll pat her tummy and whine, "I have a food baby." (I'll grab my gut and reply, "well, I've got an entire orphanage over here!") My friend is a therapist who's combatted the destructive body images of late-stage bulimics and anorexics, but still struggles with her own.
Ironically, there's a heavy-set girl I teach who, though beset with all sorts of other emotional issues, is surprisingly comfortable with her body image. She'll matter-of-factly state, "I know I have a big body," and then laugh when I snort, "Yeah, so? When you think about it, it's a wonderful body-look at how well you can ride using that body!"
It breaks my heart that these young women, who, at a point in their lives when they should simply be enjoying the sans souci of youth and reveling in their natural abilities, are burdened with externally imposed self-loathing and feelings of inadequacy. In this area, our culture is as sick and abusive as Mommie Dearest. Why isn't more being done to end this near-universal mental torment, which creates lasting emotional scars?
Our society's fixation on thinness is an illness. In olden times, we admired a healthy body, whatever its conformation. Prior to our modern surfeit of food and lack of exercise, "fat" meant healthy, not obese. A round belly was a sign of plenty and thus a thing of beauty. I recall a quote from a letter written by a Union soldier during the Civil War. "The entire state of North Carolina is populated by fat and pretty women," he marveled.
Upon further investigation, I discovered that Cellulite-gate was indeed a stunt to promote Kardashian's new work-out video. "This all motivates me to stay in the gym because my goal this year has been to get in better shape and tone up!" gushes Kim. In other words, to lose those natural curves she's purportedly so proud of. Kim's official site, btw, is plastered with ads for diet programs. So it goes.
If our depraved culture must make role models out of vapid, amateur porn stars, is there any consolation in knowing that a least one of them is neither too thin, nor too heavy, but just right? Because it seems the only other solution is to nuke L.A.
Poli Sci Test. CarolynKB posted this link yesterday. A very brief test to determine where you stand politically. Check it out.
April: April 1st is tomorrow. We all know what this means! - USC's first football game of the '09 season is only 157 days away!!!! If you're in LA spring practice is open to the public. Schedule here. April 18 is Swim with Mike day, and the 25th is the Trojan Huddle - a scrimmage in the coliseum which is very picnicky and relaxed. Plus, after you can check out the Rose Garden, and Dinosaur museum, (AKA Natural History), which serve as the exterior of The Jeffersonian Institute on Bones...which...I currently can't stop watching because everyone on it is so smart and pretty...or pretty and smart deepening on my disposition that day.
Gay of the Day: Speaking of Gay Actors on Bones (we were, right?) here is a Gay of the Day since I have not had one for a while. Eric Millegan was a "squint" for the first 3 seasons of Bones. He is also a sports nut AND a musical theater lover, apologetically and openly gay, and an all around swell guy. What's not to like?
His Girl Friday: Because I just love the way they talk. David Mamet owes a debt to the screenwriters of scenes like this...
Music: Keeping it in the Bones family, the star of Bones - Emily Deschanel's - sister Zooey sings this dandy piece of pop. I luvs me some thickly produced, wall of sound, saving irony from the seething hordes of Morrissey drop outs, bubble gum pop!
(fyi: i do love Morrissey, too..but I can't live in the subjunctive, for God's sake. )
Below is a comment from a person named Mitch on this Mother Jones post. Mitch gets it like only a good old fashioned FDR/Truman liberal can. I love this comment.
Mitch's comment:
Screwing unions better than Bush: "Change you can believe in"?
Submitted by Mitch on March 30, 2009 - 6:18pm.
The one constant in the Obama administration's treatment of these different industries is an extraordinary amount of protectiveness towards corporate executives and an equally extraordinary disdain towards workers, particularly blue collar union workers.
I could not help noticing that all of the "shared sacrifices" involved in saving GM will be shared by the taxpayers, shareholders, bond holders, and, of course, the silly little blue collar workers who pathetically cling to their middle class existence yet do all the actual manufacturing.
Naturally, Obama does not require top executives of GM to participate in the aforementioned "shared sacrificing" and "haircuts" by having their generous health care benefits and multi-million dollar retirement plans "renegotiated"because of the inviolability of (non-union) contracts. Silly little workers. Silly little people who work with their dirty hands. Silly little people who always worked hard, believed in the system and played by the rules all their lives. Silly little people who built this country. Silly little workers who vote a solid Democratic ticket and supported Obama. So silly: Should've gone to Harvard or Yale, and then maybe into finance or journalism. This is change only in the sense that he is giving better speeches than Bush. Screwing taxpayers, shareholders, bondholders out of their money and workers out of their money, jobs, health care and retirement isn't exactly what I'd call “change you can believe in".
What is it about Obama's public disposal of GM's CEO that bothers so much? It must be the word "public". The man seems utterly incapable of not going before cameras to trumpet his every move. He's the twitter President, forever blasting us with his marginalia. In less than two weeks he's been on Leno, 60 minutes, Face the Nation, held a prime time presser, held a "virtual" town hall - in which the people chosen to be in HIS presence where all hand picked Obama nutters - lined everyone up for his Afghanistan announcement Friday, and today, he made his king like pronouncement about GM. The guy never met a TV camera he didn't like.
I grant you, the GM fiasco is not marginalia. I have no sympathy for Rick Wagoner - or GM for that matter. Obama's dismissal of a company's C.E.O. - a badly run company that is beholden to the American taxpayer - is a startling moment. BHO's power play may be justified. We did bail them out last fall. Still it smacks of a double standard all around -followed by a public "virtual" execution to assuage a citizenry in an increasing state of rage.
Just 2 weeks ago the government went begging for the obscene AIG bonuses to be repaid. Bonuses all the clowns who did the screaming knew about - or should have. The always questionable David Sirota makes a good point today: not only is the president not demanding the resignation of bank CEOs, he's actually hosting them for photo ops at the White House. Sure, I know some bank CEOs resigned a few months ago under shareholder pressure, but the Obama administration has never publicly demanded such resignations of the current management that is making the problems worse, nor the resignation of management at the biggest firms (Goldman Sachs, BofA, etc.) that are still in place.
TARP money thrown down the rat hole amounts to 700 billion so far. Krugman has called the banking trillion "Cash for Trash". That's our cash for their trash. On the other hand, GM got a 14 billion dollar loan. GM actually employs workers. The President is unwilling in the extreme to take over toxic banks but has , in effect, nationalized GM. GM belongs to Obama now.
Wagoner had to go. My questions about this are:
Did Obama need to do the "I'm the Boss Now" dance on television today? How far into the private sector is the Executive branch going to go?
Manning the Barricades: Short form of Economist Intelligence Report on potential social upheaval here. With option to read it all. Thanks to S. in Rapid City for the forward. (My mother's side all hail from the Black Hills...FYI...major soft spot for entire area. )
I (don't) want to live in Chimerica! More on the "not so poor anymore" Chinese, and the "not as rich as we think we are" Americans here.
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.
Lynn Lavner
MUSIC: Go on - lunch (and a few other things) is almost over ...Sing! Dance! Knock something over. Kiss a sexy Puerto Rican!
Throughout the trauma inflicted on the Democratic Party by Obama, his pod people, and the media last year, my personal politics stayed largely intact. 2008 did not radicalize me, or stoke any reactionary impulses. What the on going self immolation of the Democrats has done is open up a willingness on my part to at least listen to the other side. I did not vote for either side. There are, believe it or not, other options on the ballot.
The first 2 months of the Obama Admin. may be different. I am questioning my politics now. In a series of decisions Obama has proven to be as greasy a politician as we have ever seen. The direction he is taking us is at best odd and at worst disastrous. It is increasingly clear that neither of the traditional parties has solutions anymore. I am not even sure either side is interested in solutions any more.
I am beginning to see the libertarians as a corrective....whether I like all of what they say or not is beside the point. The normal corrective processes have been usurped and obliterated. It is possible that the only viable counterpoint is an upsurge in libertarianism. Obama does seem determined to "community organize" all of us into something else. Not quite American, not quite European. Ameripean. Though I don't fear "the European model" - I just don't think we are, finally, like them. In the long run "community organizing" the entire country is much more likely to highlight factionalism. States refusing stimulus money can be seen as a foreshadowing of this.
Listen closely to those on the right, left, middle, outer political reaches, and the politically disinterested - and "Don't tread on me" can be heard in one form or another. For most Americans it takes under 5 minutes to get to some version of "Don't Tread on Me". The only places in the U.S. this is not the All-American "final answer"? Nancy Pelosi's head and Chicago. Another reason to look wearily on any thing that comes out of the Obama/Emmanuel White House.
I have never seen the Federal government so disconnected from the people it governs. Polls aside, the cascade of our money being thrown at the people who caused the mess is nothing if not contemptuous. They don't care about us. Frankly, they barely even act like they do anymore. Our representatives did not even read the bill that spent 700 billion of our dollars. And gave AIG executives the green light to hand out obscene bonuses.
They did not read the bill. That is the core of the problem. They did not read the bill.
We should call this what it is - contempt.
Neither party is capable of seeing past the next fundraiser. Neither party can be trusted. Nor should they be.
Within the system we now have I see no way out of the current era. And the era is ending. This does not mean there is not a way out within in the system. It would just take a sea change in the attitudes of our leadership that is unlikely to occur.
The system is not broken. It is working just fine for those who run it. It is broken for the rest of us. And it should go. A season of libertarianism tempered by common sense and a dollop of compassion may be the only viable, American option to counteract the community organizer - in - chief, and his merry band of Ameripeans.
Sabbath Day. I'm out till Monday. Have a great day! I placed a new widget on the right hand, stage left, camera right side of the page. It points to stories I think are worthwhile and/ or give me an opportunity to write a funny headline. Click on a headline and you'll get the link to the story. I'd like to write about everything. But, alas, I must pretend to work so certain film entities can pretend to pay me. I need a blog sugar daddy to press the donate button and start typing numbers. (I promise to put out....posts...on a regular basis.)
I'm off to Anglo/Catholic mass/service. (If one more person tells me there are more Muslims in America than Episcopalians I shall pelt them with Communion wafers. Apple and oranges. Anglican/Episcopalians are a denomination of a religion...not a religion. I bet there are more Christians of all stripes in Turkey than Sufi whirling dervishes of the Mevlevi order...so what?)
Now, I must wonder, how will Huffington, MSNBC, The New York Times, and the rest of the Obamamedia excuse this whopper? This would be a broken promise to 95% percent of the population who are not likely to accept the 2 year sunset clause on the cut in the stimulus bill as a "promise kept."
Posting mega doom predictor Gerald Celente rather blindly yesterday got me thinking. I posted his apocalyptic predictions because:
A. There is a certain sick fun in doom and gloom.
and
B. Sociologically "end times" thinking fascinates me. The name of this blog is a small tribute to my interest. I believe in narratives as motivators. We make decisions based on stories we've bought into. "America is an exception" is a particularly strong narrative point that in some ways I buy into. But not all.
Most of us never hear the larger narrative or express much interest in it.
The end times narrative in Western Christian Culture is deeply rooted. This world we know will end. Either God will smote the bad people and save a few good ones or mankind, unable to control its greed and envy, will destroy us all.
As with the whole sale dismissal of all "conspiracy" - end times thought is dismissed at our peril. The loons and the sane both have end times stories churning out there now. The loons inform us about their lunacy - and therefore ourselves. (UFO sightings are worldwide - but "alien abduction" is overwhelmingly an American phenomenon. There is a real sociological goldmine in that little tid bit. )
The smarter ones who see grim tidings everywhere should be given at least some of our attention.
I find people like Celente fascinating. Peter Schiff too- he is largely saying the same thing about the economy. As I've said before the saner Peak Oilers have an imperfect - but pretty good record. Housing collapse, Financial downturn, the long term foolishness of suburbia, and the dangers of an overstretched food delivery system are all prescient.
On a subconscious level the "end times narrative" is playing out in reality. We ARE pushing the envelope. Creating money out of thin air. Spending like drunken sailors in a casino. Polluting with abandon. We have, in essence, ditched our children by the side of the road. Gun sales are through the roof and that financial wiz kid down the road may be a secret survivalist. We really are near the breaking point. The "end time" of something - if not exactly everything.
Here are some of the points he made that he says prove Celente wrong.
Just last November Tynan openly mocked this Celente prediction:
"It's going to be very bleak. Very sad. And there is going to be a lot of homeless, the likes of which we have never seen before. Tent cities are already sprouting up around the country and we're going to see many more.”
Two days ago the Governor of California opened up state land to a burgeoning "Tent city". People are losing homes at rates not seen since the 30s.
More Tynan mocking of Celente who predicted that in the 21st century:
Voluntary simplicity, once merely a counterculture ideal, will finally become a reality in the twenty-first century. Moderation, self-discipline, and spiritual growth will be the personal goals of the future, not material accumulation.
It seems like Celente is correct here - not foolish. Millions are cutting back. Simplifying. I am. Everyone I know well is.
Celente predicts and Tynan mocks this:
The trend to convert lawns into gardens will have a significant impact not only on the way we eat but also on how we live and feel. Billions of dollars formerly spent on lawn care will either be saved or re-deployed into producing fresh food.
Michelle Obama recently converted a part of the White House grounds into a vegetable garden. Regardless of her motivation - this trend is REAL. And will pick up. The localization movement is expanding everywhere.
How about this:
The public is going to demand that the government break up powerful corporate monopolies.
Nothing about that sentence rings false or off base. The move to "never allow a company to become to big to fail" again is a slightly revised version of Celente's statement.
There are minor predictions as well. None of much interest to me. The fashion industry is doomed. (God willing), Latin influence on pop culture will increase...demographics say yes...
The thing about Celente that is most disturbing is that his predictions make sense. Common sense. To believe we are not on a runaway financial train at this point is to believe in the tooth fairy. There will be consequences. As dire as Celente says? Who knows. But we have not seen the end of this financial mess - by a long, long, shot
His thoughts certainly make more sense than printing a few trillion dollars and hoping inflation doesn't take hold. Which, though I am not an economist, seems completely nonsensical.
Does the world end on December 21st, 2012? (I do wish the Mayans had given us a specific time so I could schedule my Christmas haircut.)
No.
Will X number of believers be whisked off into the sky to be with Jesus...
Uh no.
(And WOW are they in for a surprise when they're handed a sandbag or a hoe and told to stop whining and get to work. )
But fundamental narratives that many assumed would last forever are being challenged. This will feel like the "end times" for many.
Obama took ownership of the Afghan war today. Lock, Stock, and Barrel. In general terms I agree with the President's plan. Destroying the Taliban has been the right thing to do since at least the late 90s. We would have achieved this goal long ago had W not taken our eyes off their balls.
I am supportive of Obama on is - in the most general sense. We must defeat those who attacked us and mean to do us further harm. Still, I can only do what we all must - wait and see. I've learned my lesson when it comes to supporting anything Obama proposes. After initially being supportive of the stimulus - Obama and Pelosi soon larded the bill up with unstimulating nonsense. It hard to say if BHO has the smarts, tenacity , or vision to guide this country through what will certainly be a tougher, bloodier war from here on out. The enormity of the Bush/Cheney lies about Iraq will haunt Obama. The country is sick of war. And sickened still by W's malfeasance in misleading us about Iraq.
From way out here it looks like Obama has set himself up with an impossible task. He attempted to lower the bar for success - but the bar is immobile. We must secure a region that has been for centuries not at all secureable. Defeating the Taliban is the only measure of success.
Further we must not be attacked again. This, too, is a nearly impossible goal. If anything, today the President ramped up the any plans that may be in the works in some cave over there. If I fault him it is for the announcement. Which had all the bells and whistles of "big news". The man has got to learn some subtlety.
Yet, being as fair minded as I can about BHO, I do not see another option that comes near acceptability except something that looks like a win. The other options? Leave. A non starter except on the Code Pink Left. Negotiate - which he's mentioned - and even in the mentioning is viscerally repellent. Or try to wind up the country for a massive increase in troops which is not only political suicide but probably not possible anyway.
This may be remembered as the day Obama truly claimed the Presidency. He has decided to fight a war that will not be over in four years. This is his war.
Danger is everywhere on this front. The analogy to Vietnam actually works with Afghanistan.
*Escalation is a sure bet. *We are fighting a home grown enemy. *The anti any war Left is already turning on Obama. *Further, with "official" unemployment numbers set to go past 10% the country is looking inward and in no mood for this battle.
Even with all that I don't see that he had much choice. Also, Obama never overtly lied about Afghanistan during the campaign.He is doing what he clearly stated he would do. I hardly commend him for this. The Code Pink, A.N.S.W.E.R. ninny Left were fed a line of hooey about Iraq and allowed, with the encouragement of the MSM, to transfer this "peace" jargon to Obama's foreign policy in general. Obama could have been much more forth coming during the campaign.
From my observation deck here in Koreatown, I will enjoy watching heads explode on the ninny Left. Perhaps throwing little acorns engraved with "told ya so!" on the seething fools.
Despite Huge Push, Support For Obama's Budget Slips A Bit (by Greg Sargent at The Plum Line) Despite the huge push by Obama and Dems to sell his budget over the past several weeks, a new Gallup poll finds that public support for it hasn't budged and may have even slipped a bit...At the end of February, 44% of national adults hold a generally positive view of the budget; now that number stands at 39%. Gallup says this shows that support for the budget has "held steady," probably because the shift is within the margin of error. But Gallup, interestingly, also says that there has been a "noteworthy" drop in support for it among moderates and liberals.
Washington Dems To Blame For Slip In Support For Budget? (by Greg Sargent at The Plum Line) - One reader writes: "Since the first poll was taken, Congress has taken steps to make this budget more conservative. And support for the budget has dropped amongst liberals and moderates. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that the problem here is D.C. Democrats are listening to Republicans concerns instead of voters concerns." A second reader opines: "I am sure there are some Democrats/liberals/progressives whose view of the budget might be negative now because of the fact that Kent Conrad and the rest of the ConservaDems have watered it down and taken out the health care money and the cap and trade provisions." Given that the new Gallup poll finds that support for the budget has slipped nine points among liberals and eight points among moderates, these takes sound pretty plausible.
House GOP offers budget blueprint but scant detail (AP) House Republicans have released their response to President Barack Obama's deficit-laden budget, but their glossy pamphlet offers little beyond campaign-style talking points.
GOP Releases Problem-Laden Alternative "Budget" Preview (Dissenting Justice) Highlights from the Blueprint Politics, Politics, Politics The blueprint reads like a political document, rather than a budget (or budget preview) Questionable Statements As with most political documents, the blueprint distorts the record. Fiscally Troubling The Republican blueprint suffers from the same problem as the Obama budget: It promises to do many things with insufficient funds.
John here: We really need to start thinking about a third party.
Comparing the U.S. to Russia and Argentina (by Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, Salon) Desmond Lachman - the former chief strategist for emerging markets at Salomon Smith Barney and a long-time official with the IMF (no raving socialist he) argues that the most apt comparison for the U.S. now is not Japan's "lost decade," but rather, "that the United States is coming to resemble Argentina, Russia and other so-called emerging markets, both in what led us to the crisis, and in how we're trying to fix it."
Despite the limitless gorging on public funds by the very oligarchs (government owners) who caused the financial crisis in the first place, the predominant sentiment from our establishment media now is that Obama needs to force ordinary Americans to "sacrifice more."
The Quiet Coup (The Atlantic) The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Simon Johnson, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government.
So why do we put up with this? WHY AREN'T WE TAKING THE BRIBERY MONEY OUT OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS?-Caro
Instead, Congress is working to get MORE bribery money into the political process: House Democrats Track Who's Helping Party (Political Wire) "It's never too early in election cycle to start fundraising -- or to shame your colleagues into contributing," CQ Poltics reports. "The campaign arm of Democrats serving in the House is privately circulating a tally showing members of that caucus where they stack up in fundraising for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)." "With a quarterly filing period coming to an end next week, the internal list provides an early look at which members of the majority are looking to flex fundraising muscle within the party -- and earn favor with the leadership while they're at it."
So this is good news: Parties See Drop in Fundraising (Washington Post) Between economic turmoil and a campaign that endlessly taxed donors, political giving slows.
Click here for more politics and media news headlines.
So I think I'll start the weekend with some miserable predictions from Gerald Celente. Nice, eh? Listen to the string of horrors he has on tap for us. 25% unemployment, civil unrest, food riots. And Ghost Malls. A phrase I find vaguely enticing - entire malls floating around the ether...with obnoxious ghost teens, and ghost early morning jog/walkers - and, of course, ghost Hot Dog on a Stick girls....Plus, as a bonus, Celente calls for the total collapse to occur in 2012. Which, as we know, the Mayans already have dibs on. It dovetails nicely with many a History channel apocalypse special. In a few grimmer moments last year I referred to Chicago Slim as not only the next American President - but the last American President. I'm in a much better mood now...but hey...I accept that the internets are forever - so I am stuck with my doom...
Celente is purported to have called previous crisis correctly. I don't know. I do know that his predictions makes more sense than the massive printing of dollars...at least from out here.
Conversely, things seem a wee bit better now then they were even a few weeks ago. (I judge the economy based on the availability of parking on Larchmont, a little, pricey, ma and pa boutique street in LA good for a bagel and a flirt. If I can park easily things are bad. I had a little trouble Tuesday...)
Also, I keep seeing "Most economics predict that we will come out of recession in late 2009." Based on recent experience "most economists" should not be trusted.
Is it too early to speculate about what Clinton's plans might be for 2012? In a brutal (and occasionally incorrect) assessment of Obama's first few months in the U.K.'s Prospect called No, He Can't this is written:
Thus the big question in Democratic circles today: "What does Hillary do about this?" Her supporters still feel that the election was stolen from her. With capital on strike, states rebelling against the president's dependency agenda, the treasury secretary probably soon to be replaced, many top jobs still unfilled, the liberal press anxious and poll numbers plummeting, Hillary Clinton's departure could sink an administration that already feels like a listing ship, leaving her a clear path to the Democratic nomination for 2012.
Her relationship with the president, inherently unstable personally, erodes every day that he takes his swinging axe to the remarkable bipartisan achievements of the Clinton presidency, especially welfare reform and fiscal discipline. While the biggest shocks of this presidency to date have been at home, in the foreign sphere Hillary's job as secretary of state is made more difficult by a distracted and inexperienced president.
Please note that the treasury secretary is not about to be replaced. And while Obama's poll numbers have "plummeted" since inauguration day (Low eighties to high fifties or low sixties) they have been stable for weeks. Nevertheless, the statements about Obama's domestic attack on (Bill) Clintonism - moderation that produced a stable budget and a needed and popular reform of welfare - are worth pondering.
Hillary, wisely I still believe, took on the State Department. Her alternative was to stay in the Senate. Which would have left her either going along with the increasingly questionable Obama agenda or joining with Democratic dissenters and suffering more nonsense from the Obamamedia and blogs. She would have been a target every time she questioned even a minor Obama plan.
The assumption is that Obama smartly removed her from the domestic scene - shipping her to State. The opposite may be true. Clinton played Obama. Her performance so far as SOS, while imperfect, is certainly more skilled and smooth than Obama's as President. Again experience matters. (Not to mention a strong work ethic. Hillary may have some character defects - laziness is not one of them.) Clinton has taken command of 1/5 of the the executive branch, all of it to do with foreign concerns, at the moment when domestic troubles reign supreme - leaving the home front to the "learning on the job" President. My gut tells me Clinton knew State was the perfect fit for her - and she never much wanted the V.P. slot. She has no responsibility to sell Obama's domestic agenda. Her face is not on it.
The interesting thing about foreign affairs in this Admin. is that the victories will go to everyone. Obama can not outshine Clinton or dismiss her when things go well on the foreign front. The failures, however, will land in the oval office. Obama has put his face on the most controversial and dangerous initiatives. The video he sent to Iran was all Obama. He is sending more troops to Afghanistan. Not her.
Of course, if the Obama years prove to be disastrous on the foreign front, Clinton will be tainted. But never discount this woman's tenacity. She did, no doubt, assume the nomination was her's until the week before Iowa. After that she became a warrior, recreating herself in the process. She became a political leader with a national constituency - no longer just a smart former First Lady - that "can't win."
Should Obama's overreach begin to give off an even stronger whiff of "incompetent" - Clinton will look increasingly attractive to Big Dems. She lost the AA vote - a natural Clinton group - however she strengthened the Clinton grip on the "Reagan", working class, white Democrats.
Also - it must be stated that the GOP contenders this far out do not appear strong. Palin is the best. Jinal is a nonstarter. The conservative delusions about him are fascinating. Newt is strong but has many downsides. Mark Sanford is a good bet. But does he want it?
Obama survived AIG - for now. What that eruption did do was galvanize a revulsion against excessive spending. The rip down the middle of the Obama Administration has been exposed. On the one hand are the liberals who want programs that cost - a lot. On the other are his Wall street handlers, exemplified by Goldman Sacks Golden Boy Tim G, who are working O.T. to save banks - not a group beloved by liberals of any stripe. Obama's response to this tension so far is to "legacy legislate" very early in his first term. His budget is larded with programs no one knew they were voting for. He got a mandate in November. It was not a mandate to move the country abruptly to the Left. He has fundamentally misread his own election. The ease with which Democrats in congress are stripping the budget of Obama's signature plans is telling. Last month we learned that Republicans had no fear of the "popular" President. In March we are learning his sway over his own party is weak.
It is way to early to call the Obama years anything - success or failure. In June of 2001 W had all the hallmarks of a one term President. Still, so far Obama looks more like Carter than FDR. Though he gave himself wiggle room Tuesday night - he has staked his Presidency on far reaching change. Change that more and more people do not want. Obots have already set up a group to attack the fledgling "blue dog" senate group lead by Evan Bayh. This is a sign of weakness, not strength.
In 1980 a huge percentage of Democrats revolted against their President who came in a few years earlier as a "bipartisan agent of change". A powerful, competent, fiscally moderate Democrat may see an opening in 2012.
I'd like to submit that we have rarely, if ever, heard a President so openly talk to and encourage himself as we did Tuesday with this remark:
"That whole philosophy of persistence, by the way, is one that I'm going to be emphasizing again and again in the months and years to come as long as I'm in this office. I'm a big believer in persistence."
He is not talking to us here - he is talking to himself. "I'm a big believer in persistence." This is, of course, laughable. The village ne'er-do-well telling himself he's a respectable man about town because one day he put on a tie for kicks.
Obama has never persisted at anything.
The "philosophy of persistence" is an interesting construction. Doesn't it feels like Michelle has been lecturing him a bit during their morning workouts? "Barry you've got to stop whining about how much work it all is. Like getting in shape, some jobs take persistence." And having really heard the word "persistence" for the first time...perhaps in his life... and realizing he has no other out here..he thinks what is this thing persistence? Have many people through out the years known of this...per-sis-tence? I must look into it.
So, like all heretofore insulated 20 year olds who've suddenly discovered something rather obvious, like say - the world is complex and being President is hard - he dashes off to make a philosophy out of the obvious observation.
Donna Darko has posted an invaluable resource for close Obama watchers and real liberals. (see, I included most everyone!) Obama averages one alarming act a dayis the name of her ongoing post.
Obama did something that should be alarming to progressives every day for the past 70 days. The articles below from January 15-March 25 are in reverse chronological order and the 70 acts are bolded and numbered. It's easy to find one each day. Taken together, it's staggering.
I suggest a perusal.
This brings me to my post for the night. A review of myself. I shall be biased. (Hard not to.)How have my assumptions about BHO worked out over the past year? I was never for Obama. I liked him after his 2004 Dem convention speech. I hoped he would stay in the Senate and get some needed experience. Further, I am a Clinton loyalist. That loyalty deepened and broadened during Hillary's campaign last year.
When it became apparent after Iowa last year that some very powerful people were pulling strings for Obama I began to look deeper - in the honest hope that I could get on board. As I've said 1000 times before: Looking closely at Obama is a disturbing avocation. The man is one of the cagiest politicians to appear in our history.
Quickly this blog took on some basic themes that I list below:
1. Obama is a fraud. 2. Obama ran a dirty campaign. This was co-signed, and egged on by a foolish, deceitful, biased media. 3. Obama did not/does not have the experience to be President. 4. Obama's campaign relied on sexism. 5. Obama would do great harm to the Democratic Party.
Further I asserted that something largely unforeseen would decide the election. (I stated this in August, early September.) By October, I predicted an Obama win to the distress of a number of readers.
So how do these bullet points look now?
Number 1: Obama is a fraud. There is excessive evidence to back this assertion up. His connection to the truth during the campaign was often nebulous. Asserting he chaired Senate committees that he had nothing to do with. Implying the Kennedy's were responsible for his father's arrival in the U.S. These are not tall tales. They are lies told to fit a fictitious narrative. I have also stated ad nasueum that Obama was misleading people on Iraq, based on a mysterious speech he gave many years ago that no one recorded.
This, too, has proven to be the case. Obama's stance on Iraq now is not discernible from Bush's post "surge" policy. He is less bellicose than W but the withdrawal is back loaded - and "dependent on the commanders on the ground". Sound familiar? We shall see. But "a brigade a month" starting in January of 2009 is long forgotten. Some have documented no less than 17 different Obama stances on Iraq. This issue, now largely over run by economic concerns, should not be forgotten as it was the motor of his campaign in the primaries. Clinton was routinely lambasted by Obots for stating she would do what Obama is now doing.
On other points his fraudulence has become more and more apparent over the last 12 months. I go back to some stand by instances to illustrate because they are major indicators of a man with no core. The FISA wiretapping and the Public Financing flip flops both go to core liberal principles. Obama's reversals here were the single most telling moments of his campaign. They go to his character. No liberal in their right mind should have tolerated these betrayals. Yet, the hand jobs from the faux Left continued. I won't repeat my feelings about the "hope and change" horseshit except to say it is clearer everyday that it was horseshit.
3. Obama did not/does not have the experience to be President. After many promises to "hit the ground running" Obama's first legislative accomplishment happened not on "day one" but Day 25. And it was a mess that got 3 GOP votes. The banking plan did not appear until this week. He made outright fools of all of us with his treatment of the The Browns. I have no doubt that he's smart enough to learn on the job - but that is not what he promised. 4. Obama's campaign relied on sexism. Duh. If you still do not see this you are willfully in denial. Enjoy it. But know your sisters, mothers, and daughters will pay for last year's regression into bigotry for a very long time.
Obama and his media cheerleaders were nothing short of disgusting. No, we should not "get over it" any more than Black Americans should forget Strom Thurmond's 1948 campaign for President. 5. Obama would do great harm to the Democratic Party. After 2 months the GOP is now running ahead of the Democrats in generic "party" polls. This is astounding given the last 3 years. I did not think the reversal would happen so quickly. It may reverse again. The GOP is hardly attractive. Nevertheless, Obama has shown no stomach for a fight on basic progressive ideals. What will be sunk before this is over is liberal ideals and liberal ideas. For a generation. This assertion depends on time. But the votes are coming in. Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman and Howard Zinn have all blasted Obama from the Left already. In varying areas these three men understand one thing: Obama has, and will continue to, betray the Left.
On the other points: The financial collapse was unforeseen by some. It did come as a shock to the majority and it did decide the election.
One last "out on a limb" prediction I made: Obama would fall below 50% in the polls by June. I'd probably go with September now if I had a do over.
Weird. At Press Conference Ebony Reporter Asks Obama About Tent Cities and Children Sleeping Under Bridges (Gateway Pundit, a right-wing blog) This was strange. Obama did not call on The New York Times, Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post at his second press conference [Tuesday night]. He did call on Kevin Chappell from Ebony Magazine who asked a weird question about tent cities and children sleeping under bridges...It's not clear what country Kevin was talking about. Maybe it's the country of California Chappell was talking about, Gateway (see below). How strange that a right winger wouldn't know that some Americans are living out of their cars and in tents. - Caro
And it was not such a strange question to ask, when it gave Obama the chance to show his compassionate side: Obama "Heartbroken" Over Homelessness (Homelessness.Change.gov) (Tuesday night), President Obama directly addressed the growing homelessness crisis during a prime time press conference, saying he's "heartbroken" that any child is without a roof over their heads. In a bold and noteworthy move, he also called for a shift in the national perception of homelessness and an overhaul of our embedded judgments and beliefs. Do I sense change in the air?
This is the graphic posted at the website, so don't blame me for the overhype.-Caro
So if Congress refuses to help the poor, well, hey, they can take comfort knowing that their president is heartbroken about it: Senate Dems propose cutting Obama budget by billions (CNN) Hours before President Obama was to hold a prime time news conference-in part to boost his $3.6 trillion budget plan-a key Democratic senator Tuesday unveiled a scaled-down budget proposal. Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said the Senate Budget Committee, which he chairs, will vote on his version Wednesday. "We've made hundreds of billions of dollars of changes to make this work to get down to the deficit goal and at the same time maintain the president's priorities - education and energy and health care," Conrad said as he left a closed meeting in the Capitol, where he briefed Senate Democratic colleagues on his plan.
Conrad and other centrist Democratic senators - whose support is critical to passing the legislation - have raised concerns about the long-term impact of the president's spending plan on the deficit. Tell me again why it was supposed to be a GOOD thing that Obama attracted votes from the right?-Caro
And oh, pooh, we can't afford to leave Iraq, either: Iraq Withdrawal Will Be a A Massive and Expensive' Effort, GAO Says (Washington Post) The removal of about 140,000 U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 will be a "massive and expensive effort" that is likely to increase rather than lower Iraq-related expenditures during the withdrawal and for several years after its completion, government investigators said in a report released yesterday. "Although reducing troops would appear to lower costs," the Government Accountability Office said, withdrawals from previous conflicts have shown that costs more often rise in the near term. The price of equipment repairs and replacements, along with closing or turning over 283 U.S. military installations in Iraq, "will likely be significant," the GAO reported.
Obama to critics: I'll bend, but not break (AP) With Congress pushing back against his proposals for energy, taxes and other matters, President Barack Obama is taking a bend-but-don't-break posture.
NEWSFLASH: E. U. PRESIDENT CALLS OBAMA'S ECONOMIC PLAN - THE WAY TO HELL.
Why won't he shut up? It is, believe it or not, a serious question. Before we are near 100 days President Chuckles is in real danger of inviting "Obama fatigue." He's on TV more than the cute boys who sing the "Free Credit Report Dot Com" Ads. Come to think of it, there must be some metaphysical connection between the weird, constant, insistence that we go to our laptops and get a "free" bit of information regarding our future ability to borrow and Obama's relentless televised insistence that we borrow our children into the abyss.
Still one has to wonder what the thinking was beyond the latest BHO media frenzy. Part of it is surely a deep belief that HE must head the parade lest the goofballs on cable get caught up following Tiny Tim G. or, worse, Pelosi. Obama punted the stimulus to Madame Speaker and when it was all said and done, Obama got his bill, but the GOP - astoundingly- won the P.R. war -laying the ground work for many "The Dems borrow and spend" campaigns to come.
The trouble with Obama is that he too often does not appear Presidential. Leno was the obvious nadir. The forum itself is perfect for Don Rickles, not the leader of the most powerful nation humans have ever constructed. But even the news out of the 60 minutes sit down was about his chuckle.
Bush's people forever harangued us about how decisive he was. This was code for "He doesn't think deeply and is incapable of comprehending nuance." Obama's team is determined to make us believe he is PRESIDENT. As if we don't - and they can hardly -believe it. Suddenly, he really does have all the bells and whistles that come with the office - and, by God, they are going to ring and blow. "Look, I'm on the job over here!" And here! and here! The whole thing is starting to feel like they are trying to look busy like a lazy bottom feeder in an office when the boss walks by.
It is all clearly meant to reassure us. To say: See Obama knows what he is doing. The problem is he is not particularly reassuring. His appearances seem...well...a bit goofy. Not through out. Not always. But I do keep coming back to wanting to cast Adam Sandler in the role to see if he's be any different.
American Presidents don't need to be everywhere all the time. I certainly hope I never see another one sitting in Ed McMahon's chair. Presidents needs to be on the job. Not constantly telling us they are. A single White House photo of BHO reading over a report at the Oval Office desk with a dapper looking aid hovering behind would be a smarter piece of P.R. During Clinton's self inflicted crisis in his second term he wisely doled out his appearances. In effect saying, I'll be over here working for the American people. It worked. Clinton's numbers rose and rose and rose to the psychotic distress of Newt's gang.
Don't get me wrong, he's not Don Rickles. He's a reasonably smart man. (Though hardly as smart as the Oblowhards insisted.) There may be a good reason he's decided to become omnipresent. He can't keep it up. The job lasts 4 years. No one in his White House seems to have realized that Obama fatigue is even a possibility. They think he's the guy everyone wants at their party. He's not. Eventually we will need a President - like we did on September 12, 2001. Not a soccer dad. Yes, the financial sector meltdown is a crisis. But it is not the type we need our hands held through. We need to know it is getting solved and we are not being taken to the cleaners. That's about it.
Which brings me to the why he might be everywhere. We are being taken to the cleaners. And they know it. Obama's weirdly grinning face might not be the best misdirection - but it's all they've got.
Post Presser update: No, I did not watch it. Barring an international crisis I can't imagine I'll watch any of the BHO "Me" parties. However - I did read a number of takes on the press conference. The buzzwords were "sober" "professorial" and "boring". I take this as a good sign. President Chuckles got the word that no one else was laughing. Frankly, I don't quite know why he had another prime time press conference last night. Based on the transcripts almost no news was made.
(I hate to make specific predictions but I will now: Cap and trade is dead. Obama knows it. He'll get some vague language on pollution and call it a win. Cap and trade would hand Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to the GOP. Obama has never shown any stomach for bloody fights. He'll fold on this. If I'm wrong I'll say so...we shall see.)
As for the rest of his budget - his parcing language last night indicated what I thought when I first read about the budget: It was wildly expansive so that much of it could be negotiated away.
Back to this post: If I have to choose between the jocular Leno Prez, the chuckler in chief on 60 minutes, or the boring school teacher at last night's press conference - I'll take the dullard.
Why is the History Channel Resurrecting Wartime Propaganda?
- by 'tamerlane'
I must confess to a life-long obsession with fighter planes. As a kid, I'd lay in my bedroom, staring at my ceiling--which I'd painted azure with white clouds--and imagine the hordes of model aircraft, hung from sewing thread, engaged in battle.
So when I recently found the History Channel's Dogfights series on Netflix, you can appreciate my boyish glee. An entire series dedicated to my passion for the machines and tactics of air combat! Let me say that the CGI on Dogfights is stunning. Sometimes you'd swear it was actual footage. The action is exhilarating, the episodes evenly paced. Technical data is briefly but accurately glossed. Interviews with the actual pilots lend vibrancy and poignancy to the accounts. I should love this series, but I'm beginning to hate it.
The problem is the editorial.
For motives that elude me, the History Channel feels the need to inject the angry, jingoist sentiments of wartime propaganda. The viewer is constantly reminded that we, the 'Good Guys' (USA, UK, Israel), are morally and technologically superior, not to mention braver and more clever, than the 'Bad Guys' (Germany, Japan, North Vietnam, Egypt.) Enemy aircraft and pilots are called "Nazi" or "Communist", loaded terminology largely abandoned by modern historians. We'd never hear of "Democrat" Mustangs or "Likkud" Mirages.
I am an ecumenical fighter plane junkie. I get goose bumps equally from contemplating the Russian MiG-29, the American Corsair or the German Albatross. I'm fascinated by the exploits of pilots of all eras and countries. I've personally talked shop with both a WWII US carrier pilot and a Luftwaffe veteran. Dogfights only gives us the Good Guys, Americans mostly. One episode, "The First Jet Ace" was really about the first American to reach five victories in a jet over Korea. The Germans had at least 23 jet aces in WWII. The famous Red Baron, with 80 kills in WWI? Neither hide nor hair of him. Hans-Joachim Marseille, who shot down 17 RAF fighters in one day over North Africa? Or Erich Hartmann, with 352 victories on the Eastern Front? I bet you never even heard of those two.
An odd thing--the Good Guys never get shot down in this show. Based on the astounding success of the USAF depicted on Dogfights, it's easy to see how we won the Korean and Vietnam wars. I'm well into Season Two, and my count so far is a total of three, including two British downed in 1917 by a lone Fokker, before the other eight Brits "got revenge."
That's the most disturbing aspect of the series--the narration is peppered with phrases like "avenge," "out for blood" and "payback time." Make no mistake, a good fighter pilot must exhibit audacity, aggressiveness, and yes, a "killer instinct." Getting shot at also tends to make one angry. Yet the former pilots express open admiration and empathy for their foes. From the first air duels of 1914, fighter pilots have embraced their opponents as fellow members of a chivalric warrior caste. Often staring each other right in the eye, the humanity of the enemy is never easily forgotten by the fighter pilot. One Israeli ace interviewed lamented over the Jordanian he'd fatally shot shot down: "with his skill and courage, he deserved to have ejected safely." If the pilots themselves can take an objective view of their mortal combat, why does the History Channel need to cast these bygone battles as an ongoing struggle between Good and Evil?
Like fish, the stench of jingoism lingers. Only gradually over the past quarter century have most historians eliminated partisan bias in their works. In doing so, one can still catch a lot of FLAK for a perceived lack of patriotism. In 1980, the prolific military author, Kenneth Macksey, published Invasion, a fictional account of a successful 1940 German conquest of England. Some wondered whether the retired British army major and combat veteran was a Nazi sympathizer. Others felt Macksey had impunged the legend of Churchill's wisdom.
As recently as 1999, eminent Oxford economic historian, Niall Ferguson, was vilified for suggesting in his The Pity of War that much of the blame for WWI lay at Britain’s feet. Ferguson's compelling argument, that war in 1914 was far from inevitable, but that England's ill-advised, secret military pact with France precipitated hostilities, was attacked not on scholarly grounds, but for its temerity to question the myths of Versailles.
si vis pacem, para bellum. We need Top Gun School to study the dogfights of the past. We need experts like Macksey to figure out when we did well, as opposed to when we just got lucky. We also need scholars like Ferguson to dispel old myths, to analyze policies & decisions that dragged reluctant nations into war. But we all need to remember that when we kill the enemy, we're killing another person.
The History Channel is doing the opposite. It's perpetuating the myths of our righteousness and our invincibility. It's glorifying killing, demonizing the enemy, and stoking hatred & revenge. It's making us crave war.
Since St. Patty's Day - Leno, 60 Minutes, and tonight President Chuckles is preempting American Idol
Let's all just spend a moment bathing in the warm irony of that. Obama is preempting American Idol.
Obama/American Idol. A difference without a distinction.
Hey Barry - it's called overkill. Time to go to Camp David for a while and put a sock in it. Sorry to say it dude, but you're not nearly as interesting as the MSM lead you to believe you were last year.
As an ex of mine would say if someone at a party was yammering on and on....Sounds like Chatty Cathy's string got stuck.
If socialism is the ideology of redistributing the wealth from the few to the many - then Obama can be called a kind backward socialist. The Obama banking plan takes the debt of the few and makes it the debt of the many. James Galibriath, who carries an intellect and pedigree that few can match, said this: The plan is extremely dangerous.
The massive debt the banks are now holding will be transferred to you and me and everyone we know, and for that matter, every American we don't know. Even Charles Ponzi would not have the balls to try a stunt like this.
I see no real reason to believe that banks will start making bad loans again. That is what fueled the economy for the past 7 years. That is not coming back. All of us need to ingest that little nugget. The era of easy credit is - and should be - over.
Do I think Geithner is a bad man? No. But this cannot be stated enough: Obama, after slapping us silly with "hope and change" for over a year, went out and hired the people who created the problem to be his closest economic advisers.They were never going to come to a solution that punished the bad players (the bankers who bought this crap) and saved the innocent (most of us, who did not take out sub prime mortgages on houses we could not afford) from all but the most unavoidable damage.
My sense is that Obama and his team think this is a good and fair plan. In the culture that these men move in - this "corporate socialism" seems equatable. They are financiers - committed to the idea that THEY run the world. If they are safe - all will work out for the rest of us. Another trillion in debt lathered on top of the "little people" is a small price to pay. The financiers will get back to lending, and the wealth will roll out...in other words the ponzi scheme that has been the American economy since the 1970s will kick back in. The bankers will inflate another bubble- which will last until November of 2012 - they hope.
Simply because the government (you and me) now owns this mountain of crap does not mean that is is suddenly not a mountain of crap. It is. The difference is that now WE will own it all. The intention is to have us pay 100 cents on the dollar for bundled mortgage feces that is worth 30 cents on the dollar. If that.
The more I read about this, the more I am convinced that the right thing to do was either to nationalize the bad banks for one year, clean them up and rewrite the rules for the entire sector so that never again would any one entity like AIG be able to hold us hostage.
Or to let them fail, and to take our damn cod liver oil. We will have to take it regardless. And now I fear the swallowing will take a generation.
President Chuckle's plan gives the bankers a pass - and passes the pain on to us and our descendants. Anyone who still believes that Obama is anything but an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill - is in a coma. The bill was presented on Monday.
Have you had the thrill of an Obamaniac, clipboard in hand, goofy, KoolAid addled, Hoover vac salesman smile plastered across their too-eager, hopey-changey face, happily dingdonging your doorbell like a days-gone-by Avon Lady or modern-day teenage religious missionary, earnestly selling rainbows and half-price Unity pony rides?
As any of us unfortunate enough to still be on the Obama campaign's email list (Why are they still emailing me? ME! Who has called Obama "toxic" right here on the World Wide Web.) knows Obama's cult is trying to rally his minions to get out and hector the rest of us to sign pledge cards (acceptable, but still creepy.) in support of THE ONE's agenda...whatever it is today. I have not been hectored yet - but, boy howdy, am I looking forward to it. I suspect one question like : "Now, tell me, why do you think cap and trade is a good idea? I'd like to hear your side.", and the Obama pod will disintegrate in a gurgling heap. This will give me great joy - and not a little nostalgia for 2008.
I further imagine I can garner a huffy "You must be a racist." with a mere two or three more questions. Will The Prez be making regular appearances on chat shows? Perhaps Mr Holder can argue Gitmo cases before Judge Judy. I am hoping that before I sign this card you might explain why shitty banks should get 1 trillion more in magic, freshly printed dollars?
Last year it was always so easy to make Pod heads explode. Too easy, really. The intellectual capacity of the most fervent Pods was always weak.
On its face I have little problem with this part of the permanent campaign. I doubt el Presidente has occupied a millisecond of thinking about it. At least I hope not. People out in the streets canvassing for something they believe in is a good thing in a democracy. The trouble is, of course, it is painfully apparent that what these types believe in is not an idea, or a set of principles, but a person. It's not like any of Obama's ideas are , in fact, his. The push here - like BHO's perpetual incursions into popular culture, that is: TV - is to keep the ONE present everywhere. The pods on the streets don't know or care about policy. Or politics for that matter. They care about refurbishing their delusions. Like me wanting a little nostalgia hit from last year - they, too, want to believe that what they got all gooey about - lives on. Of course, what lives on is Saul Alinsky.
I could work up a rant here - but I suspect this project will fail. The vast majority of the most engaged pods were in it to smugly prove a point. "Look what we elected!" Last month Obama's peeps tried this trick with house parties supporting the stimulus bill and participation was next to nil. Besides, blowback is everywhere. It is one thing to defend a candidate with delusions, "hope", and screams of racism. It is quite another for a Pod to willingly put himself out side a grocery store to endure snarking comments about Obama being a con man. Most of us know the campaign is over - even if the pods do not.
Chuckles the Clown: From 60 Minutes - "You're sitting here. And you're-you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, 'I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money-' How do you deal with-I mean: explain..." Kroft asked at one point. "Are you punch-drunk?" Kroft said. OBAMA, SHUT UP!!!
From the Left:The fact that we're no longer suffering under the worst President ever has drastically lowered our standards...we're willing to accept the leadership of a man who... seems to have very low regard for whether policies actually work or make sense. Read it all.
MUSIC: Mad World. The clip is a montage from Children of Men. As most of you know - I think this is one of the best, and thus far, the most important film of the decade. It has one of those simple, elegant premises that invites a story to make incisive statements without losing track of itself. What if human reproduction stopped? That "what if" allows the story tellers to explore the importance of real hope (not "obama" hope.), believing in a better future, and to hit on Western iconography- without forcing it. The "long take" in which war ravaged soldiers and shell shocked civilians hear a baby's cry for the first time in 20 years is stunning. Actually it is past stunning. It is silencing. And, yes, I very much believe, that the wanton destruction of the future to salvage the present that Mr. Bush engaged in - and now Mr. Obama is engaging in - makes this film all the more pertinent
One the other side is Peter Schiff. He says all this money conjuring will bring on hyperinflation. Link here.
Bernanke has declared war on deflation. I'd like to submit the possibility that high inflation is not seen as an economic problem by those in the Administration. High inflation is the goal. It is their solution. I think there will be an attempt to inflate our debt away. I am not an economist - I am inferring based on actions - and attempting to understand what the thinking is. The Fed has decided to print money. This would be fine if the money was going to be worth something. It won't be. At least not nearly as much as it is today. This policy has the potential to inflict unreal pain. Though that pain would be short lived in relative terms. A few years tops. However, in those few years the social disruption will be severe.
Money is being forced into the system. Eventually it will appear. But what will it be worth?
As I go into my day o' no blogging I have a simple question about the economy: Does anyone know what the hell they are doing?
The President goes on talk shows to tell us he's responsible...except not really. 60 Minutes Sunday, a prime time speech next week...for God's sake, Barry...SHUT UP! All this chatter is accentuating the fact that you are in over your head. I know this is hard for you to believe, Mr. Prez, but your presence never actually solved any problem. If you go some place it may well become "Obama country" - but most of us still prefer America.
Showing up is the first thing people do at work - not the only thing.
Bernanke's dollar printing press went berserk this week. (Am I missing something here? He wants rampant inflation, right? Isn't inflation the only way to get us out of debt? - That is since we've decided not to pay it.) What, exactly, will the dollar be worth in 2 years?
A 9.3 trillion dollar deficit is acoming - mostly for projects Obama down played in the election and now most people say they don't want. At least those who know about them. Meanwhile Social Security and Medicare, both programs people do want, are about to go poof!
And that Obama banking plan that is finally breaking the surface,( They were ready on day...65!) is, so far, a ponzi scheme to correct a ponzi scheme. Guess who loses this round? Another trillion clams of magic money later - All of us! Whoo Hoo!
Why the Chinese have not dumped their U.S. dollar holdings so far is beyond me. I would - if I was on their side of this mess.
Cannonfire hits at a point I have been throwing into posts - sometimes at random - for a year.
Obama will destroy the Left.
The country thinks that Obama is some sort of lefty. He isn't one, but that's what people think. If his plan fails - and it will - all left-ish solutions (real left and faux left) will be discredited.
Paul Krugman continues to bravely attack the thinking of the Obama Administration from the Left.
Why I am still a liberal. When I say I am a liberal I am talking about a broad ideology that has a basis in both classical liberalism, and some New Deal and Great society policies.
I wiggle around about in my own beliefs, especially after last year, but fundamentally they are - randomly:
1. A well educated (classic liberal Western education is what I mean) population is a national concern.
2. The Federal government has a place in some domestic arenas. Head Start and Social Security for example. I see no other way in an industrial or post industrial society.
3. Legal equality for all is the purview of the Federal government. Therefore I think the ERA should still be passed, Gays must be given the same rights as Heterosexuals - including marriage.
4. The Constitution must not be seen as something to be "strictly constructed" but "strictly interpreted." Flexibility was built into by the founders. Not a lot - but some.
5. Overseas military intervention must always be a last resort.
6. The second amendment is interpretable. No one has the "right to bear arms" in total. I can't carry a stinger missile around town. Therefore the kind of arms a citizen can own should be legislated. Arguments over the extent of control are good and healthy.
7. Money is not speech. Rich people do not get "more speech" than poor people under the 1st Amendment. All elections should be financed publicly. Everything rides on this. As long as money is the primary concern of our representatives the system will sputter and be unresponsive. A fine example fell on Dodd's head this week.
8. The right to terminate a pregnancy belongs to the pregnant person until the fetus is viable. The best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy is intelligent sex education and accessible birth control. Telling humans to abstain from sex is not an answer and never has been. Obviously, society has an interest in discouraging the young from sexual activity. This is a matter of placing value on human sexuality - not simply saying "Don't do that" which any horny teen will tell you is ridiculous. Sexual behavior is not degrading. We have comodified sex and degraded human sexuality, which has cheapened sex. The inability for many to accept the normal homosexual behavior of a certain percentage of any population is a good example of how thick the denial is.
I no longer support Roe V Wade. It is time to have this arguments in the states or amend the Constitution.
9. Capitalism controlled to a degree from excess by a freely elected Federal government (see 7) is the best system we've yet devised. (The bad banks should have been nationalized by Obama for a year.) Capitalism is important. Democracy is more important. Over the last 50 years we've reversed the priority - become consumers first and citizens second.
10. The government on all levels has almost no business interfering in the private lives of citizens.
11. The wall between church and state must be very high.
That is it for now. I do not know what else to call myself given the above list. Certainly not a conservative. And not a faux liberal so in vogue now. Libertarians have their appeal. I have no doubt I'd become one if (when) everything collapses. Until then I am a liberal. Feel free to tihnk up another label.
One of the more disturbing and reactionary aspects of the Obama Pods in 2008 was the ruthless and vicious mockery of Sarah Palin, even though Palin was clearly more qualified than Barack Obama. And, frankly, a much more decent person. Obviously. The joy the cocktail party liberal set took in trashing Palin and her family will forever be a putrid stain on feminism. Only the piggish, sexist behaviour toward Clinton by Keith Olberman, Chris Mathews, and the quintessential alimony feminist, Arianna Huffington, was more disturbing.
As I've said before I probably would not vote for her - and did not in 2008- as her views on certain issues are too far from mine. But her reaction to Obama's offensive crack about the Special Olympics reminds me why I liked her personally so much last fall. As one of the rare women who have risen to a state governorship in the U.S. I also admire her. I am curious about your take:
Request: In my writing group at church I've heard some recounting of recent economic distress. I'd like to hear from people about the new Depression...(or as I stole from Kunstler because I think it is more fitting: The Long Emergency.) 500-800 words. Personal accounts of friends, family or yourself. Though, I get silly, glib and loud with my stuff - I treat all submissions with respect. I really do want to know how people are faring. John@liberalrapture.com
New Words and phrases:
Alimony Feminist: An opinionated divorcee who came into wealth via the dissolution of a marriage. The divorced alimony feminist convinces herself that her money confers respect and/or wisdom and the right to be heard in any number of forums previously restricted to women of who have had real careers, or have spent considerable time in the work force and/or raised children without nannies. Alimony Feminists are often women who vocally endorse feminist principles then consciously or unconsciously work against the advancement of women of actual accomplishment.
Obalosi: see also The Obalosi, in certain regions The Pelama:
The Obamlosi is the amorphous governing entity resulting from the merger of the Obama and Pelosi agendas in the early 21st Century. Usage various.
Examples: The Obamlosi wants those earmarks kept out of the papers.
It looks like Dodd will take the fall for the Obalosi on this one.
