Wikileaks, the whistle-blowing website that has now in the past few months released two immense troves of once-secret US military and State Department documents, is now literally under attack from all quarters. The long knives are out as government officials of every stripe--and nationality--try to convince American citizens or anyone who will listen that Wikileaks and it's Editor in Chief Julian Assange are evil incarnate. The Wikileaks website itself has been dropped from several domestic internet providers, most recently from Amazon, seemingly due in part to pressure and threats from government officials, including that stalwart of First Amendment protections, Senator Joe Lieberman. It is also apparently under some form of cyber attacks, most likely denial of service attacks, to force it down or paralyze its servers.
The threat that Wikileaks poses to the powerful State and Corporate actors who have become accustomed to absolute impunity can be gauged by the almost hysterical nature of their response. Note, there is no threat in the sense of any real physical danger, rather, the threat is that their privileged positions and actions might actually face some measure of accountability. That is Wikileaks' unpardonable sin, to dare challenge the notion that the powerful can do whatever they like whenever they like with total impunity. Just for daring that, anyone with a modicum of belief in real democracy should support Wikileaks efforts to shine some light on the inner workings of empire. Robert Scheer's eloquent defense of democracy and Wikileaks pretty much sums it up.
Not surprisingly, a couple of the more hyperbolic attacks on Wikileaks have come from the "mental ward" of the Republican Party. No less than Sarah Palin and Representative Peter King--he a seemingly perpetual embarrassment to my birth state of New York--have argued, rather pathetically, that Wikileaks be labeled a foreign terrorist group by the US government. Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has distinguished himself by calling for the execution, on grounds of treason, of the alleged leaker Private First Class Bradley Manning, and Palin also suggested that Assange be "hunted down." And to demonstrate that such wackiness is not confined solely to American critics of Wikileaks, former aide to current Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada, Tim Flanagan, has publicly called for the assassination of Julian Assange, saying, "I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone or something. You know, there’s no good coming of this." And not to be outdone, Bob Beckel, a Democratic commentator on Fox News has also publicly called for the "illegal shooting" of Assange because of his treasonous and traitorous leaking, and his having, "...broken every law of the United States..." Perhaps someone should tell Beckel that Assange is in fact a citizen of Australia. And--you'll be relieved to know--Beckel is an opponent of the death penalty, and that of course all the guests appearing with him on Fox News were in complete agreement regarding the illegal shooting. Yes, unfair and unbalanced.
Of course the irony is rich indeed when you consider that these same folks arguing that Wikileaks has "blood on its hands," would more or less by content if Assange were "whacked" in some kind of mob hit. So much for consistent thinking, but OK, these folks rarely get accused of thinking anyway.
The bulk of American media has also been more than happy to whip up animosity against Wikileaks, and as usual has almost completely missed the real story, the actual content of the leaked cables. Mainstream outlets have been more than happy to perpetuate and amplify the "shoot the messenger" statements coming out of government officials. They appear much happier to sensationalize the alleged sexual misconduct charges apparently leveled against Assange than explore, for example, the aftermath of US military strikes in Yemen one year ago which the leaked cables indicate resulted in the deaths of many civilians, including 21 innocent children. Yes, US citizens have a right to know when their government is engaged in operations that are killing children! That's horrific enough, but it gets worse, because even with the knowledge that children were killed US diplomats still conspired to have Yemeni officials take the blame by publicly stating it was their missiles and not ours. There are really only two simple reasons why US government officials would behave so; first, so that the policy cannot be challenged by the people in whose name it is being carried out, and second, so that those decision makers ultimately responsible for initiating and carrying out the policy can do so with complete immunity from prosecution, because, while I am not a legal expert, I'm rather certain that the indiscriminate killing of civilians (and children) is indeed a war crime. Again, the real blood is on whose hands?
The leaks, and the government's response to them starkly reveal a crucial aspect of the entire secrecy regime that Wikileaks threatens. Those whose neighborhoods are demolished by US missile or drone attacks know they are being attacked, and generally by whom. The secrecy is not to try and convince them that we are innocent, no, it is aimed directly at us, the citizens from whom the government ostensibly derives its consent to govern. When citizens have no way of knowing what their government is doing, then true consent cannot be granted, and democracy ceases to exist. If enough citizens knew the details of such conduct then they might be outraged enough to demonstrate and petition the government to change its policies, as is their right under the Constitution and in a functioning democracy. As usual, Noam Chomsky rather eloquently makes this point, that the leaked cables demonstrate first and foremost the real distaste for democracy exhibited by our political elites.
Another constant refrain from officialdom and the media echo chamber is that the leaks pose a "grave threat" to US "national security." This charge is also rather revealing. Indeed, the term "national security" has become so debased and trivialized that's its use is now almost totally propagandistic. Any request or attempt to have those in power face some measure of accountability is instantly reversed with the cries of National Security. Even after officials going as high up as Defense Secretary Robert Gates have essentially admitted that no harm or serious threats resulted from the leaked documents, the charge continues to be leveled, and you would be hard pressed to find any mainstream journalists challenging such previously debunked comments. Glenn Greenwald explains precisely how the game works.
Of course the truth is that it is US policy, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of many civilians, that is actually harmful to US security. Such a policy does not eliminate the threat of terrorism, rather, as a number of studies have shown, it has increased the threats from terrorists, as it simply further alienates the populations under attack, enabling terrorist groups to more easily recruit among them. But if US citizens have no idea how US policy is playing out in countries subjected to drone or missile strikes, then how can the policies be confronted and challenged? It appears clear that foreign policy elites have little inclination to reverse course without significant public pressure. Just look at ten years of US policy in Afghanistan, one is reminded of the lyrics from a famous Pete Seeger song, "waste deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on."
So, rather than representing some kind of threat, it appears much more likely that the Wikileaked documents actually could make us all safer if they eventually lead to more openness and transparency in government. But that is unlikely to come easily, as at this very moment, Attorney General Eric Holder is desperately in search of a crime with which to charge Julian Assange. Irony is in abundant supply indeed as no doubt extensive resources will be spent in investigating Assange and trying to find any trumped-up charge that will stick, but meanwhile we have war criminals and torturers freely walking in our midst, and plenty of binding international and domestic legal treaties with which to charge and try them with, but not a finger is lifted, as we have to look forward, that is, away from our own misdeeds, and never backward at them and ourselves.
And perhaps justifiably the State Department itself easily wins the irony grand prize with this announcement concerning World Press Freedom day 2011! Enjoy.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The Mother of All Political Fails
We are now 3 days away from yet another demonstration of the demise of American democracy. A destructive and disastrous plutocratic status quo is virtually cemented in place, as Frank Rich eloquently puts it, "... the only choice is between the party of big business and the party of business as usual." Americans may still have the right to vote, but what really is there to vote for? Both major parties are at the beck and call of monied, corporate interests, and the voice of ordinary folks, who have steadily seen their living standards lowered and threatened, is drowned in an ocean of corporate "money-is-speech" cash. Is it then any wonder that millions feel powerless and helpless, and will simply sit out this supposed demonstration of the greatness of American democracy. And as Ralph Nader accurately describes, we are well down the road to corporate serfdom, but appear poised to send back to legislative power the very right wingers and corporate cronies that are largely responsible for this state of affairs, and indeed, desire just such an outcome.
It is not hyperbole to argue that more meaningful electoral choices were available to "voters" in the Soviet Union, who might have had at least a choice between communist party hack #1 and hack #2. On Tuesday we will find that we mostly have a choice between corporate hack #1 and corporate hack #2. This is not the democracy envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, who had this to say about corporations and democray, “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Consider how we arrived at this point. A new President was elected with a solid mandate to end, that is, to change, the widely reviled political status quo represented largely by the corrupt, inept and immoral governance personified by the administration of George W. Bush. To large measure the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leadership have utterly failed to live up to its promises to bring about the "change we need" that they so heavily campaigned upon. While many other factors have contributed to bringing us to this point, that is the primary reason it appears likely that the Republican party will see dramatic gains in the mid-term elections. An absolute failure of leadership from Obama and his party.
After mocking and ignoring a key bulwark of his own political base for much of his first term, Obama and his allies then had the brilliant idea to blame them, the so-called "professional left," for their own cowardice and failings. Contrary to the ravings of right wingers, the one group with essentially no power in the present circumstances is the so-called left. So, naturally, they make an easy scapegoat. It's not too surprising when the right trots out this supposed bogey man at every opportunity, but for Obama and his allies to do so really underscores the cowardice of these folks, and further highlights just how beholden they are to the same corporate interests that control the Republicans. The man who was supposed to represent the audacity of hope has only shown the audacity to govern like his supposed adversaries and attack his own supporters. A more self destructive political calculation can scarcely be imagined.
So, it seems that our vote on Tuesday will be another rear-guard action. An effort merely to keep the worst of the worst out of office. Another triumph of the doctrine of the lesser of two evils. We need to break out of this suffocating status quo. Time is running out.
It is not hyperbole to argue that more meaningful electoral choices were available to "voters" in the Soviet Union, who might have had at least a choice between communist party hack #1 and hack #2. On Tuesday we will find that we mostly have a choice between corporate hack #1 and corporate hack #2. This is not the democracy envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, who had this to say about corporations and democray, “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Consider how we arrived at this point. A new President was elected with a solid mandate to end, that is, to change, the widely reviled political status quo represented largely by the corrupt, inept and immoral governance personified by the administration of George W. Bush. To large measure the Obama administration and Democratic congressional leadership have utterly failed to live up to its promises to bring about the "change we need" that they so heavily campaigned upon. While many other factors have contributed to bringing us to this point, that is the primary reason it appears likely that the Republican party will see dramatic gains in the mid-term elections. An absolute failure of leadership from Obama and his party.
After mocking and ignoring a key bulwark of his own political base for much of his first term, Obama and his allies then had the brilliant idea to blame them, the so-called "professional left," for their own cowardice and failings. Contrary to the ravings of right wingers, the one group with essentially no power in the present circumstances is the so-called left. So, naturally, they make an easy scapegoat. It's not too surprising when the right trots out this supposed bogey man at every opportunity, but for Obama and his allies to do so really underscores the cowardice of these folks, and further highlights just how beholden they are to the same corporate interests that control the Republicans. The man who was supposed to represent the audacity of hope has only shown the audacity to govern like his supposed adversaries and attack his own supporters. A more self destructive political calculation can scarcely be imagined.
So, it seems that our vote on Tuesday will be another rear-guard action. An effort merely to keep the worst of the worst out of office. Another triumph of the doctrine of the lesser of two evils. We need to break out of this suffocating status quo. Time is running out.
Friday, July 2, 2010
More World Cup Drama
Well, the first day of World Cup quarterfinal matches did not lack for drama. The Netherlands (Hup Holland!!) turned around a 1-0 first half deficit to defeat tournament favorites Brazil 2-1. In the 2nd match Uruguay somehow managed to wriggle free from the clutches of the grim reaper to survive a penalty shoot-out against Africa's last hope, Ghana. In my opinion this is something that they were able to do only because of a serious flaw or loop-hole in the Laws of the Game, as I will discuss in a moment.
The first match highlighted another serious problem with today's game, and that quite frankly is simply the rampant foul play and cynicism of many, if not most, of the games supposedly greatest players. While much attention is focused on the quality of the referee and his decisions, and rightly should be, the spotlight needs to also be shined on the behavior of the players themselves. Much much more should be expected of them than some of the shocking displays that have been on evidence at this World Cup. Indeed, I should say that FIFA's "My Game is Fair Play" campaign appears long since dead and buried.
Many matches are now really composed of two separate games. There is the football match proper, trying to pass the ball and ultimately score goals, or defend and prevent them. The other game, which often seems to occupy more of the players time, concern and mental and physical faculties, is, for lack of a better phrase, how to best con the referee, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage with him. The theatrics, faking, whining, complaining, and otherwise carrying on like a spoiled 5 year old, has reached epic proportions, and was much in evidence from both sides in the Netherlands - Brazil match. You would be hard pressed to find such behavior in any youth recreational leagues in the United States, for example, or I suspect much of the rest of the world. But on football's grandest stage we are forced to suffer this idiocy?
A key aspect of soccer education in the US, at least with which I am familiar, is that referee's are to be respected, and one let's the referee call the game, and thus one can concentrate on one's own game, just playing, and not worrying about every little foul decision. Again, FIFA is in the outer limits when compared to other major sports organizations and leagues. In no other professional sport that I am familiar with is the constant talking back to and attempted "conning" of officials tolerated or left unpunished. In some cases the referees are not blameless, they need to be aware that many times players are going to the ground on their own accord, in such cases, they need to just wave play on, yell at the offenders, "get up, play." If players thus learn that diving gains no advantage, and indeed, may put a team at a numerical disadvantage, then the prevalence of this behavior would decrease. In cases of players persistently trying to cheat, remonstrate or berate referees, then they should be booked, with warning that continued behavior will elicit a red card. Coaches also bear significant responsibility. There was nothing more sickening than the sight of Dunga on the Brazil touchline whining, gesticulating, and arguing at nearly every foul decision or lack there-of. Really, do grow up.
The conclusion of today's 2nd match spelled heartbreak for Ghana. They were sent home after losing a penalty shoot-out. However, the situation which ultimately saw Uruguay advance was brought about by a deliberate hand-ball on the goal line that prevented the ball from entering the goal. In my opinion this is a serious deficiency of the Laws of the Game which needs to be rectified. In such circumstances, if the referee judges that the use of the hand deliberately keeps a goal-bound ball from entering the goal, as was clearly the case when Luis Suarez acted as a 2nd goalkeeper, then the referee should have the discretion to directly award the goal, because that would have been the outcome of the play had not the illegal infraction occurred. The offending team in such a situation should never gain an advantage by the commission of a direct red-card offense. The goal should have been awarded, and Uruguay should be out of the World Cup. Instead, the aggrieved team is forced to score again a goal that it has effectively already scored. This is simply unjust. While a penalty kick is clearly a good opportunity to score, this deficiency in the Laws creates an incentive for teams in certain circumstances to violate other Laws of the Game, and that should never be the case. Indeed, in such pressure filled situations, the scoring of a penalty is no certainty, and indeed Gyan unfortunately missed the attempt. But it was a situation he was unfairly placed into, and the Laws should be amended such that similar circumstances do not occur. Nothing evidenced this so clearly than the ugly sight of disgraced, red-carded-cheater Luis Suarez fist-pumping on the sidelines on his way off the pitch after Gyan missed his penalty. While everyone wants to win, this brings the desire to win at any cost to new lows, and the Laws of the Game should never encourage such behavior. In my opinion Suarez should be suspended for the remainder of the tournament, and with any luck Uruguay will be sent packing in the semi-finals by the Netherlands, and good riddance.
The first match highlighted another serious problem with today's game, and that quite frankly is simply the rampant foul play and cynicism of many, if not most, of the games supposedly greatest players. While much attention is focused on the quality of the referee and his decisions, and rightly should be, the spotlight needs to also be shined on the behavior of the players themselves. Much much more should be expected of them than some of the shocking displays that have been on evidence at this World Cup. Indeed, I should say that FIFA's "My Game is Fair Play" campaign appears long since dead and buried.
Many matches are now really composed of two separate games. There is the football match proper, trying to pass the ball and ultimately score goals, or defend and prevent them. The other game, which often seems to occupy more of the players time, concern and mental and physical faculties, is, for lack of a better phrase, how to best con the referee, or otherwise gain some unfair advantage with him. The theatrics, faking, whining, complaining, and otherwise carrying on like a spoiled 5 year old, has reached epic proportions, and was much in evidence from both sides in the Netherlands - Brazil match. You would be hard pressed to find such behavior in any youth recreational leagues in the United States, for example, or I suspect much of the rest of the world. But on football's grandest stage we are forced to suffer this idiocy?
A key aspect of soccer education in the US, at least with which I am familiar, is that referee's are to be respected, and one let's the referee call the game, and thus one can concentrate on one's own game, just playing, and not worrying about every little foul decision. Again, FIFA is in the outer limits when compared to other major sports organizations and leagues. In no other professional sport that I am familiar with is the constant talking back to and attempted "conning" of officials tolerated or left unpunished. In some cases the referees are not blameless, they need to be aware that many times players are going to the ground on their own accord, in such cases, they need to just wave play on, yell at the offenders, "get up, play." If players thus learn that diving gains no advantage, and indeed, may put a team at a numerical disadvantage, then the prevalence of this behavior would decrease. In cases of players persistently trying to cheat, remonstrate or berate referees, then they should be booked, with warning that continued behavior will elicit a red card. Coaches also bear significant responsibility. There was nothing more sickening than the sight of Dunga on the Brazil touchline whining, gesticulating, and arguing at nearly every foul decision or lack there-of. Really, do grow up.
The conclusion of today's 2nd match spelled heartbreak for Ghana. They were sent home after losing a penalty shoot-out. However, the situation which ultimately saw Uruguay advance was brought about by a deliberate hand-ball on the goal line that prevented the ball from entering the goal. In my opinion this is a serious deficiency of the Laws of the Game which needs to be rectified. In such circumstances, if the referee judges that the use of the hand deliberately keeps a goal-bound ball from entering the goal, as was clearly the case when Luis Suarez acted as a 2nd goalkeeper, then the referee should have the discretion to directly award the goal, because that would have been the outcome of the play had not the illegal infraction occurred. The offending team in such a situation should never gain an advantage by the commission of a direct red-card offense. The goal should have been awarded, and Uruguay should be out of the World Cup. Instead, the aggrieved team is forced to score again a goal that it has effectively already scored. This is simply unjust. While a penalty kick is clearly a good opportunity to score, this deficiency in the Laws creates an incentive for teams in certain circumstances to violate other Laws of the Game, and that should never be the case. Indeed, in such pressure filled situations, the scoring of a penalty is no certainty, and indeed Gyan unfortunately missed the attempt. But it was a situation he was unfairly placed into, and the Laws should be amended such that similar circumstances do not occur. Nothing evidenced this so clearly than the ugly sight of disgraced, red-carded-cheater Luis Suarez fist-pumping on the sidelines on his way off the pitch after Gyan missed his penalty. While everyone wants to win, this brings the desire to win at any cost to new lows, and the Laws of the Game should never encourage such behavior. In my opinion Suarez should be suspended for the remainder of the tournament, and with any luck Uruguay will be sent packing in the semi-finals by the Netherlands, and good riddance.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Why FIFA is Currently Football's Worst Enemy
Well, you may be able to tell I'm passionate about soccer from my last post. And since it's World Cup time I've been watching a lot of it lately. How about Germany today, they were awesome. World Cup football, I'll call it football from now on, is often played at breakneck speed by some of the best conditioned athletes in the world. There are 22 players on the pitch, and the game has been largely controlled by a single referee since the game was first played. This is done without the aid of "technology" as FIFA chief Sepp Blatter likes to argue, that is, no coaches with video replay flags to ask for a replay of a disputed call. Not even a simple device to inform the referee and his assistants that the ball is in the goal. But after watching today's World Cup round of 16 matches between Germany and England, and Mexio and Argentina, it must be clear to all but the staunchest sentimentalists, and perhaps even FIFA commisars that this situation must change, and certainly by the time the next World Cup roles around.
Many will know that in today's first match England's Frank Lampard, one of the few England players to turn in a credible performance for his side, scored a beautifully chipped goal over the German keeper Neuer, off the cross-bar and down over the goal line (by several feet easily). The goal should have tied the match 2-2. The ball quickly bounced out of the goal as a little spin induced by its collision with the bar is wont to do. It would seem that virtually everyone in the stadium knew the ball had crossed the goal line, except for the individuals whose sole authority can adjudicate legitimate goals. Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda and his compatriot linesman working that end of the pitch. Video replays on the "jumbotrons" in the stadium almost instantly confirmed what most everyone already knew, a goal had just been scored. But wait! Larrionda was upfield and can be forgiven perhaps for not seeing the ball in the goal, but his linesman was reasonably well positioned to see it, but also apparently did not see the ball over the line! No goal!! The whole world is watching, the whole world knows a goal has been scored, but only Sepp Blatter and apparently other FIFA neanderthals will tell you that such an outcome is "OK?" If they are allowed to prevail in the arguments that surely must follow, then the very integrity of the beautiful game will be at stake.
Football matches are decided by goals. While Germany arguably played the better match, moving the ball with speed and precision, that is not how football games are decided, by the team that strings together the most passes. Football matches are won by the team that scores the most goals. Goals are not easy to come by in football. When the awarding of goals cannot be properly adjudicated, then you cease to have a football match. It may resemble football, but the game has lost all its integrity. Fans will know that a 2-2 match at half-time is much different from one where a team is trailing 2-1. With a one goal cushion Germany could play a bit more cautiously, looking to spring breaks if England were to lose the ball with many players upfield. This is more or less what happened. Germany scoring two counterattacking goals to finish off the English. While I think England were outplayed, they should not have been in that position. If goals cannot be awarded fairly, then you have a spectacle, not a football match.
I remember thinking to myself after watching some of the first group stage matches at this World Cup, that the officials were doing a good job. However, as the tournament progressed, there has been no shortage of controversial referee decisions. Every referee decision should not be up for review during a match, but goals are different, goals are the very heart of the game, when goals are scored fairly they have to count, or the game becomes a sham, and the sport can be fairly derided as a joke (which it most certainly is not).
I would argue that the nature of modern football has outstripped the ability of a single referee and his aids to fairly and accurately control matches. All other major professional sports have found ways, using electronic assistance if necessary, to assist match officials in preserving the integrity of their sports. FIFA must act to maintain the integrity of international football, and if its present leadership do not, then they have to be removed, it's that simple, and that important.
The sad thing is that you really don't even need "technology" to much more fairly adjudicate the scoring of goals. Two additional match officials, goal line judges if you will, could be positioned behind or alongside the goals, and could determine if the ball crosses the goal line. Precedents abound in other sports, both for adding extra officials at major competitions (baseball's World Series), and hockey's goal judges. Simple technology already exists to tell the referee when a ball has crossed the goal line between the goal posts. The NHL has completely solved this problem in the sport of hockey, and it works almost perfectly. Video cameras are used to review every goal, and the ultimate judges are a group of league officials in a central location in Toronto during all NHL games. Videos are shown to the crowds and on TV, so there would be very little incentive for "cheating." And further, why would league officials mess with the integrity of the very sport they love and that is their livelihood. FIFA referee's already use "technology," being in voice communication with their linesmen and the fourth official. So, it is just preposterous to suggest that football is somehow "pure" and "untainted" by technology. It is ludicrous to suggest that a similar or related technology could not be implemented for full FIFA international matches. The ONLY thing lacking is the will in the FIFA leadership. Once such technology was tried and any kinks worked out, the officials would no doubt be very grateful to have such assistance. Would it be better for a referee to easily be enabled to get it right rather than face years of derision from fans and the media for a blown call? The answer seems obvious to me.
Implementing a simple goal adjudication system before the next World Cup must be a priority for FIFA. If not, then the global Confederations and National football associations need to insist on it. While I'm at it, here are several other things that FIFA should experiment with to maintain the integrity of the sport. There clearly need to be more "eyes on the pitch." A second referee would enable closer control of matches. Again, hockey's NHL has implemented this feature and it clearly works better, once officials learn how to officiate with a partner. There is absolutely no reason why FIFA could not implement a similar solution.
If you hadn't gotten your fill of controversy in today's first match, then you would have been elated when Argentina's opening goal was scored unfairly, with the player cleary in an offside position. The call was completely blown by the Italian linesman working that end of the pitch. The offside rule is one of the more difficult rules to properly enforce, but again, if FIFA were interested in getting decisions correct, then I don't believe it would be difficult to implement a video review system to fairly adjudicate goals where an offsides call may have been a concern. The main argument against this has again been that it will interrupt the "flow" of the game, but again, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Games are stopped when goals are scored. Usually, the ensuing celebrations can last a minute or more. Goals are also relatively infrequent. It would be easy enough to implement a quick video review. Goals where a player was clearly in an offside position, such as Argentina's opener, would be properly disallowed and play could proceed as it should have, from the point of the infraction, with a free kick. This should not take more than a minute or two. Eventually, such reviews would become routine, and players and fans would wonder why it had to take so long for FIFA to finally wake up and protect the game we all love and it professes to represent.
Many will know that in today's first match England's Frank Lampard, one of the few England players to turn in a credible performance for his side, scored a beautifully chipped goal over the German keeper Neuer, off the cross-bar and down over the goal line (by several feet easily). The goal should have tied the match 2-2. The ball quickly bounced out of the goal as a little spin induced by its collision with the bar is wont to do. It would seem that virtually everyone in the stadium knew the ball had crossed the goal line, except for the individuals whose sole authority can adjudicate legitimate goals. Uruguayan referee Jorge Larrionda and his compatriot linesman working that end of the pitch. Video replays on the "jumbotrons" in the stadium almost instantly confirmed what most everyone already knew, a goal had just been scored. But wait! Larrionda was upfield and can be forgiven perhaps for not seeing the ball in the goal, but his linesman was reasonably well positioned to see it, but also apparently did not see the ball over the line! No goal!! The whole world is watching, the whole world knows a goal has been scored, but only Sepp Blatter and apparently other FIFA neanderthals will tell you that such an outcome is "OK?" If they are allowed to prevail in the arguments that surely must follow, then the very integrity of the beautiful game will be at stake.
Football matches are decided by goals. While Germany arguably played the better match, moving the ball with speed and precision, that is not how football games are decided, by the team that strings together the most passes. Football matches are won by the team that scores the most goals. Goals are not easy to come by in football. When the awarding of goals cannot be properly adjudicated, then you cease to have a football match. It may resemble football, but the game has lost all its integrity. Fans will know that a 2-2 match at half-time is much different from one where a team is trailing 2-1. With a one goal cushion Germany could play a bit more cautiously, looking to spring breaks if England were to lose the ball with many players upfield. This is more or less what happened. Germany scoring two counterattacking goals to finish off the English. While I think England were outplayed, they should not have been in that position. If goals cannot be awarded fairly, then you have a spectacle, not a football match.
I remember thinking to myself after watching some of the first group stage matches at this World Cup, that the officials were doing a good job. However, as the tournament progressed, there has been no shortage of controversial referee decisions. Every referee decision should not be up for review during a match, but goals are different, goals are the very heart of the game, when goals are scored fairly they have to count, or the game becomes a sham, and the sport can be fairly derided as a joke (which it most certainly is not).
I would argue that the nature of modern football has outstripped the ability of a single referee and his aids to fairly and accurately control matches. All other major professional sports have found ways, using electronic assistance if necessary, to assist match officials in preserving the integrity of their sports. FIFA must act to maintain the integrity of international football, and if its present leadership do not, then they have to be removed, it's that simple, and that important.
The sad thing is that you really don't even need "technology" to much more fairly adjudicate the scoring of goals. Two additional match officials, goal line judges if you will, could be positioned behind or alongside the goals, and could determine if the ball crosses the goal line. Precedents abound in other sports, both for adding extra officials at major competitions (baseball's World Series), and hockey's goal judges. Simple technology already exists to tell the referee when a ball has crossed the goal line between the goal posts. The NHL has completely solved this problem in the sport of hockey, and it works almost perfectly. Video cameras are used to review every goal, and the ultimate judges are a group of league officials in a central location in Toronto during all NHL games. Videos are shown to the crowds and on TV, so there would be very little incentive for "cheating." And further, why would league officials mess with the integrity of the very sport they love and that is their livelihood. FIFA referee's already use "technology," being in voice communication with their linesmen and the fourth official. So, it is just preposterous to suggest that football is somehow "pure" and "untainted" by technology. It is ludicrous to suggest that a similar or related technology could not be implemented for full FIFA international matches. The ONLY thing lacking is the will in the FIFA leadership. Once such technology was tried and any kinks worked out, the officials would no doubt be very grateful to have such assistance. Would it be better for a referee to easily be enabled to get it right rather than face years of derision from fans and the media for a blown call? The answer seems obvious to me.
Implementing a simple goal adjudication system before the next World Cup must be a priority for FIFA. If not, then the global Confederations and National football associations need to insist on it. While I'm at it, here are several other things that FIFA should experiment with to maintain the integrity of the sport. There clearly need to be more "eyes on the pitch." A second referee would enable closer control of matches. Again, hockey's NHL has implemented this feature and it clearly works better, once officials learn how to officiate with a partner. There is absolutely no reason why FIFA could not implement a similar solution.
If you hadn't gotten your fill of controversy in today's first match, then you would have been elated when Argentina's opening goal was scored unfairly, with the player cleary in an offside position. The call was completely blown by the Italian linesman working that end of the pitch. The offside rule is one of the more difficult rules to properly enforce, but again, if FIFA were interested in getting decisions correct, then I don't believe it would be difficult to implement a video review system to fairly adjudicate goals where an offsides call may have been a concern. The main argument against this has again been that it will interrupt the "flow" of the game, but again, this argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Games are stopped when goals are scored. Usually, the ensuing celebrations can last a minute or more. Goals are also relatively infrequent. It would be easy enough to implement a quick video review. Goals where a player was clearly in an offside position, such as Argentina's opener, would be properly disallowed and play could proceed as it should have, from the point of the infraction, with a free kick. This should not take more than a minute or two. Eventually, such reviews would become routine, and players and fans would wonder why it had to take so long for FIFA to finally wake up and protect the game we all love and it professes to represent.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
World Cup Heartbreak!
As a lifelong player of the "beautiful game," that's soccer to Americans and football to most of the rest of the world. It's been frustrating to watch the slow embrace of the sport by my country, and often equally frustrating to watch the US National team's slow but steady progression into the top twenty of the FIFA rankings. But this World Cup promised to be the coming out party for the US team, while certainly not Brazil-like in it's talent pool, this US team had, seemingly, most of the tools to make a deep run into the tournament. Sadly, that run ended today with a 2-1, round-of-16 extra-time defeat to Ghana, the African nation that has now dumped the US out of two straight World Cups! Not Ghana! Not again!!
For the first time in its history the US had topped its group in the initial, round-robin stage of the tournament. First, a nail-biting, some might say fortunate 1-1 draw with England, then a gutsy, come from behind 2-2 draw with Slovenia, that arguably should have been a victory due to a goal being disallowed because of a mystery foul. To be concluded by a heart-stopping 1-0 win over Algeria on Landon Donovan's 91st minute goal.
But defensive frailties were exposed in its opening matches, the penchant to concede early goals seemingly impossible to shake. Another weakness evident was the inability of US strikers, like Jozy Altidore, Robbie Findley, and Edson Buddle to maintain composure in front of goal and put away chances. In each of its matches the US team created chances to win games, especially so in its last two group games, but wasteful finishing led to the need for late heroics. Would the team be able to learn from these group match weaknesses and get it right in the knock-out round? Frustratingly, the answer was no.
It is hard to imagine that the US could have played a worse 1st half against Ghana. That this occurred in a World Cup round of 16 match is even more infuriating. The team looked tentative, stretched over the field and not working together to close down the spaces available to Ghana, which looked the much better side. This was easily the worst half played by the US at this World Cup. While coach Bob Bradley can overall be proud of the US effort and progression in this tournament, he still needs to answer some tough questions. 1) Why start Ricardo Clark in mid-field after Maurice Edu had clearly demonstrated his better form in the two prior games. Indeed, why would Bradley tinker with the line-up that had defeated Algeria? Why, oh why?? While Clark can add steel to a mid-field with strong tackling and ball winning, he is not gifted with the dribbling skills of a Robinho, or even the USA's Benny Feilhaber. The game was not 6 minutes old when Clark inexplicably tried to beat his opposite number off the dribble in the middle of the park, at the half-way line. I wouldn't even try such a thing in a recreational match, with the score 3-0 in our favor! Clark was easily dispossessed of the ball, springing a Ghanaian counterattack that ended with a sublime, low, left-footed strike inside Tim Howard's near post by Kevin-Prince Boateng. The same Boateng who ended ersthwhile German captain Michael Ballack's World Cup with a wild tackle in the FA cup final while playing for his English club team Portsmouth. Incredibly, the US found itself down again early, but now in a knockout round match, with no tomorrow for the loser.
Clark remained ineffective for his remaining time on the pitch, and to be fair, so did most of the rest of the US squad. He proceeded to then pick up a booking for a careless, sliding tackle, and basically left Bradley with no choice but to sub him out for Maurice Edu after 30 minutes. While Bradley had made some good tactical moves in prior games, he seems to have gotten his tactics all wrong in the first half, and with everything on the line! Bob Bradley, why now?? Now was clearly not the time to tinker with what was working. To make matters worse he now had only two substitutions left with 60 minutes to play. Poor coaching Mr. Bradley.
As badly as the US played, Ghana was not exactly peppering the US goal, so with the half-time whistle coming and the US down only 1-0, it was clear that there was still time to find a goal, and indeed, they would have to play better, because it would not be possible to play worse. But this has to be question one for the whole US squad, how could the team put in such a tentative 1st-half effort with so much at stake in a World Cup round-of-16 match?!
It was a tale of 2 halves. As badly as the US played in the first half, they played that much better in the 2nd, but again, as in prior games they made enough chances to arguably win the match, but could not finish them when it counted most. Feilhaber was inserted at half-time and had an instant impact, why he did not start must be known only to Bob Bradley. Feilhaber provides the quality on the ball that the US team so desperately needed in the first half, and he almost equalized not 5 minutes into the 2nd half, denied only be a sliding save from Ghana's keeper Richard Kingson. Donovan, Dempsey and Altidore were starting to find the ball in dangerous positions, and it was no surprise, with Ghana on the back foot, that Dempsey finally won a penalty, that was converted by Landon Donovan to tie the match 1-1. Surely now, the US would ride this momentum to a 2nd goal and a berth in the quarterfinals? Agonizingly, the US could again not finish some good chances as the 2nd half wore on. Altidore in particular, after a powerful run into the box could not find the net, he may have had a fair penalty claim, but with the US already profiting from a spot-kick the referee waved play on. Full-time came with the teams tied 1-1, and it was on to extra-time. Kingson was huge for Ghana in the 2nd half, arguably making several saves that kept Ghana from going down.
Again, the US was undone by inattentive defending shortly after the extra-time kick-off. Central defenders Jay Demerit and Carlos Bocanegra giving way to much space to Ghanaian striker Asamoah Gyan, arguably Ghana's sole threat at this stage of the match, who collected a long ball, and coolly finished with a thumping left-footed volley past a stranded Tim Howard. The US could not find a way back, yet again. Game over. Heartbreak.
For the first time in its history the US had topped its group in the initial, round-robin stage of the tournament. First, a nail-biting, some might say fortunate 1-1 draw with England, then a gutsy, come from behind 2-2 draw with Slovenia, that arguably should have been a victory due to a goal being disallowed because of a mystery foul. To be concluded by a heart-stopping 1-0 win over Algeria on Landon Donovan's 91st minute goal.
But defensive frailties were exposed in its opening matches, the penchant to concede early goals seemingly impossible to shake. Another weakness evident was the inability of US strikers, like Jozy Altidore, Robbie Findley, and Edson Buddle to maintain composure in front of goal and put away chances. In each of its matches the US team created chances to win games, especially so in its last two group games, but wasteful finishing led to the need for late heroics. Would the team be able to learn from these group match weaknesses and get it right in the knock-out round? Frustratingly, the answer was no.
It is hard to imagine that the US could have played a worse 1st half against Ghana. That this occurred in a World Cup round of 16 match is even more infuriating. The team looked tentative, stretched over the field and not working together to close down the spaces available to Ghana, which looked the much better side. This was easily the worst half played by the US at this World Cup. While coach Bob Bradley can overall be proud of the US effort and progression in this tournament, he still needs to answer some tough questions. 1) Why start Ricardo Clark in mid-field after Maurice Edu had clearly demonstrated his better form in the two prior games. Indeed, why would Bradley tinker with the line-up that had defeated Algeria? Why, oh why?? While Clark can add steel to a mid-field with strong tackling and ball winning, he is not gifted with the dribbling skills of a Robinho, or even the USA's Benny Feilhaber. The game was not 6 minutes old when Clark inexplicably tried to beat his opposite number off the dribble in the middle of the park, at the half-way line. I wouldn't even try such a thing in a recreational match, with the score 3-0 in our favor! Clark was easily dispossessed of the ball, springing a Ghanaian counterattack that ended with a sublime, low, left-footed strike inside Tim Howard's near post by Kevin-Prince Boateng. The same Boateng who ended ersthwhile German captain Michael Ballack's World Cup with a wild tackle in the FA cup final while playing for his English club team Portsmouth. Incredibly, the US found itself down again early, but now in a knockout round match, with no tomorrow for the loser.
Clark remained ineffective for his remaining time on the pitch, and to be fair, so did most of the rest of the US squad. He proceeded to then pick up a booking for a careless, sliding tackle, and basically left Bradley with no choice but to sub him out for Maurice Edu after 30 minutes. While Bradley had made some good tactical moves in prior games, he seems to have gotten his tactics all wrong in the first half, and with everything on the line! Bob Bradley, why now?? Now was clearly not the time to tinker with what was working. To make matters worse he now had only two substitutions left with 60 minutes to play. Poor coaching Mr. Bradley.
As badly as the US played, Ghana was not exactly peppering the US goal, so with the half-time whistle coming and the US down only 1-0, it was clear that there was still time to find a goal, and indeed, they would have to play better, because it would not be possible to play worse. But this has to be question one for the whole US squad, how could the team put in such a tentative 1st-half effort with so much at stake in a World Cup round-of-16 match?!
It was a tale of 2 halves. As badly as the US played in the first half, they played that much better in the 2nd, but again, as in prior games they made enough chances to arguably win the match, but could not finish them when it counted most. Feilhaber was inserted at half-time and had an instant impact, why he did not start must be known only to Bob Bradley. Feilhaber provides the quality on the ball that the US team so desperately needed in the first half, and he almost equalized not 5 minutes into the 2nd half, denied only be a sliding save from Ghana's keeper Richard Kingson. Donovan, Dempsey and Altidore were starting to find the ball in dangerous positions, and it was no surprise, with Ghana on the back foot, that Dempsey finally won a penalty, that was converted by Landon Donovan to tie the match 1-1. Surely now, the US would ride this momentum to a 2nd goal and a berth in the quarterfinals? Agonizingly, the US could again not finish some good chances as the 2nd half wore on. Altidore in particular, after a powerful run into the box could not find the net, he may have had a fair penalty claim, but with the US already profiting from a spot-kick the referee waved play on. Full-time came with the teams tied 1-1, and it was on to extra-time. Kingson was huge for Ghana in the 2nd half, arguably making several saves that kept Ghana from going down.
Again, the US was undone by inattentive defending shortly after the extra-time kick-off. Central defenders Jay Demerit and Carlos Bocanegra giving way to much space to Ghanaian striker Asamoah Gyan, arguably Ghana's sole threat at this stage of the match, who collected a long ball, and coolly finished with a thumping left-footed volley past a stranded Tim Howard. The US could not find a way back, yet again. Game over. Heartbreak.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
"How could we know; it was unforeseeable"
A geyser of oil has now been spewing from a mile beneath the Gulf of Mexico since April 20, 2010. The response from petroleum giant BP has been predictable, and if not so tragic, even comical. Early on BP attempted to down-play the scope of the disaster, suggesting that the rate of leakage was about 1,000 barrels per day (a barrel is 42 gallons). They also sought to deflect criticism and blame with arguments about how it was impossible to foresee how anything like this could ever happen. Phrases like, "how could we know," and "I don't think anyone could have foreseen," were repeated ad nauseum. If this sounds to you like a reprisal of the situation in the immediate aftermath of the failure of the levees in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina, then you have a good memory.
Along with the denial and abdication of responsibility has come the finger pointing, "it wasn't my fault." BP attempted to argue that they were simply leasing the drilling rig that exploded, and that the rigs owners, Transocean, were responsible for the drilling operations. Then Transocean pointed the finger at sub-contractor Halliburton, that performed the cementing of the well casing, only hours or days before the explosion and blowout of the well. For a hilarious take on this game of CEO finger-pointing check out John Stewart's send-up from the Daily Show.
The Coast Guard, which has been involved in spill mitigation and clean-up efforts began to try and further quantify the magnitude of the spill. Their estimates, based on the amount of oil apparent at the surface, suggested perhaps 5,000 barrels per day were leaking from the well head. Again, this was based only on the amount of oil visible at the surface. Not long after these estimates several other attempts to quantify the size of the leak were coming up with much higher figures, more like 10 - 20 thousand barrels per day. Moreover, other reports were indicating that in a release of this kind, at a mile deep in the ocean, almost certainly most of the leaked oil would remain below the surface in the water column, and would not be seen at the surface.
Through most of this BP has and continues to insist that there is no way to know how much oil is actually leaking from the well. The attempted plea of innocence seems to be, "how could we possibly know?" "we're also just innocent victims of this unforeseeable catastrophe." Of course this is just ludicrous nonsense and an attempt to obfuscate the true scale of the disaster. Consider it for a minute, this oil industry giant is able to muster the resources and technical capability to drill a three mile deep hole into the sea-bed that is already a mile beneath the surface of the Gulf. They have submersible robots and monitoring equipment that enable the process to be assessed and managed. Recently released videos rather clearly show one of the leaks, with oil and perhaps methane and other materials seen literally gushing out of a broken pipe. Of course, it is not a supernatural task to analyze such a video and determine with reasonable precision the amount of oil flowing out. Indeed, it is more like a simple high school physics problem. We can further presume that BP has even higher quality videos from which to study the flow rate. Actually, it's relatively simple to come up with a ball-park figure. All you need to know is the diameter of the pipe, and the speed at which the oil is flowing through it. The volume of oil flowing out is then just the cross-sectional area of the pipe multiplied by the flow speed. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the BP engineers do not know the size of the pipes they are using, nor that they could not reasonably estimate the flow speed from the videos they have. Indeed, several scientists unaffiliated with the oil industry have recently done these relatively simple calculations and, as reported by NPR, determined that the rate of leakage from this one pipe is indeed many times the "official estimate." In fact, they estimate that the leak is very likely as large as 70-80 thousand barrels per day! And that is probably a lower limit, since there are apparently other leaks in addition to the one on this video. These higher values seem reasonable in the context of the estimates based on the amount of oil on the surface, and the fact that much of the oil is likely still in the water column.
The fact, though perhaps not reported, is that BP almost certainly knows how much oil is gushing out from its ruptured well-head. It is also likely that BP is desperate to conceal this fact, because of the scale of the disaster. Consider also that BP execs were meeting at the rig shortly before the disaster to celebrate, ironically, their safety record in drilling the well. Perhaps they were also celebrating the well ending its exploratory phase and that it would soon be in production. Certainly they also have good estimates of the amount of oil the well would likely produce, and given the economics of deep sea drilling, it is likely that they anticipated a very productive well. Not only do they know how much oil is gushing out, but they could also likely provide us with reasonable estimates of the amount of oil that could be released if the well is not sealed. Undoubtedly, those numbers are staggering and they are no less keen to reveal them as they are to tell us the rate at which oil is now leaking.
Another truth is that these big oil corporations know exactly what they are doing, and that there is a real possibility of significant oil spills and serious economic and ecological damage to the communities adjacent to their drilling operations. But the bottom line is that these companies could really care less about that. Of course, their spokes-people will say exactly the opposite and preen in public about how they are ecologically friendly and are good corporate "citizens." But if such companies really did take these risks and responsibilities seriously, then why do they fight and oppose regulations and oversight at every turn and at all cost? The only thing that matters when push comes to shove, and decisions have to be made is the accumulation of wealth. In this corporate culture the ends justifies the means, and any means are acceptable.
More fundamentally, this is the modus operandi of our entire corporate economy, and indeed, this is largely why an entire legal framework was enacted to grant corporate charters and legal status to entities whose primary goal was to spread responsibility and accountability away from themselves and onto the public at large. That is, wealth extracted from public resources is to be privatized, but all the costs and risks are to be socialized. By any definition this is socialism for the rich. Similar examples are also found in the recent financial disasters which set world economies into deep recessions. There was much talk about how fantastic new financial "products" would "spread the risk" associated with financial and investment activity and somehow benefit everyone. But who's risk was being spread? Why should the risks associated with speculation and investments of wealthy individuals and institutions be spread to others? These rich investors who essentially demand the right to unlimited returns should accept their own risks! I certainly don't want them. Similarly, BP and other oil companies should accept all the risks associated with their oil production activities, and not seek to spread them to the public at large.
While hopefully this tragic episode will lead to serious questioning of our present, unsustainable energy policy, we should also consider the bigger picture of corporate control and dominance of our economic lives.
Along with the denial and abdication of responsibility has come the finger pointing, "it wasn't my fault." BP attempted to argue that they were simply leasing the drilling rig that exploded, and that the rigs owners, Transocean, were responsible for the drilling operations. Then Transocean pointed the finger at sub-contractor Halliburton, that performed the cementing of the well casing, only hours or days before the explosion and blowout of the well. For a hilarious take on this game of CEO finger-pointing check out John Stewart's send-up from the Daily Show.
The Coast Guard, which has been involved in spill mitigation and clean-up efforts began to try and further quantify the magnitude of the spill. Their estimates, based on the amount of oil apparent at the surface, suggested perhaps 5,000 barrels per day were leaking from the well head. Again, this was based only on the amount of oil visible at the surface. Not long after these estimates several other attempts to quantify the size of the leak were coming up with much higher figures, more like 10 - 20 thousand barrels per day. Moreover, other reports were indicating that in a release of this kind, at a mile deep in the ocean, almost certainly most of the leaked oil would remain below the surface in the water column, and would not be seen at the surface.
Through most of this BP has and continues to insist that there is no way to know how much oil is actually leaking from the well. The attempted plea of innocence seems to be, "how could we possibly know?" "we're also just innocent victims of this unforeseeable catastrophe." Of course this is just ludicrous nonsense and an attempt to obfuscate the true scale of the disaster. Consider it for a minute, this oil industry giant is able to muster the resources and technical capability to drill a three mile deep hole into the sea-bed that is already a mile beneath the surface of the Gulf. They have submersible robots and monitoring equipment that enable the process to be assessed and managed. Recently released videos rather clearly show one of the leaks, with oil and perhaps methane and other materials seen literally gushing out of a broken pipe. Of course, it is not a supernatural task to analyze such a video and determine with reasonable precision the amount of oil flowing out. Indeed, it is more like a simple high school physics problem. We can further presume that BP has even higher quality videos from which to study the flow rate. Actually, it's relatively simple to come up with a ball-park figure. All you need to know is the diameter of the pipe, and the speed at which the oil is flowing through it. The volume of oil flowing out is then just the cross-sectional area of the pipe multiplied by the flow speed. It is absolutely ridiculous to think that the BP engineers do not know the size of the pipes they are using, nor that they could not reasonably estimate the flow speed from the videos they have. Indeed, several scientists unaffiliated with the oil industry have recently done these relatively simple calculations and, as reported by NPR, determined that the rate of leakage from this one pipe is indeed many times the "official estimate." In fact, they estimate that the leak is very likely as large as 70-80 thousand barrels per day! And that is probably a lower limit, since there are apparently other leaks in addition to the one on this video. These higher values seem reasonable in the context of the estimates based on the amount of oil on the surface, and the fact that much of the oil is likely still in the water column.
The fact, though perhaps not reported, is that BP almost certainly knows how much oil is gushing out from its ruptured well-head. It is also likely that BP is desperate to conceal this fact, because of the scale of the disaster. Consider also that BP execs were meeting at the rig shortly before the disaster to celebrate, ironically, their safety record in drilling the well. Perhaps they were also celebrating the well ending its exploratory phase and that it would soon be in production. Certainly they also have good estimates of the amount of oil the well would likely produce, and given the economics of deep sea drilling, it is likely that they anticipated a very productive well. Not only do they know how much oil is gushing out, but they could also likely provide us with reasonable estimates of the amount of oil that could be released if the well is not sealed. Undoubtedly, those numbers are staggering and they are no less keen to reveal them as they are to tell us the rate at which oil is now leaking.
Another truth is that these big oil corporations know exactly what they are doing, and that there is a real possibility of significant oil spills and serious economic and ecological damage to the communities adjacent to their drilling operations. But the bottom line is that these companies could really care less about that. Of course, their spokes-people will say exactly the opposite and preen in public about how they are ecologically friendly and are good corporate "citizens." But if such companies really did take these risks and responsibilities seriously, then why do they fight and oppose regulations and oversight at every turn and at all cost? The only thing that matters when push comes to shove, and decisions have to be made is the accumulation of wealth. In this corporate culture the ends justifies the means, and any means are acceptable.
More fundamentally, this is the modus operandi of our entire corporate economy, and indeed, this is largely why an entire legal framework was enacted to grant corporate charters and legal status to entities whose primary goal was to spread responsibility and accountability away from themselves and onto the public at large. That is, wealth extracted from public resources is to be privatized, but all the costs and risks are to be socialized. By any definition this is socialism for the rich. Similar examples are also found in the recent financial disasters which set world economies into deep recessions. There was much talk about how fantastic new financial "products" would "spread the risk" associated with financial and investment activity and somehow benefit everyone. But who's risk was being spread? Why should the risks associated with speculation and investments of wealthy individuals and institutions be spread to others? These rich investors who essentially demand the right to unlimited returns should accept their own risks! I certainly don't want them. Similarly, BP and other oil companies should accept all the risks associated with their oil production activities, and not seek to spread them to the public at large.
While hopefully this tragic episode will lead to serious questioning of our present, unsustainable energy policy, we should also consider the bigger picture of corporate control and dominance of our economic lives.
Friday, March 26, 2010
All Aboard!!
It's really hard to understate how far off the rails on a crazy train the Republican Party and their conservative allies in the tea-bagger movement have gone. Indeed, the conservative right in general has reached epic levels of nuttery, there really is no other way to honestly describe it. In the wake of the passage of a corporate friendly and centrist--by any reasoned reckoning--health insurance reform bill, the right has gone literally rabid with howls of socialism, government takeovers, and the like. As was pointed out by many outlets, the bill that was passed was essentially a National version of that which former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney had signed into law when he was in office. That is, a lot of Republicans were for it before they were against it.
With defeat apparent in the democratic process, tea-baggers sought to drag the proceedings into a realm where they are much more comfortable, that is, the spewing of hate-filled venom, violence, and threats of violence. Civil rights veterans were spat on and defamed with the Big-N; members of Congress were threatened, and their offices vandalized; and elected officials, such as low-wattage leader Representative Steve King of Iowa, egged them on, or worse. Here's a little of what he had to say,
All that was bad enough, but it may seem mild compared with the results of a recent Harris poll that should send a chill down the spine of any rational American. The survey explored the attitudes of Americans with regard to their beliefs about President Obama. Here are some of the more worrying findings of the survey;
But clearly the most amazing finding from this poll is the result that just about 1/4 of Republicans think that Obama may be the anti-Christ! Surely this demonstrates the extent to which the conservative right has been taken over by Christian fundamentalist movements, and that there is really no limit to the delusional thinking of many Americans. Scary stuff indeed. Welcome aboard America's crazy train!
With defeat apparent in the democratic process, tea-baggers sought to drag the proceedings into a realm where they are much more comfortable, that is, the spewing of hate-filled venom, violence, and threats of violence. Civil rights veterans were spat on and defamed with the Big-N; members of Congress were threatened, and their offices vandalized; and elected officials, such as low-wattage leader Representative Steve King of Iowa, egged them on, or worse. Here's a little of what he had to say,
REP. STEVE KING: I’ve got to go back up and vote again against the reconciliation package, but I wanted to come down here in this little window of about twelve minutes so I could say to you, God bless you. You are the awesome American people. I am overwhelmed with gratitude and the power of who you are and what you’re willing to do. And if I could start a country with a bunch of people, they’d be the folks that have been here standing with us the last few days. Let’s hope we don’t have to do that. Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s chase them out. Let’s chase them down. There’s going to be a reckoning!Let's examine these statements a little more closely. "YOU are the awesome American people." I guess that would make the rest of America, the vast majority of America, the not-so-awesome group." This is classic right-wing divisiveness. Sounds an awful lot like Sarah Palin's "real" America meme. But then it really gets good, "... if I could start a country... Let's hope we don't have to do that. Let's beat the other side to a pulp!" Statements like this from an elected official of the government are beyond irresponsible. They are despicable, and indeed, it's not a stretch to suggest that Mr. King is inciting secession, and might legitimately be called a traitor. I would not make that charge, but consider for a second the response it would provoke in the right-wing media if someone, say, on the political left were to make similar remarks. There would be howls of treason!
All that was bad enough, but it may seem mild compared with the results of a recent Harris poll that should send a chill down the spine of any rational American. The survey explored the attitudes of Americans with regard to their beliefs about President Obama. Here are some of the more worrying findings of the survey;
- 67% of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist.
- 57% of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim.
- 45% of Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the United States.
- 38% of Republicans (20 percent of Americans overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" And, hold onto your hats,
- 24% of Republicans say that Obama may be the anti-Christ!
But clearly the most amazing finding from this poll is the result that just about 1/4 of Republicans think that Obama may be the anti-Christ! Surely this demonstrates the extent to which the conservative right has been taken over by Christian fundamentalist movements, and that there is really no limit to the delusional thinking of many Americans. Scary stuff indeed. Welcome aboard America's crazy train!
Friday, March 12, 2010
Carrying the Insurance Industry's Water
Barack Obama just postponed his Asian swing to Indonesia and Australia in order to hang around Washington for a few more days, ostensibly to try and pass a health care "reform" bill. Let's review. No, there is too much, let's sum-up. The House passed a somewhat decent bill, that included a so-called public option that would represent at least some attempt to keep private health insurance corporations honest. The Senate passed a stinker of a bill which basically reflected the desires of such political miscreants as Joe Lieberman. Yes, the Senate bill is the legislation that was more or less agreeable to Holy Joe, so no wonder it is not very popular as a whole! Importantly, both bills rely on the mandate, that is, citizens will be required to purchase private insurance or ostensibly pay a penalty. Those who can't afford to pay will receive some subsidy so that they will be able to pay. Note, this was the kind of plan that Obama ran AGAINST in his campaign. Moreover, note that these bills essentially guarantee something in the vicinity of 20 -40 million new, captive, customers for private health insurers, particularly the Senate plan, which offers no government insurance alternative. Further, the legislated subsidies for those unable to afford private insurance premiums, already exorbitantly priced, amount to a windfall from the government (from your tax dollars), into the private coffers of for-profit health insurance corporations. Funny, but this doesn't quite sound like the reform that Obama sold many Americans on during his campaign. No, it sounds more like the "reform" that insurance companies might agree to having realized that some changes were unavoidable.
Now, the Democrats, and Mr. Obama in particular, have expended so much political effort and capital on this issue that at this point they feel they must pass a bill. Attention has focused on the Senate bill since it was presumed that 60 votes would be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Actually, just the "threat" of a filibuster, since the Senate no longer requires anyone to actually do the filibustering. But with the 60 votes looking very unlikely with the arrival of Scott Brown as Massachusetts newest Senator, Democrats have seemingly become resigned to the reality that a bill will have to be passed using the reconciliation procedure, which only requires a simple majority (50 votes, since Vice President Biden would break a tie, presumably in the administration's favor!). It should have been obvious months ago that this was needed, since Republican opposition to ANY bill was a given. Take note that Republican screams of "foul" against reconciliation are pure hypocrisy, since when in power they were more than happy to pass legislation using exactly the same process.
But who is this reform really serving? What about the reform that Obama actually campaigned on? What about the public option, a government sponsored insurance plan that was supposed to provide some competition to private insurance corporation expense and malfeasance? Well, it should be pretty clear by now that the Democratic leadership is more or less content with the Senate bill. While there was no end of Democratic talk about the public option, when push came to shove the leadership clearly sided with the interests of their corporate sponsors in the health insurance industry, the needs, wishes and desires of Democratic voters are clearly much less important. This is the nature of governance today, corporations and other monied interests call all the shots, ultimately it is these institutions for which the government functions, not the people. In a recent article, Glenn Greenwald exposes the game, and really calls out the Democratic leadership for the cowardly, despicable scam they are now playing with the very voters responsible for their being in power.
While the Democratic leadership carries water for the insurance industry, American voters grow more and more angry and cynical. If the Democrats think that this pathetic excuse of a health care reform bill is going to energize their voting base come November, they are sorely mistaken. Obama and the Democrats can expect heavy losses in the mid-term elections. And this is what American voters have to look forward to. Either a vote for the Party of No, that doesn't want to do anything except further lower the already ridiculously low taxes of rich people, or a vote for the Party of Nothing, because that's what the Democratic leadership apparently believes in, Nothing. It is a state of complete and utter dysfunction. Is it any wonder vast numbers of citizens simply check out from the entire process. As Bill Quigley points out, it is long past time for ordinary citizens to make some serious noise.
Now, the Democrats, and Mr. Obama in particular, have expended so much political effort and capital on this issue that at this point they feel they must pass a bill. Attention has focused on the Senate bill since it was presumed that 60 votes would be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Actually, just the "threat" of a filibuster, since the Senate no longer requires anyone to actually do the filibustering. But with the 60 votes looking very unlikely with the arrival of Scott Brown as Massachusetts newest Senator, Democrats have seemingly become resigned to the reality that a bill will have to be passed using the reconciliation procedure, which only requires a simple majority (50 votes, since Vice President Biden would break a tie, presumably in the administration's favor!). It should have been obvious months ago that this was needed, since Republican opposition to ANY bill was a given. Take note that Republican screams of "foul" against reconciliation are pure hypocrisy, since when in power they were more than happy to pass legislation using exactly the same process.
But who is this reform really serving? What about the reform that Obama actually campaigned on? What about the public option, a government sponsored insurance plan that was supposed to provide some competition to private insurance corporation expense and malfeasance? Well, it should be pretty clear by now that the Democratic leadership is more or less content with the Senate bill. While there was no end of Democratic talk about the public option, when push came to shove the leadership clearly sided with the interests of their corporate sponsors in the health insurance industry, the needs, wishes and desires of Democratic voters are clearly much less important. This is the nature of governance today, corporations and other monied interests call all the shots, ultimately it is these institutions for which the government functions, not the people. In a recent article, Glenn Greenwald exposes the game, and really calls out the Democratic leadership for the cowardly, despicable scam they are now playing with the very voters responsible for their being in power.
While the Democratic leadership carries water for the insurance industry, American voters grow more and more angry and cynical. If the Democrats think that this pathetic excuse of a health care reform bill is going to energize their voting base come November, they are sorely mistaken. Obama and the Democrats can expect heavy losses in the mid-term elections. And this is what American voters have to look forward to. Either a vote for the Party of No, that doesn't want to do anything except further lower the already ridiculously low taxes of rich people, or a vote for the Party of Nothing, because that's what the Democratic leadership apparently believes in, Nothing. It is a state of complete and utter dysfunction. Is it any wonder vast numbers of citizens simply check out from the entire process. As Bill Quigley points out, it is long past time for ordinary citizens to make some serious noise.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
A Brief Letter to Maryland's Senatorial Delegation
Here is the short letter I sent to both of my Democratic Senators. If you feel similarly about this or some other issue, I suggest considering a similar course of action. We still have the right to vote, it's time to send anyone packing who doesn't meet even a minimal standard of competence or integrity.
Dear Senators Mikulski and Cardin,
Hi, I'll keep this brief. I am an Independent who tends to vote Democratic, but no longer. Your vote to confirm Ben Bernanke for a 2nd four-year term as Fed Chairman is the last straw. I have voted for both of you in past elections, but never again. Anyone who would reward such catastrophic failure with another four years has completely lost touch with reality and what it means to govern. Good luck with your re-elections, I suspect you are going to need it, as many other Independents, and dare I say Democrats, will reach the same conclusion that I have. You and many in your Party have become a sorry spectacle. I will not support you again.
Regards,
Tod Strohmayer
Dear Senators Mikulski and Cardin,
Hi, I'll keep this brief. I am an Independent who tends to vote Democratic, but no longer. Your vote to confirm Ben Bernanke for a 2nd four-year term as Fed Chairman is the last straw. I have voted for both of you in past elections, but never again. Anyone who would reward such catastrophic failure with another four years has completely lost touch with reality and what it means to govern. Good luck with your re-elections, I suspect you are going to need it, as many other Independents, and dare I say Democrats, will reach the same conclusion that I have. You and many in your Party have become a sorry spectacle. I will not support you again.
Regards,
Tod Strohmayer
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Howard Zinn: An Exemplary Life
I was saddened to hear today of the sudden death of Howard Zinn at the age of 87. Unfortunately, many Americans probably know little of Zinn, or worse, may have never heard of him at all. To the extent that this is true we can thank our cowardly, corporate-driven media that systematically excludes and distorts all but the most narrowly defined commentary. But known or not, Zinn was in many ways the conscience of our nation. He served as a bombardier in World War II, and was decorated for his service, but it was apparently that experience which, in his words, "crystallized his opposition to war."
He has been an eloquent and vocal critic of war since that time, and is perhaps best known for his opposition and protest of America's involvement in the Vietnam war. For a more recent example of his eloquence and persuasive logic with regard to the immorality of war, read a contribution he wrote for the Progressive magazine some months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and during America's bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The relevance to our predicaments today is glaringly obvious.
His voice could often be heard on Democracy Now! and other independent media outlets, and it's more than worth it to watch or listen to their tribute to him aired during today's broadcast.
Howard Zinn was America's "people historian." He told the events of our history not through the eyes of the powerful, but through those of ordinary working people, who through extraordinary commitment, struggle and tenacity were able to make a better life for all of us. Think the 8-hour day, or the five day work week, but also very much more. He told the stories that were more often than not absent from the "approved" history texts. Most of all he told the truth, even when it was an unwelcome and inconvenient truth. This is what we call integrity, an attribute that is now almost universally absent from our political classes. His "A People's History of the United States," is about as close as one can get to required reading. So, if you haven't, go out and get a copy, get reading, and then, as I'm sure Zinn would have agreed, get involved!
He has been an eloquent and vocal critic of war since that time, and is perhaps best known for his opposition and protest of America's involvement in the Vietnam war. For a more recent example of his eloquence and persuasive logic with regard to the immorality of war, read a contribution he wrote for the Progressive magazine some months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and during America's bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The relevance to our predicaments today is glaringly obvious.
His voice could often be heard on Democracy Now! and other independent media outlets, and it's more than worth it to watch or listen to their tribute to him aired during today's broadcast.
Howard Zinn was America's "people historian." He told the events of our history not through the eyes of the powerful, but through those of ordinary working people, who through extraordinary commitment, struggle and tenacity were able to make a better life for all of us. Think the 8-hour day, or the five day work week, but also very much more. He told the stories that were more often than not absent from the "approved" history texts. Most of all he told the truth, even when it was an unwelcome and inconvenient truth. This is what we call integrity, an attribute that is now almost universally absent from our political classes. His "A People's History of the United States," is about as close as one can get to required reading. So, if you haven't, go out and get a copy, get reading, and then, as I'm sure Zinn would have agreed, get involved!
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Clearly Not Getting It: Obama Channels Hoover
In my last post I lambasted the Democrats as the Party of stupid. I did so with a rather general critique, and did not wade into the details too much. Suffice to say that they had abandoned most of the allies responsible for their majority status and have essentially governed as corporatist Republicans might have. While "change" was Obama's over-riding mantra, he has delivered precious little of it. The ever eloquent Glenn Greenwald filled in some of the details, and Norman Soloman pointed out that the Dems have simply emboldened the right-wing populists with their Clintonian triangulation. I concluded with the speculation that the Dems would not draw the correct conclusions from their Massachusetts debacle, but rather would conclude exactly the opposite, that they should govern more "from the center," meaning more like Republicans, and to their own electoral demise.
Well, that was a week ago, and I think we have now seen enough of the Democratic response, and particularly the actions of Mr. Obama, to conclude that I was right, and that indeed, the Democrats are completely without a clue. Of course in immediate reaction to the events in Massachusetts one of the first things Obama did was to ratchet up a little populist rhetoric, talk tough to the banks a little bit. But the banksters and most Americans now know that this is just more meaningless huffing and puffing from Obama. If anything can be gleaned from his first year it's that Obama can certainly talk a good game, but when it comes to actually backing up all that talk with action, well, he seems much less adept at that, or a more cynical conclusion might be that he rarely intends to put into action that of which he speaks. This has become such an obvious pattern that, as Bob Herbert has pointed out, he is very rapidly exposing a "credibility gap" with many voters, but particularly with left-leaning, traditional Democrats. One might think he would want to reconsider such actions, since these people were after all largely responsible for his election! But apparently re-election is not a primary concern for Mr. Obama, if comments to Diane Sawyer are to be believed. No, he would rather just be a "good President." Fair enough, but a good President for whom, Wall Street bankers?
The Democrats are so inept, or maybe it's simply corrupted by corporate money, that they can't even recognize when someone comes bearing political gifts. In the wake of the populist rage in Massachusetts a number of Democratic Senators still had sense enough to be able to read the tea leaves (or was it tea bags?) accurately and decided that come November they didn't want voters to see their name next to a reconfirmation vote in the affirmative for "Mr. Bailout" himself, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. Indeed, stiffer opposition to Bernanke arose quickly after the Massachusetts special election, and even from within Republican ranks, including no less than John McCain. Heck, if it's one thing Republicans are good at it's shameless political opportunism. If ever there was an obvious gift to Democrats then this was it. As a first step toward showing the people he was really serious about all that tough talk with the banks, Obama could have accepted the gift from these Democratic Senators who bravely tried to throw him a lifeline. Why not let Bernanke's term lapse, and then appoint a more Main-Street-friendly Fed chairman. Well, that's what Obama should have done. What did he actually do? Believe it or not he has now spent what little political capital he has left and gone on the record expressing "full confidence" in Bernanke, and is now essentially demanding that the Senate confirm him for a second term, or else! Or else what may you ask? Or else the markets will become "unsettled." Perhaps even more laughable was word of Obama's Treasury Secretary, Wall Street insider and ethically conflicted bank servant Timothy Geithner, also demanding that Bernanke be confirmed, or else! Or else what, no more bailouts for Wall Street gamblers? I can see the Republicans quaking in their boots after that threat, Not!
Judging from these actions it seems clear that the Democrats must really have no idea of how this is playing with regular working folk, nor how well the Republicans will be able to use this to their electoral advantage come November. No, they don't seem to fathom the problem with hooking their caboose, and the Nation's economic recovery, to the guy who helped usher in the second coming of the Great Depression. Moreover, while Bernanke dished trillions of dollars of taxpayer cash to the banks, who are now writing record, business as usual bonuses, an unemployment disaster descended on America, and has yet to be adequately addressed. Who does Obama think is going to re-elect him come November, a handful of rich, greedy bankers, or millions and millions of struggling Americans who see their economic dreams being trumped while billions go to aid banksters? One could scarcely imagine a more delusional and self destructive political calculation, but there you have it. We are talking about Democrats here after all.
But it gets worse. Apparently in an attempt to try and re-capture the mythical "center"--what that center might actually be I have not the slightest idea--Obama has announced a "freeze" on some Federal discretionary spending. You got it. At a time when we need more than ever the spirit of FDR, Obama is channeling Herbert Hoover so as to tame the awful deficit, and demonstrate to the folks that matter (ie. bankers and other corporate elites), that he is a true fiscal conservative. Of course, off the table from the get-go is all "security" spending, meaning that the already obscene defense budget (war budget would more accurately reflect the nature of the spending) will simply continue to grow. It already amounts to more than the combined defense expenditures of most of the rest of the world. With such profligacy you might think that evil hordes were swarming the national territory on every border, while in reality we are kept in mortal fear and told we must spend our children's inheritance because of, "... those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of a broken country?" While any real effort at reigning in spending would have to look at the defense budget, there are lots of other arguments against this ludicrous plan, and many were articulately made by none other than Obama himself during the 2008 presidential campaign! So, thanks to the wonders of YouTube, we now have Obama arguing against his own plan, before he's fully announced it! He doesn't have a credibility gap, it's a credibility ocean!
With all this it's hard not to think of FDR, who taught us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If only Obama would begin to listen to those instincts, the instincts of a community organizer that he must have harbored in his heart at one time, rather than the pratings of Rahm Emanuel, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner and other denizens of the corporate bubble that suffocates Washington, perhaps we could hope for a more people-centered governance from here on out. I wouldn't hope to hard though, for that may be Obama's greatest failing since taking office, he has done more to kill hope than any Republican could have. No doubt we will hear some additional details, and excuses, during his first State of the Union Address tomorrow night. I however, would simply sum it up thusly, FUBAR.
Well, that was a week ago, and I think we have now seen enough of the Democratic response, and particularly the actions of Mr. Obama, to conclude that I was right, and that indeed, the Democrats are completely without a clue. Of course in immediate reaction to the events in Massachusetts one of the first things Obama did was to ratchet up a little populist rhetoric, talk tough to the banks a little bit. But the banksters and most Americans now know that this is just more meaningless huffing and puffing from Obama. If anything can be gleaned from his first year it's that Obama can certainly talk a good game, but when it comes to actually backing up all that talk with action, well, he seems much less adept at that, or a more cynical conclusion might be that he rarely intends to put into action that of which he speaks. This has become such an obvious pattern that, as Bob Herbert has pointed out, he is very rapidly exposing a "credibility gap" with many voters, but particularly with left-leaning, traditional Democrats. One might think he would want to reconsider such actions, since these people were after all largely responsible for his election! But apparently re-election is not a primary concern for Mr. Obama, if comments to Diane Sawyer are to be believed. No, he would rather just be a "good President." Fair enough, but a good President for whom, Wall Street bankers?
The Democrats are so inept, or maybe it's simply corrupted by corporate money, that they can't even recognize when someone comes bearing political gifts. In the wake of the populist rage in Massachusetts a number of Democratic Senators still had sense enough to be able to read the tea leaves (or was it tea bags?) accurately and decided that come November they didn't want voters to see their name next to a reconfirmation vote in the affirmative for "Mr. Bailout" himself, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. Indeed, stiffer opposition to Bernanke arose quickly after the Massachusetts special election, and even from within Republican ranks, including no less than John McCain. Heck, if it's one thing Republicans are good at it's shameless political opportunism. If ever there was an obvious gift to Democrats then this was it. As a first step toward showing the people he was really serious about all that tough talk with the banks, Obama could have accepted the gift from these Democratic Senators who bravely tried to throw him a lifeline. Why not let Bernanke's term lapse, and then appoint a more Main-Street-friendly Fed chairman. Well, that's what Obama should have done. What did he actually do? Believe it or not he has now spent what little political capital he has left and gone on the record expressing "full confidence" in Bernanke, and is now essentially demanding that the Senate confirm him for a second term, or else! Or else what may you ask? Or else the markets will become "unsettled." Perhaps even more laughable was word of Obama's Treasury Secretary, Wall Street insider and ethically conflicted bank servant Timothy Geithner, also demanding that Bernanke be confirmed, or else! Or else what, no more bailouts for Wall Street gamblers? I can see the Republicans quaking in their boots after that threat, Not!
Judging from these actions it seems clear that the Democrats must really have no idea of how this is playing with regular working folk, nor how well the Republicans will be able to use this to their electoral advantage come November. No, they don't seem to fathom the problem with hooking their caboose, and the Nation's economic recovery, to the guy who helped usher in the second coming of the Great Depression. Moreover, while Bernanke dished trillions of dollars of taxpayer cash to the banks, who are now writing record, business as usual bonuses, an unemployment disaster descended on America, and has yet to be adequately addressed. Who does Obama think is going to re-elect him come November, a handful of rich, greedy bankers, or millions and millions of struggling Americans who see their economic dreams being trumped while billions go to aid banksters? One could scarcely imagine a more delusional and self destructive political calculation, but there you have it. We are talking about Democrats here after all.
But it gets worse. Apparently in an attempt to try and re-capture the mythical "center"--what that center might actually be I have not the slightest idea--Obama has announced a "freeze" on some Federal discretionary spending. You got it. At a time when we need more than ever the spirit of FDR, Obama is channeling Herbert Hoover so as to tame the awful deficit, and demonstrate to the folks that matter (ie. bankers and other corporate elites), that he is a true fiscal conservative. Of course, off the table from the get-go is all "security" spending, meaning that the already obscene defense budget (war budget would more accurately reflect the nature of the spending) will simply continue to grow. It already amounts to more than the combined defense expenditures of most of the rest of the world. With such profligacy you might think that evil hordes were swarming the national territory on every border, while in reality we are kept in mortal fear and told we must spend our children's inheritance because of, "... those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of a broken country?" While any real effort at reigning in spending would have to look at the defense budget, there are lots of other arguments against this ludicrous plan, and many were articulately made by none other than Obama himself during the 2008 presidential campaign! So, thanks to the wonders of YouTube, we now have Obama arguing against his own plan, before he's fully announced it! He doesn't have a credibility gap, it's a credibility ocean!
With all this it's hard not to think of FDR, who taught us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If only Obama would begin to listen to those instincts, the instincts of a community organizer that he must have harbored in his heart at one time, rather than the pratings of Rahm Emanuel, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner and other denizens of the corporate bubble that suffocates Washington, perhaps we could hope for a more people-centered governance from here on out. I wouldn't hope to hard though, for that may be Obama's greatest failing since taking office, he has done more to kill hope than any Republican could have. No doubt we will hear some additional details, and excuses, during his first State of the Union Address tomorrow night. I however, would simply sum it up thusly, FUBAR.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Party of Stupid
Well, they did it. Martha Coakley, the Democrats mediocre--at best--candidate for the vacant Massachusetts Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy, was defeated by truck-loving Republican Scott Brown. No one would have believed it possible a few months ago, but never ever again underestimate the depths of stupidity that the Democratic Party can sink to. Only the Democratic Party could be so blunderingly, incompetently stupid as to lose the Democratic Senate seat held by Edward (Teddy) Kennedy for almost four decades. And the irony is even richer that they would lose the seat after rather shamelessy pushing through the special election law while a Republican occupied the Massachusetts State House in order to keep the other Massachusetts seat--that held by John "vanilla" Kerry--blue. Talk about your just desserts, I hope the stupid Dems find them tasty!
While no doubt Coakley ran a lackluster campaign (lackluster may be too kind), and the Democratic Party will try and lay all the blame at her feet, my sense is that the real failures go up a lot higher. This massive fiasco by the Dems reaches all the way up into the White House and the circle of "New Democrat" incompetents that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with, starting with his choice of White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Here's what stupid Democrats can't seem to get through their stupid skulls; the country was sick and tired of governance under the Republican rule of Bush and company. Bush was roundly despised, with approval ratings in the mid-20's, and Republicans in general were not far behind (and still aren't). Voters wanted a change in direction, the change that Obama ran on and said he would deliver. So, after Obama and his Democratic team deliver another year of essentially unchanged Republican-like governance, the Democrats are suddenly shocked and dismayed to see that the voters are not so happy with them?! I mean come on, how stupid can they be? Oh, that's right, we're talking about Democrats here, the Party of stupid.
Now, you might think that after this kick in the pants the Dems might get some smarts, but you'd be wrong, because smarts don't come easy when you're this stupid. You might think that this wake-up call would get the Dems reconnecting with the voters who sent them to Washington with large majorities in the Congress. However, I'm willing to bet that this is not what the Democratic leadership is thinking. No, I bet they are thinking exactly what Joe Lieberman is whispering in their ear, "that they need to shift back to the center." That is, that they need to govern even more like Republicans. Well, you know where this is leading. Expect a Democratic "blood-bath" at the mid-term elections if they listen to old Holy Joe (and odds are they will). Yup, you can be almost certain that Democrats are stupid enough to listen to their "ally" who campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin, and is vowing to derail their health care efforts, rather than the voters who elected them. One should expect nothing less from the Party of stupid.
While no doubt Coakley ran a lackluster campaign (lackluster may be too kind), and the Democratic Party will try and lay all the blame at her feet, my sense is that the real failures go up a lot higher. This massive fiasco by the Dems reaches all the way up into the White House and the circle of "New Democrat" incompetents that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with, starting with his choice of White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Here's what stupid Democrats can't seem to get through their stupid skulls; the country was sick and tired of governance under the Republican rule of Bush and company. Bush was roundly despised, with approval ratings in the mid-20's, and Republicans in general were not far behind (and still aren't). Voters wanted a change in direction, the change that Obama ran on and said he would deliver. So, after Obama and his Democratic team deliver another year of essentially unchanged Republican-like governance, the Democrats are suddenly shocked and dismayed to see that the voters are not so happy with them?! I mean come on, how stupid can they be? Oh, that's right, we're talking about Democrats here, the Party of stupid.
Now, you might think that after this kick in the pants the Dems might get some smarts, but you'd be wrong, because smarts don't come easy when you're this stupid. You might think that this wake-up call would get the Dems reconnecting with the voters who sent them to Washington with large majorities in the Congress. However, I'm willing to bet that this is not what the Democratic leadership is thinking. No, I bet they are thinking exactly what Joe Lieberman is whispering in their ear, "that they need to shift back to the center." That is, that they need to govern even more like Republicans. Well, you know where this is leading. Expect a Democratic "blood-bath" at the mid-term elections if they listen to old Holy Joe (and odds are they will). Yup, you can be almost certain that Democrats are stupid enough to listen to their "ally" who campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin, and is vowing to derail their health care efforts, rather than the voters who elected them. One should expect nothing less from the Party of stupid.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Framing the "Security Debate"
It's now officially an election year, and Republicans sense they may have an opportunity to redress some of the substantial losses they have sustained as voters began to turn away in droves from the corrupt and incompetent governance they ushered in during the long nightmare of the George W. Bush era. That this is even conceivable, given the depths to which they dragged the country over the last eight years, is testament to how sorry the Democrats have been since achieving majority status. And the fact that the entire American political system is at present more or less a basket case.
The "conventional wisdom" in the mainstream media is that Republicans are "strong" on defense and Democrats "weak." Note that more often than not the conventional wisdom will have nothing to do with reality, but it is endlessly passed off as such by the conservative media echo chamber. So much so that to even suggest otherwise is to be labeled as crazy, or even worse, a liberal. Nevertheless, the Bush administration's oppressive, heavy handed and counterproductive tactics in the so-called Global War on Terror had begun to eat away at this perceived strength on defense.
Not to worry, a favorite Republican tactic, nearly perfected by Karl Rove, is to attack directly at the perceived strength of the adversary, and on an issue where you would appear to have a significant, and growing weakness. Perhaps the most audacious example of this strategy put into practice was the "Swift Boating" of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Here we had a decorated Vietnam vet, who was actually shot at and wounded in service of his country, and that very service was being questioned on behalf of Republican chickenhawks George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who had actively schemed to avoid serving on the front lines. An important aspect of the strategy is that the actual "swift boating" is not done directly by those who seek to benefit, but by surrogate allies. This allows the candidates to feign ignorance and distance themselves from the mud-slinging.
In recent weeks we have begun to see perhaps the most astounding levels of chutzpah in an attempt to regain the "strong on defense" mantle for the Republicans. First, on Fox News former Bush press secretary, and notorious low-wattage bulb, Dana Perino suggested, and I quote, "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term..." Oh really? Recall that the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred about 9 months into Bush's first term, and took place following numerous warnings, one of which, in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing, was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in US." Yes, the worst terrorist attacks in our history occurred on the slumbering watch of Republican President George W. Bush, as much as apologists like Perino would have us remember differently.
Since Perino's effort to stand the truth on its head, a Nigerian man attempted, unsuccessfully, to bring down a Northwest Airlines plane with his underwear, or rather, with a bomb sewn into his underwear. Sensing the opportunity, and not to be outdone, the frame has most recently been taken up by "Mr. 9/11" himself, "America's Mayor," the insipid Rudy Giuliani. While being interviewed recently by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Giuliani again suggested that, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush, and one under Obama..." Lest you are still one to believe in "liberal media bias," take note, that Stephanopoulos, like Hannity before him, was happy to give Rudy a pass on this factual howler. Only in Giuliani's twisted mind, and those of his ilk, could a failed, attempted act be an "attack."
Just a coincidence you think? Not hardly, this is right out of the Republican "Swift Boat" playbook, and you can bet that these forays by Republican surrogates are just the opening salvos in a propaganda war that is likely to ramp up and continue right through the mid-term elections. The main goal of this campaign will be to instill fear in you, the fear that if Democrats stay in power then you'll end up dead, killed by the "terrists." Don't fall for it, and just remember who was asleep at the wheel when 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists; Republican majorities in the Congress and the White House.
The "conventional wisdom" in the mainstream media is that Republicans are "strong" on defense and Democrats "weak." Note that more often than not the conventional wisdom will have nothing to do with reality, but it is endlessly passed off as such by the conservative media echo chamber. So much so that to even suggest otherwise is to be labeled as crazy, or even worse, a liberal. Nevertheless, the Bush administration's oppressive, heavy handed and counterproductive tactics in the so-called Global War on Terror had begun to eat away at this perceived strength on defense.
Not to worry, a favorite Republican tactic, nearly perfected by Karl Rove, is to attack directly at the perceived strength of the adversary, and on an issue where you would appear to have a significant, and growing weakness. Perhaps the most audacious example of this strategy put into practice was the "Swift Boating" of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Here we had a decorated Vietnam vet, who was actually shot at and wounded in service of his country, and that very service was being questioned on behalf of Republican chickenhawks George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who had actively schemed to avoid serving on the front lines. An important aspect of the strategy is that the actual "swift boating" is not done directly by those who seek to benefit, but by surrogate allies. This allows the candidates to feign ignorance and distance themselves from the mud-slinging.
In recent weeks we have begun to see perhaps the most astounding levels of chutzpah in an attempt to regain the "strong on defense" mantle for the Republicans. First, on Fox News former Bush press secretary, and notorious low-wattage bulb, Dana Perino suggested, and I quote, "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term..." Oh really? Recall that the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred about 9 months into Bush's first term, and took place following numerous warnings, one of which, in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing, was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in US." Yes, the worst terrorist attacks in our history occurred on the slumbering watch of Republican President George W. Bush, as much as apologists like Perino would have us remember differently.
Since Perino's effort to stand the truth on its head, a Nigerian man attempted, unsuccessfully, to bring down a Northwest Airlines plane with his underwear, or rather, with a bomb sewn into his underwear. Sensing the opportunity, and not to be outdone, the frame has most recently been taken up by "Mr. 9/11" himself, "America's Mayor," the insipid Rudy Giuliani. While being interviewed recently by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Giuliani again suggested that, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush, and one under Obama..." Lest you are still one to believe in "liberal media bias," take note, that Stephanopoulos, like Hannity before him, was happy to give Rudy a pass on this factual howler. Only in Giuliani's twisted mind, and those of his ilk, could a failed, attempted act be an "attack."
Just a coincidence you think? Not hardly, this is right out of the Republican "Swift Boat" playbook, and you can bet that these forays by Republican surrogates are just the opening salvos in a propaganda war that is likely to ramp up and continue right through the mid-term elections. The main goal of this campaign will be to instill fear in you, the fear that if Democrats stay in power then you'll end up dead, killed by the "terrists." Don't fall for it, and just remember who was asleep at the wheel when 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists; Republican majorities in the Congress and the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)