By Manifesto Joe
The jokes about Gov. Rick Perry's veiled threat of Texas secession have faded into collective memory now, but a few of us were given pause to consider the "what ifs" about this.
What if Texas legally could, and did, leave the United States?
If these figures available courtesy of Texas state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, are any barometer, we would be little more than a Third-World country.
Here are some nuggets from the senator's Web site about Texas' standing when stacked up in 2007 against the other 49 states:
Percentage of Uninsured Children
1st
Income Inequality Between the Rich and the Poor
2nd
Percentage of Population without Health Insurance
1st
Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) Scores
47th
Percentage of Population over 25 with a High School Diploma
50th
Percentage of Non-Elderly Women with Health Insurance
50th
Rate of Women Aged 40+ Who Receive Mammograms
44th
Rate of Women Aged 18+ Who Receive Pap Smears
47th
Cervical Cancer Rate
5th
Women's Voter Registration
43rd
Women's Voter Turnout
49th
Percentage of Eligible Voters that Vote
44th
For more on the subject, go here.
And the coup de grase: The president of our great reborn republic would apparently be (you guessed it) Rick Perry, he of the 2.3 GPA as an animal husbandry graduate of Texas A&M.
Am I sure that a dolt like Perry would be somebody that an independent Texas would actually elect as its president? I suppose nothing in this life is truly certain, but a recent piece of evidence points to this as the case.
Perry has been governor since Il Doofus resigned in December 2000 to go on to bigger and more horrific things, and Perry is finally facing his first serious challenge for re-election, from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. Hutch is almost certain to go through with a challenge in the 2010 Republican Primary.
There's one big problem with her chances. She's regarded as a moderate (chortle) in this state, and the Texas Republican Party still wants the U.S. to unleash Chiang Kai-shek's skeletal remains on the mainland of Red China.
A poll conducted jointly by the Texas Politics Project and the University of Texas' department of government had Perry with a 12-percentage-point lead over Hutch, 38-26. Let's face it, the 'necks will go to the polls for Governor Goodhair, not for Kay Bailey H.
And although Democrats here have made a few admirable gains in recent years, they are still in a shambles when it comes to having a viable challenger for governor. The undecideds are way ahead among Democrats; but among those potential voters who have made up their minds, the poll leader is Kinky Friedman, with 12 percent.
Kinky, for those unfamiliar, is a veteran Austin singer-songwriter and humorist whose talents in those areas are considerable. But in his foray into Texas politics in 2006, he was inept as a politician, made a gaping ass of himself in debate, and ultimately split the meager progressive vote here in a year in which Perry seemed a bit vulnerable (He won re-election with 40 percent of the vote against three challengers).
Rather than talking this horseshit about seceding from the union, Texans should be damned glad of the union. It's damned near the only thing that keeps us from becoming Guatemala.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
A Different Take On Independence Day
Jose Marti was a guy who truly walked the walk. He died in 1895 at the age of 42 in an abortive uprising in Cuba against the Spanish government. He was one of the most prolific and important writers of the Spanish language. He spent 12 years in exile in New York City before returning to Cuba to meet his fate.
The venerable American folk singer Peter Seeger has kept Marti's legend alive, and spread it to English-speaking audiences. Here are a couple of videos of Seeger's tributes.
And again:
Have a happy Independence Day, and be grateful that most of us don't have to die for it the way Jose Marti did. -- MJ
The venerable American folk singer Peter Seeger has kept Marti's legend alive, and spread it to English-speaking audiences. Here are a couple of videos of Seeger's tributes.
And again:
Have a happy Independence Day, and be grateful that most of us don't have to die for it the way Jose Marti did. -- MJ
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Functional Illiteracy And The Medusa
By Manifesto Joe
During Web surfing, I happened upon an ad that posed a question: "SHOULD MADONNA BE ALOUD TO ADOPT AGAIN?"
It would be just fine with me if Madonna were never allowed to do anything ALOUD ever again, certainly not music. Her songs all sound the same, anyway.
But, I found a certain appropriateness in this, an ad about "The Medusa" (as parodists have had their way with her), and the functional illiteracy of those who composed and posted this ad. I sincerely hoped that this was a joke.
Sadly, I don't think it was. Whoever did this was "computer-literate" enough to post this on a Web page, but so functionally illiterate in basic English as not to know how moronic this looked. And, there being no copy editors patrolling the Net, there was no one to correct it and get a belly laugh afterward.
I'd gauge that the spread of this public imbecility began in earnest around the time The Medusa scored her first pop-music hit. (Early '80s?) Anyway, TV had a seriously erosive effect for decades before then. But somehow, the group of Americans just about my age (I was born in '56, The Medusa in '58) was the first to put this gross ignorance on public display and somehow not feel ashamed enough to seek remedial education.
My high school was mediocre at best, but I went to a rather demanding college and discovered my educational deficiencies quickly. As a freshman I took some early beatings for one used to making A's, and then was making A's again by the time I was a college junior. But I got the impression that I was atypical. Many of the people my age just didn't care enough to address the gaps, even after they were made gapingly apparent.
Has the Internet contributed to more decadence since then? It's still a question for study, but I can't see how it has helped. Amid all the gaming, LOL and BFF horseshit, I've gotten the distinct impression that a new semiliterate culture has "evolved" around this technology. It's gone beyond the functional "TV" illiteracy that became so obvious in my generation.
Here's a link on which to ponder this question.
It's very sad that one has to do a double-take to realize that this link is a joke.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
During Web surfing, I happened upon an ad that posed a question: "SHOULD MADONNA BE ALOUD TO ADOPT AGAIN?"
It would be just fine with me if Madonna were never allowed to do anything ALOUD ever again, certainly not music. Her songs all sound the same, anyway.
But, I found a certain appropriateness in this, an ad about "The Medusa" (as parodists have had their way with her), and the functional illiteracy of those who composed and posted this ad. I sincerely hoped that this was a joke.
Sadly, I don't think it was. Whoever did this was "computer-literate" enough to post this on a Web page, but so functionally illiterate in basic English as not to know how moronic this looked. And, there being no copy editors patrolling the Net, there was no one to correct it and get a belly laugh afterward.
I'd gauge that the spread of this public imbecility began in earnest around the time The Medusa scored her first pop-music hit. (Early '80s?) Anyway, TV had a seriously erosive effect for decades before then. But somehow, the group of Americans just about my age (I was born in '56, The Medusa in '58) was the first to put this gross ignorance on public display and somehow not feel ashamed enough to seek remedial education.
My high school was mediocre at best, but I went to a rather demanding college and discovered my educational deficiencies quickly. As a freshman I took some early beatings for one used to making A's, and then was making A's again by the time I was a college junior. But I got the impression that I was atypical. Many of the people my age just didn't care enough to address the gaps, even after they were made gapingly apparent.
Has the Internet contributed to more decadence since then? It's still a question for study, but I can't see how it has helped. Amid all the gaming, LOL and BFF horseshit, I've gotten the distinct impression that a new semiliterate culture has "evolved" around this technology. It's gone beyond the functional "TV" illiteracy that became so obvious in my generation.
Here's a link on which to ponder this question.
It's very sad that one has to do a double-take to realize that this link is a joke.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Iranians Are Showing Major Juevos -- Unlike "Murkans"
By Manifesto Joe
Maybe they had it right, in a sense, when they said it can't happen here. In 2000, the U.S. had a presidential election blatantly stolen, with the 5-4 blessing of our Supreme Court. Four years later, the national election results sharply contrasted with the exit polling, and it was eventually demonstrated that the technology and means to "hack" some of the voting machines existed.
With few exceptions, almost no one raised any serious hell in the U.S., either time.
Not so right now in Iran, and richly to the credit of the people there. They are being asked to buy the idea that nearly 40 million handwritten ballots can be accurately counted and tallied in about 12 hours, and then with a clearly unpopular hard-line incumbent president winning by a huge, overwhelming landslide. Guess what -- they aren't buying it.
The unrest has become vast, with all those young Iranians taking to the streets in defiance of official repression. It makes me feel proud of the Iranians. And, it makes me feel just a bit ashamed of Americans. In words paraphrased from an old movie set in Mexico, with Federales looking for a gringo troublemaker: "Don't just stand there like burros! Haf you seen heem?"
We, my fellow "Murkans," just stood there like burros. Twice. No juevos, no cojones, either time. Nada.
The Iranians, for better or for worse, are not. Before them, recently, the Ukrainians didn't, and to good effect. Even in Mexico, many didn't "just stand there like burros" after a questionable election outcome in 2006. And in Tiananmen Square, 20 years ago, and not in any election setting, the world witnessed one of the greatest, albeit futile, exhibitions of human courage ever seen.
So, where was the outrage in America in 2000, or in 2004?
I'd say we lost it when we stopped being America, and became, as George W. "Il Doofus" Bush always mispronounced it, "Murka."
And when we became Murka, a semiliterate frat pledge master like Il Doofus could have the presidency of the whole damned country stolen for him, perhaps twice. And amazingly few people said anything.
The unrest in Iran probably won't change things at the official level, and some unfortunate souls will be killed or injured. It may be all for nothing in the short run, as was the case with Tiananmen Square. But sometimes courage means that you have to fight injustice, even when you know you're going to lose.
We haven't shown that kind of courage here since about 1970. Way back then, with the long hair, bongs, ugly tie-dye and all -- we were actually America. Not Murka.
Right now, the whole world is watching -- but they're not watching Murka. They're watching Iran, of all places.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Maybe they had it right, in a sense, when they said it can't happen here. In 2000, the U.S. had a presidential election blatantly stolen, with the 5-4 blessing of our Supreme Court. Four years later, the national election results sharply contrasted with the exit polling, and it was eventually demonstrated that the technology and means to "hack" some of the voting machines existed.
With few exceptions, almost no one raised any serious hell in the U.S., either time.
Not so right now in Iran, and richly to the credit of the people there. They are being asked to buy the idea that nearly 40 million handwritten ballots can be accurately counted and tallied in about 12 hours, and then with a clearly unpopular hard-line incumbent president winning by a huge, overwhelming landslide. Guess what -- they aren't buying it.
The unrest has become vast, with all those young Iranians taking to the streets in defiance of official repression. It makes me feel proud of the Iranians. And, it makes me feel just a bit ashamed of Americans. In words paraphrased from an old movie set in Mexico, with Federales looking for a gringo troublemaker: "Don't just stand there like burros! Haf you seen heem?"
We, my fellow "Murkans," just stood there like burros. Twice. No juevos, no cojones, either time. Nada.
The Iranians, for better or for worse, are not. Before them, recently, the Ukrainians didn't, and to good effect. Even in Mexico, many didn't "just stand there like burros" after a questionable election outcome in 2006. And in Tiananmen Square, 20 years ago, and not in any election setting, the world witnessed one of the greatest, albeit futile, exhibitions of human courage ever seen.
So, where was the outrage in America in 2000, or in 2004?
I'd say we lost it when we stopped being America, and became, as George W. "Il Doofus" Bush always mispronounced it, "Murka."
And when we became Murka, a semiliterate frat pledge master like Il Doofus could have the presidency of the whole damned country stolen for him, perhaps twice. And amazingly few people said anything.
The unrest in Iran probably won't change things at the official level, and some unfortunate souls will be killed or injured. It may be all for nothing in the short run, as was the case with Tiananmen Square. But sometimes courage means that you have to fight injustice, even when you know you're going to lose.
We haven't shown that kind of courage here since about 1970. Way back then, with the long hair, bongs, ugly tie-dye and all -- we were actually America. Not Murka.
Right now, the whole world is watching -- but they're not watching Murka. They're watching Iran, of all places.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Death Waits For No One. Blog Posts Sometimes Have To
MJ's mom died over the weekend. My wife and I will be traveling for the funeral. Don't be strangers. I expect to be posting again in about a week. -- MJ
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
What Makes Cheney Lie?
The former vice president may be running scared. Indictments aren't out of the question.
By Manifesto Joe
I really hoped that, once repudiated at the polls, the Republican right wing would give it a rest for a while. No such luck -- they are more vociferous than ever. And one of the lead attack dogs is none other than the former "vice president." We've seen more of that sneer in recent weeks than we had to for years during the Il Doofus administration.
Much of what Dick Cheney has been saying in speeches and interviews, appearances of unprecedented frequency for an ex-VP, is not squaring with the facts. Torture, CIA memos, Richard Clarke's repeated warnings about an imminent attack -- Cheney's accounts have consistently been pig manure. He seems to be a pupil of Joseph Goebbels -- you know, if you repeat the lie over and over ... Here's a link about this.
Not that adherence to the facts has ever been important to Cheney. He told countless whoppers during the run-up to the Iraq war. And once the war was on, he kept repeating the shameless canard about Saddam Hussein being connected in some way with 9-11. This man makes Machiavelli look like the hero of a Frank Capra movie.
He's also well-versed in the "Repub" Party's practice of defaming anyone associated with the "Democrat" Party. During his speech to the National Press Corps, Cheney, who was supposed to be talking about Al-Qaeda, referred to "Obama" (bin Laden) not being in good communication with the terrorist rank and file.
What is Cheney trying to do? My theory is: preemptive strikes. You know, the best defense is a good offense. I think that, ultimately, there's probably enough there for Cheney, "Fredo" Gonzales and several others to be indicted on war crimes charges. Cheney's thinking, most likely, is that getting the first punch in with brass knuckles will rid any antagonists of such thoughts. I think he's running scared, but his strategy is to be a lying bully so as not to show it. He's made that work enough times that he expects it to work again.
I pray to whatever gods may be that we don't let it happen this time.
Postscript: It was bitterly amusing to see the right wing's reaction to President Barack Obama taking his wife out on the town in New York. Since when have right wingers been concerned about rich people setting good examples for the struggling? After all the unbridled opulence and unregulated swinishness that we witnessed during the previous two presidential terms, it's moronic pettiness to talk about Obama taking Michelle out for one night on the town. How much time did Il Doofus spend on vacation in Crawford, and how much extra security and jet fuel did all that cost?
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
By Manifesto Joe
I really hoped that, once repudiated at the polls, the Republican right wing would give it a rest for a while. No such luck -- they are more vociferous than ever. And one of the lead attack dogs is none other than the former "vice president." We've seen more of that sneer in recent weeks than we had to for years during the Il Doofus administration.
Much of what Dick Cheney has been saying in speeches and interviews, appearances of unprecedented frequency for an ex-VP, is not squaring with the facts. Torture, CIA memos, Richard Clarke's repeated warnings about an imminent attack -- Cheney's accounts have consistently been pig manure. He seems to be a pupil of Joseph Goebbels -- you know, if you repeat the lie over and over ... Here's a link about this.
Not that adherence to the facts has ever been important to Cheney. He told countless whoppers during the run-up to the Iraq war. And once the war was on, he kept repeating the shameless canard about Saddam Hussein being connected in some way with 9-11. This man makes Machiavelli look like the hero of a Frank Capra movie.
He's also well-versed in the "Repub" Party's practice of defaming anyone associated with the "Democrat" Party. During his speech to the National Press Corps, Cheney, who was supposed to be talking about Al-Qaeda, referred to "Obama" (bin Laden) not being in good communication with the terrorist rank and file.
What is Cheney trying to do? My theory is: preemptive strikes. You know, the best defense is a good offense. I think that, ultimately, there's probably enough there for Cheney, "Fredo" Gonzales and several others to be indicted on war crimes charges. Cheney's thinking, most likely, is that getting the first punch in with brass knuckles will rid any antagonists of such thoughts. I think he's running scared, but his strategy is to be a lying bully so as not to show it. He's made that work enough times that he expects it to work again.
I pray to whatever gods may be that we don't let it happen this time.
Postscript: It was bitterly amusing to see the right wing's reaction to President Barack Obama taking his wife out on the town in New York. Since when have right wingers been concerned about rich people setting good examples for the struggling? After all the unbridled opulence and unregulated swinishness that we witnessed during the previous two presidential terms, it's moronic pettiness to talk about Obama taking Michelle out for one night on the town. How much time did Il Doofus spend on vacation in Crawford, and how much extra security and jet fuel did all that cost?
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Governor Goodhair Saga Continues: Stimulus Millions To Help Fix Up Guv's Mansion
By Manifesto Joe
Lesson of the day from Rick "Governor Goodhair" Perry: We mustn't accept federal stimulus money to help the unemployed -- that's godless socialism. But $11 million to help repair the Governor's Mansion in Austin -- that's civic pride. Any questions, class?
Well, to be honest, it's actually our Legislature's idea. This is from an Associated Press story that ran in papers Friday:
Top budget negotiators said Thursday that a House-Senate committee agreed on the expenditure late Wednesday.
The mansion was set on fire in June by an arsonist who has not been caught. About $10 million in state tax money will also be spent on a renovation, which is expected to cost about $20 million, officials said.
... Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle released a short statement late Thursday: "We are continuing to work with lawmakers on the budget."
... Since the mansion burned, Perry's family has been living in a rented three-story, limestone home with a heated pool, an outdoor cabana and a guest house. The state is paying about $9,900 monthly in rent.
But wait, class -- there's more. The story pointed out that Perry has "railed against federal bailouts and the free-spending, power-hungry ways of Washington."
As usual, the Republican animal talks fiscal responsibility, just so long as YOU are the chump who has to be responsible. As power-lunch partners, these types will tip light for their share and leave you to pick up the check.
Meanwhile, as taxpayer money is ponied up to repair his digs and pay his exorbitant rent, Governor Goodhair stands firm in his decision not to accept hundreds of millions in federal stimulus money to extend benefits for Texas' unemployed. As Texas' chief executive goes for a dip in his heated pool, how many Texans' homes are in the foreclosure process?
And that, class, is our lesson for today in fiscal responsibility, Republican-style.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Lesson of the day from Rick "Governor Goodhair" Perry: We mustn't accept federal stimulus money to help the unemployed -- that's godless socialism. But $11 million to help repair the Governor's Mansion in Austin -- that's civic pride. Any questions, class?
Well, to be honest, it's actually our Legislature's idea. This is from an Associated Press story that ran in papers Friday:
Top budget negotiators said Thursday that a House-Senate committee agreed on the expenditure late Wednesday.
The mansion was set on fire in June by an arsonist who has not been caught. About $10 million in state tax money will also be spent on a renovation, which is expected to cost about $20 million, officials said.
... Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle released a short statement late Thursday: "We are continuing to work with lawmakers on the budget."
... Since the mansion burned, Perry's family has been living in a rented three-story, limestone home with a heated pool, an outdoor cabana and a guest house. The state is paying about $9,900 monthly in rent.
But wait, class -- there's more. The story pointed out that Perry has "railed against federal bailouts and the free-spending, power-hungry ways of Washington."
As usual, the Republican animal talks fiscal responsibility, just so long as YOU are the chump who has to be responsible. As power-lunch partners, these types will tip light for their share and leave you to pick up the check.
Meanwhile, as taxpayer money is ponied up to repair his digs and pay his exorbitant rent, Governor Goodhair stands firm in his decision not to accept hundreds of millions in federal stimulus money to extend benefits for Texas' unemployed. As Texas' chief executive goes for a dip in his heated pool, how many Texans' homes are in the foreclosure process?
And that, class, is our lesson for today in fiscal responsibility, Republican-style.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Governor Goodhair Aide's 'Whorehouse' Remark Is Insulting To Whores
By Manifesto Joe
As Jerry Jeff Walker sang -- "When I get screwed, I like to be kissed." Following is our connection: David Carney, a consultant for Gov. "Goodhair" Rick Perry of Texas, warned against turning the Republican Party into a "whorehouse" with the aim of casting a wider tent for voters. Here's a link to an Associated Press story.
This raised the ire of proper Republican women across the Lone Star State. But another group should be equally pissed: practicing whores.
I confess that, despite macho posturing among fellow Texas men, I passed on any and all opportunities with those practicing the oldest profession, and therefore have no firsthand experience. But I have heard this on good authority: Good ones, the real pros, will kiss you first.
Not so with Republicans. And this remark by Perry's strategist is actually a bigger insult to a group seldom quoted by the mainstream media.
The Iraq war, tax breaks for the rich, overseas tax havens for corporations, Enron, the subprime mortgage debacle, abuse of credit card holders, assaults on civil rights and liberties, incentives for polluters and corporations that export jobs, neglect of returning veterans, whittling away at Medicare and Medicaid ... I never got kissed before any of those mind-boggling travesties.
So, it seems like a worse insult to those hardworking women who are, well, honest enough to be hookers out in the open. They are at least above-board, and I doubt that they would put you at risk for diseases much worse than the ones Republicans have already inflicted upon us.
The standard political response to all this, of course, is that "Governor Goodhair" is in trouble yet again, not long after his infamous secession remark. And this gives plenty of cannon fodder to U.S. Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison, a "moderate" Republican who is almost certain to be his challenger in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary.
But I'm honestly concerned about the aspersions cast herein upon the hardworking crack whores of our mean streets. They're a skanky bunch, to be sure. But, to even suggest that the current stalwarts of the Republican Party, especially in this state that spawned the likes of Il Doofus, are a lot better than them? Well, it's a "stretch." (No double-entendre intended -- really!)
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
As Jerry Jeff Walker sang -- "When I get screwed, I like to be kissed." Following is our connection: David Carney, a consultant for Gov. "Goodhair" Rick Perry of Texas, warned against turning the Republican Party into a "whorehouse" with the aim of casting a wider tent for voters. Here's a link to an Associated Press story.
This raised the ire of proper Republican women across the Lone Star State. But another group should be equally pissed: practicing whores.
I confess that, despite macho posturing among fellow Texas men, I passed on any and all opportunities with those practicing the oldest profession, and therefore have no firsthand experience. But I have heard this on good authority: Good ones, the real pros, will kiss you first.
Not so with Republicans. And this remark by Perry's strategist is actually a bigger insult to a group seldom quoted by the mainstream media.
The Iraq war, tax breaks for the rich, overseas tax havens for corporations, Enron, the subprime mortgage debacle, abuse of credit card holders, assaults on civil rights and liberties, incentives for polluters and corporations that export jobs, neglect of returning veterans, whittling away at Medicare and Medicaid ... I never got kissed before any of those mind-boggling travesties.
So, it seems like a worse insult to those hardworking women who are, well, honest enough to be hookers out in the open. They are at least above-board, and I doubt that they would put you at risk for diseases much worse than the ones Republicans have already inflicted upon us.
The standard political response to all this, of course, is that "Governor Goodhair" is in trouble yet again, not long after his infamous secession remark. And this gives plenty of cannon fodder to U.S. Sen Kay Bailey Hutchison, a "moderate" Republican who is almost certain to be his challenger in the 2010 GOP gubernatorial primary.
But I'm honestly concerned about the aspersions cast herein upon the hardworking crack whores of our mean streets. They're a skanky bunch, to be sure. But, to even suggest that the current stalwarts of the Republican Party, especially in this state that spawned the likes of Il Doofus, are a lot better than them? Well, it's a "stretch." (No double-entendre intended -- really!)
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Bringing The New Torquemada To Justice
By Manifesto Joe
I confess that I've been a little nonplussed about the Obama administration's lack of aggressiveness in bringing the Bush-era war criminals to justice. The man who seems to present the biggest legal target is the modern Grand Inquisitor himself, Dick "Torquemada" Cheney.
It isn't merely that Cheney is a contemptible, sneering weasel who doesn't know when to give up on his special brand of right-wing whitewash. From the available evidence, it was the "vice president" of the time who is most directly traceable to orders to carry out "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Writing for Truthout, Steve Weissman brought out a few unsavory points about the employment of torture (yeah, let's call it by its honest name):
Cheney's signature success with torture came when the CIA sent al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shayk al-Libi to Egypt, where he "confessed" that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda in chemical weapons. Al-Libi's statement, extracted under torture, was the smoking gun that Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell all used to sell their pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. So, don't tell Cheney that "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" do not work. They damned sure do if your goal is to get the propaganda you want to go to war.
Few in Congress or the mass media have pushed Cheney on this "great success." Fewer still have seen that that Bush and Cheney's illegal use of torture to sell their pre-emptive war in Iraq was probably their single greatest crime. Why the reluctance? Why do so many Americans refuse to see the obvious?
In large part because Congress, the corporate media, and even the general public were to some degree complicit in the crime. Whatever the CIA told Congressional leaders about waterboarding, sensory and sleep deprivation, stress positions, or sending captives to other counties for interrogation, only the mentally challenged had any excuse for not knowing from the public record at the time the rough outlines of how far Bush and Cheney had stepped beyond the law.
To read the entire article, go here.
The implications are far-reaching. It isn't merely a matter of Cheney, Il Doofus & Co. knowingly and deliberately violating the Geneva Conventions. They used evidence extracted from a terrorism suspect as part of the argument to drag the U.S. into one of our most needless and regrettable wars. The Iraqi loss of life has been staggering in proportion, comparable to that of the "pacification" of the Philippines over 100 years ago.
The probable waterboarding of one suspect may have led to slaughter on a mass scale, and robbed the U.S. of any moral authority it may have had, for generations. "We" weren't supposed to be doing this sort of thing -- that was the kind of thing that "we" said made the "bad guys" bad.
It's pretty obvious now that basing a war, at least in part, on the confession of one wretch who was being subjected to prolonged torture was the height of pseudo-pragmatic imbecility. I consider myself a reasonably tough person. But if you waterboarded me enough times, I would probably sign my house and car over to you and confess to the murders of Jonbenet Ramsey and the Lindbergh baby.
There's a rogue's gallery of suspects implicated in this, but the biggest cheese of all seems to be the gangsta that Il Doofus picked to be sort of a de facto president, his chief operating officer, "Torquemada" Cheney.
(An aside: One thing I am very proud of is that I never bought into any of this. I could see Bush becoming a neocon opportunist with his "Axis of Evil" State of the Union speech in January 2002, and I never believed anything the bastards said from that point on. Unfortunately, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and much of the allegedly liberal media did buy into at least some of it. As for me, I was against the Iraq misadventure from the very beginning.)
Sadly, Dick Cheney is likely to be dead of heart failure long before it would be possible for him to serve a day in jail. Obama and Eric Holder don't seem to want to push this, and if they don't change their minds, it will go down as another one of those hideous scandals that litter our history. I mentioned the "pacification" of the Philippines after the Spanish-American war. It's estimated that up to 1 million Filipinos died as a result, from fighting, hunger or disease. I learned this from independent reading as an adult. It's not often in history books. We mustn't let this episode of war crime slip into some footnote.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I confess that I've been a little nonplussed about the Obama administration's lack of aggressiveness in bringing the Bush-era war criminals to justice. The man who seems to present the biggest legal target is the modern Grand Inquisitor himself, Dick "Torquemada" Cheney.
It isn't merely that Cheney is a contemptible, sneering weasel who doesn't know when to give up on his special brand of right-wing whitewash. From the available evidence, it was the "vice president" of the time who is most directly traceable to orders to carry out "enhanced interrogation techniques."
Writing for Truthout, Steve Weissman brought out a few unsavory points about the employment of torture (yeah, let's call it by its honest name):
Cheney's signature success with torture came when the CIA sent al-Qaeda operative Ibn al-Shayk al-Libi to Egypt, where he "confessed" that Saddam Hussein had trained al-Qaeda in chemical weapons. Al-Libi's statement, extracted under torture, was the smoking gun that Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell all used to sell their pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. So, don't tell Cheney that "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" do not work. They damned sure do if your goal is to get the propaganda you want to go to war.
Few in Congress or the mass media have pushed Cheney on this "great success." Fewer still have seen that that Bush and Cheney's illegal use of torture to sell their pre-emptive war in Iraq was probably their single greatest crime. Why the reluctance? Why do so many Americans refuse to see the obvious?
In large part because Congress, the corporate media, and even the general public were to some degree complicit in the crime. Whatever the CIA told Congressional leaders about waterboarding, sensory and sleep deprivation, stress positions, or sending captives to other counties for interrogation, only the mentally challenged had any excuse for not knowing from the public record at the time the rough outlines of how far Bush and Cheney had stepped beyond the law.
To read the entire article, go here.
The implications are far-reaching. It isn't merely a matter of Cheney, Il Doofus & Co. knowingly and deliberately violating the Geneva Conventions. They used evidence extracted from a terrorism suspect as part of the argument to drag the U.S. into one of our most needless and regrettable wars. The Iraqi loss of life has been staggering in proportion, comparable to that of the "pacification" of the Philippines over 100 years ago.
The probable waterboarding of one suspect may have led to slaughter on a mass scale, and robbed the U.S. of any moral authority it may have had, for generations. "We" weren't supposed to be doing this sort of thing -- that was the kind of thing that "we" said made the "bad guys" bad.
It's pretty obvious now that basing a war, at least in part, on the confession of one wretch who was being subjected to prolonged torture was the height of pseudo-pragmatic imbecility. I consider myself a reasonably tough person. But if you waterboarded me enough times, I would probably sign my house and car over to you and confess to the murders of Jonbenet Ramsey and the Lindbergh baby.
There's a rogue's gallery of suspects implicated in this, but the biggest cheese of all seems to be the gangsta that Il Doofus picked to be sort of a de facto president, his chief operating officer, "Torquemada" Cheney.
(An aside: One thing I am very proud of is that I never bought into any of this. I could see Bush becoming a neocon opportunist with his "Axis of Evil" State of the Union speech in January 2002, and I never believed anything the bastards said from that point on. Unfortunately, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and much of the allegedly liberal media did buy into at least some of it. As for me, I was against the Iraq misadventure from the very beginning.)
Sadly, Dick Cheney is likely to be dead of heart failure long before it would be possible for him to serve a day in jail. Obama and Eric Holder don't seem to want to push this, and if they don't change their minds, it will go down as another one of those hideous scandals that litter our history. I mentioned the "pacification" of the Philippines after the Spanish-American war. It's estimated that up to 1 million Filipinos died as a result, from fighting, hunger or disease. I learned this from independent reading as an adult. It's not often in history books. We mustn't let this episode of war crime slip into some footnote.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
With Lubbock Vote, Neo-Prohibitionist Movement Seems To Have Finally Passed Out
By Manifesto Joe
Lubbock, Texas, is certainly the biggest "dry" city in Texas (population about 210,000) and perhaps the largest "dry" one in the U.S. If the early returns are accurate, that is about to change. The Associated Press reports that in a local election, Lubbock voters are favoring beer, wine and liquor sales in stores, by 64 percent in early counts.
The city has had a weird system for years. You could get "liquor-by-the-drink" in a bar or restaurant inside the city limits. But there were (and are) no package stores, and you couldn't get a six-pack in a convenience store. The city has the biggest university in that desolate region, Texas Tech, and the students of age there have to go to a "wet" suburb to buy a bottle of wine. (Or a case of beer -- now, doesn't that sound like a bright idea? I'll get to that irony later.)
I grew up in a "dry" town, but one that had smaller towns nearby where miscreants would sell any kind of booze to just about anybody, even 16-year-olds. I don't recall that those in-town conditions stopped anyone from drinking.
My family was religious and generally teetotaling; I recall being about 11 and taking a ride home with a Little League teammate of mine, and seeing an astonishing thing. My buddy's dad, home from his job as an offshore oil-rig roughneck, was behind the wheel and taking swigs of whiskey out of a "fifth" bottle. Little Buddy-roo and I were in the back seat, watching the spectacle of old Ken as he passed this rather large bottle to his bud in the front passenger seat. I'm not sure, but I think they were also chasing with beer.
I was too young to realize that these older dudes were actually risking the lives of little J.T. and me in the back seat. But there wasn't much traffic on small-town streets and semirural roads, and this seemed to be something intrinsic to the local culture. Because liquor couldn't be had just anywhere, these men (and quite a few women) would drive long distances to get it. And, in doing so, they didn't seem to think much about the consequences of driving while consuming, except to evade the local gendarmes. My recollection is that this wasn't hard to do.
Attitudes have changed for the better since 1967, even in Gothic regions like where I grew up. But this drove home a point: Prohibition actually, ironically, encourages binge drinking, and also drunken driving.
On a long-ago vacation, I remember passing through a flat, dry West Texas hamlet on the way to New Mexico. This place had a reported population of about 400; but this was Saturday night, and it looked like some kind of mini-Vegas. Looking around at the local commerce, it wasn't hard to figure out what the attraction was.
They might as well have changed the name of this little place to "Beer." For population, they might as well have put on there: Weekdays, 400. Weekends, 10,000.
A certainty is that these genuine and drugstore cowboys, who had come to town that night in their F-2000 pickup trucks, were unlikely to drive 40 or more miles back home without having had a few brewskis. And just maybe, more than a few. And maybe that was just a chaser for some hard liquor. Being a native of this region, I can tell you, there aren't very many Merlot-sipping men living outside of Highland Park.
I actually saw stranger, more opposite things in New Mexico, like package stores adjoining bars. There, a feller can git half-swacked in the bar, then finish the job by picking up a bottle for a nightcap on the way home! Again, one little blessing is that a lot of roads in this part of the world are straight and not well-traveled.
In Arizona, I saw strange, opposite things as well. You can buy hard liquor in a 7-Eleven until wee hours. It's nearly like that in Louisiana, too. And California is far more lenient than Texas, in some ways.
Then, there are the serious Puritans. I've never been to Utah, but I know someone who lived there. The Mormons are surprisingly tolerant of liquor-drinking miscreants. They just require their liquor stores to look like mini-Leavenworths. They want to make certain that their Jack Mormons feel like sleazy reprobates.
I lived in Oklahoma for a short time, and the package stores there look like low-rent warehouses, with very minimal advertising. You can't buy cold 5 percent beer anywhere in the state legally -- the real stuff has to come from a package store, and you have to chill it yourself. In 7-Eleven, they offer a relic of Prohibition, 3.2 percent beer. (They have that stuff in Colorado, too, but not with as many
other restrictions.) I recall a Lawton, Oklahoma, store clerk giving me a stern moral lecture when I was surprised that I couldn't get real beer in a corner store there -- "You gotta keep yore nose real clean up hyere, Tex ..."
And yet, living in Oklahoma, while I was jogging on residential streets, I don't remember anywhere else where I saw as many empty pint bottles of Wild Turkey littering the gutters. Obviously people were riding around in cars drinking hard liquor, then tossing their empties.
The point is that Prohibition measures, even partial ones, clearly do not work. They just make people drink furtively, and actually encourage them to drive far pieces to get it.
Similar arguments can be framed regarding marijuana, but I'll save that for another post.
Anyway, my hat's off to the folks out in Lubbock, for finally seeing reason. I don't own a real cowboy hat -- I like fedoras and a few variations -- but I'll take those off to the good folks of Lubbock. I might have gone to Texas Tech, but I went to a small Lutheran college instead. Lutherans don't have major problems with beer.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Lubbock, Texas, is certainly the biggest "dry" city in Texas (population about 210,000) and perhaps the largest "dry" one in the U.S. If the early returns are accurate, that is about to change. The Associated Press reports that in a local election, Lubbock voters are favoring beer, wine and liquor sales in stores, by 64 percent in early counts.
The city has had a weird system for years. You could get "liquor-by-the-drink" in a bar or restaurant inside the city limits. But there were (and are) no package stores, and you couldn't get a six-pack in a convenience store. The city has the biggest university in that desolate region, Texas Tech, and the students of age there have to go to a "wet" suburb to buy a bottle of wine. (Or a case of beer -- now, doesn't that sound like a bright idea? I'll get to that irony later.)
I grew up in a "dry" town, but one that had smaller towns nearby where miscreants would sell any kind of booze to just about anybody, even 16-year-olds. I don't recall that those in-town conditions stopped anyone from drinking.
My family was religious and generally teetotaling; I recall being about 11 and taking a ride home with a Little League teammate of mine, and seeing an astonishing thing. My buddy's dad, home from his job as an offshore oil-rig roughneck, was behind the wheel and taking swigs of whiskey out of a "fifth" bottle. Little Buddy-roo and I were in the back seat, watching the spectacle of old Ken as he passed this rather large bottle to his bud in the front passenger seat. I'm not sure, but I think they were also chasing with beer.
I was too young to realize that these older dudes were actually risking the lives of little J.T. and me in the back seat. But there wasn't much traffic on small-town streets and semirural roads, and this seemed to be something intrinsic to the local culture. Because liquor couldn't be had just anywhere, these men (and quite a few women) would drive long distances to get it. And, in doing so, they didn't seem to think much about the consequences of driving while consuming, except to evade the local gendarmes. My recollection is that this wasn't hard to do.
Attitudes have changed for the better since 1967, even in Gothic regions like where I grew up. But this drove home a point: Prohibition actually, ironically, encourages binge drinking, and also drunken driving.
On a long-ago vacation, I remember passing through a flat, dry West Texas hamlet on the way to New Mexico. This place had a reported population of about 400; but this was Saturday night, and it looked like some kind of mini-Vegas. Looking around at the local commerce, it wasn't hard to figure out what the attraction was.
They might as well have changed the name of this little place to "Beer." For population, they might as well have put on there: Weekdays, 400. Weekends, 10,000.
A certainty is that these genuine and drugstore cowboys, who had come to town that night in their F-2000 pickup trucks, were unlikely to drive 40 or more miles back home without having had a few brewskis. And just maybe, more than a few. And maybe that was just a chaser for some hard liquor. Being a native of this region, I can tell you, there aren't very many Merlot-sipping men living outside of Highland Park.
I actually saw stranger, more opposite things in New Mexico, like package stores adjoining bars. There, a feller can git half-swacked in the bar, then finish the job by picking up a bottle for a nightcap on the way home! Again, one little blessing is that a lot of roads in this part of the world are straight and not well-traveled.
In Arizona, I saw strange, opposite things as well. You can buy hard liquor in a 7-Eleven until wee hours. It's nearly like that in Louisiana, too. And California is far more lenient than Texas, in some ways.
Then, there are the serious Puritans. I've never been to Utah, but I know someone who lived there. The Mormons are surprisingly tolerant of liquor-drinking miscreants. They just require their liquor stores to look like mini-Leavenworths. They want to make certain that their Jack Mormons feel like sleazy reprobates.
I lived in Oklahoma for a short time, and the package stores there look like low-rent warehouses, with very minimal advertising. You can't buy cold 5 percent beer anywhere in the state legally -- the real stuff has to come from a package store, and you have to chill it yourself. In 7-Eleven, they offer a relic of Prohibition, 3.2 percent beer. (They have that stuff in Colorado, too, but not with as many
other restrictions.) I recall a Lawton, Oklahoma, store clerk giving me a stern moral lecture when I was surprised that I couldn't get real beer in a corner store there -- "You gotta keep yore nose real clean up hyere, Tex ..."
And yet, living in Oklahoma, while I was jogging on residential streets, I don't remember anywhere else where I saw as many empty pint bottles of Wild Turkey littering the gutters. Obviously people were riding around in cars drinking hard liquor, then tossing their empties.
The point is that Prohibition measures, even partial ones, clearly do not work. They just make people drink furtively, and actually encourage them to drive far pieces to get it.
Similar arguments can be framed regarding marijuana, but I'll save that for another post.
Anyway, my hat's off to the folks out in Lubbock, for finally seeing reason. I don't own a real cowboy hat -- I like fedoras and a few variations -- but I'll take those off to the good folks of Lubbock. I might have gone to Texas Tech, but I went to a small Lutheran college instead. Lutherans don't have major problems with beer.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Hey, Right-Wing Machos -- The Manassa Mauler Was A New Deal Democrat
I'm really sick of right-wingers acting like they're the ones who invented toughness. Some of the toughest people on this Earth have seen or have been in a lot of fights with hired toughs -- the kind of people they were up against don't usually have to do their own fighting, they can rent it out. Here's an example of one of the world's toughest dudes ever, who was a progressive, pro-union liberal!
On June 24, 1895, the day Jack Dempsey was born, during Grover Cleveland's second term as president, America was still discovering itself. Colorado, which had become the 38th state in 1876, lurched into an uproar of mining booms and busts, miners' strikes and mine owners' brutal and casual slaughters. Photographs survive of private armies maintained supposedly to keep order, and in practice employed to gun down union men. "Three dollars a day," the mine barons said in effect, "for ten hours or twelve. You'll live in our houses, buy in our stores, and do what you're told. If you don't like it, ten immigrants back East are ready to take your job." Touring one deep gold mine, Ulysses S. Grant said, "This is as close to hell as I ever hope to find myself."
Miners who protested for shorter hours, better pay, and safer conditions underground risked their lives up top. One typical private army, the Silver Queen Guards -- employed by the owners of the Silver Queen mines in Georgetown, thirty miles west of Denver -- was better uniformed than the U.S. infantry, and at least as formidably armed. Massacres of union men bloody the pages of history. Dempsey's later populism and passion for social programs such as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal persisted after he became a multimillionaire. He said he never forgot, nor did he want to forget, the ferocity with which the mining barons treated working men and their wives and children.
-- From A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s, by Roger Kahn -- MJ
On June 24, 1895, the day Jack Dempsey was born, during Grover Cleveland's second term as president, America was still discovering itself. Colorado, which had become the 38th state in 1876, lurched into an uproar of mining booms and busts, miners' strikes and mine owners' brutal and casual slaughters. Photographs survive of private armies maintained supposedly to keep order, and in practice employed to gun down union men. "Three dollars a day," the mine barons said in effect, "for ten hours or twelve. You'll live in our houses, buy in our stores, and do what you're told. If you don't like it, ten immigrants back East are ready to take your job." Touring one deep gold mine, Ulysses S. Grant said, "This is as close to hell as I ever hope to find myself."
Miners who protested for shorter hours, better pay, and safer conditions underground risked their lives up top. One typical private army, the Silver Queen Guards -- employed by the owners of the Silver Queen mines in Georgetown, thirty miles west of Denver -- was better uniformed than the U.S. infantry, and at least as formidably armed. Massacres of union men bloody the pages of history. Dempsey's later populism and passion for social programs such as Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal persisted after he became a multimillionaire. He said he never forgot, nor did he want to forget, the ferocity with which the mining barons treated working men and their wives and children.
-- From A Flame of Pure Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s, by Roger Kahn -- MJ
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
With Specter Switch, It's Official: Modern Conservative Movement All But Dead
By Manifesto Joe
I was born, but it wasn't yesterday. Arlen Specter's decision to switch parties from Republican to Democrat has almost everything to do with political expediency and almost nothing to do with any change in the Pennsylvania senator's thinking.
Remember, this is the guy who, as a young lawyer, sold the Warren Commission on the single-bullet theory of the JFK assassination. That ought to speak volumes about his intellectual honesty. But in politics, you take it where you can get it. President Barack Obama, a relatively inexperienced but precocious politician, quickly welcomed Specter to the Democratic Party.
Perhaps most significant is what this signals for the modern conservative movement. Not that Specter was ever a conservative -- his voting record has been consistently independent and centrist.
But it wasn't that long ago (1995) that Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, whose voting record was similar to Specter's, switched from Democrat to Republican.
In a nutshell, the conservative movement is now officially all but dead. And, if the Republican Party doesn't change soon, it may again become a minority party for 40 years.
Specter cited the movement of the GOP to the far right, and the number of Pennsylvanians who are registering as Democrats. Republicans, moving to the far right? Ya think? Specter was first elected in 1980 as part of the "Reagan Revolution," so it's hard to see how he could have missed that over the years.
What has changed is that a lot of Americans, especially younger ones, now see the very real and calamitous consequences of what passed for "conservative" governance for most of the past 28 years.
There's a revived awareness that the public interest matters more than self-interest, and that is a great antidote to the poisonous ideas that have often been at the core of modern conservatism. There is some diversity among Republicans -- their ranks range from Ayn Rand atheists to the Religious Right. But the nexus that held them together for 28 years was the idea that an economy can prosper through the unintended consequences of everybody rapaciously pursuing their own pot of gold.
Who needs planning? Who needs regulation? Who needs to pay taxes, for that matter?
We do. America does. And our rich friends in the gated communities are going to have to ante up as well. The old "tax and spend" and "class warfare" mantras of conservatives have become cliches that twentysomething Americans grew up hearing but don't buy anymore.
Specter, again, is no conservative. But his switch signals that centrists no longer believe that they have a place in the Republican Party. Our economy's future looks less like the Adam Smith model and more like that of John Maynard Keynes.
America has seen two distinct philosophies battling for hearts and minds for over a century. The Specter switch is, I think, one more big indicator of which side is ultimately going to win.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I was born, but it wasn't yesterday. Arlen Specter's decision to switch parties from Republican to Democrat has almost everything to do with political expediency and almost nothing to do with any change in the Pennsylvania senator's thinking.
Remember, this is the guy who, as a young lawyer, sold the Warren Commission on the single-bullet theory of the JFK assassination. That ought to speak volumes about his intellectual honesty. But in politics, you take it where you can get it. President Barack Obama, a relatively inexperienced but precocious politician, quickly welcomed Specter to the Democratic Party.
Perhaps most significant is what this signals for the modern conservative movement. Not that Specter was ever a conservative -- his voting record has been consistently independent and centrist.
But it wasn't that long ago (1995) that Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, whose voting record was similar to Specter's, switched from Democrat to Republican.
In a nutshell, the conservative movement is now officially all but dead. And, if the Republican Party doesn't change soon, it may again become a minority party for 40 years.
Specter cited the movement of the GOP to the far right, and the number of Pennsylvanians who are registering as Democrats. Republicans, moving to the far right? Ya think? Specter was first elected in 1980 as part of the "Reagan Revolution," so it's hard to see how he could have missed that over the years.
What has changed is that a lot of Americans, especially younger ones, now see the very real and calamitous consequences of what passed for "conservative" governance for most of the past 28 years.
There's a revived awareness that the public interest matters more than self-interest, and that is a great antidote to the poisonous ideas that have often been at the core of modern conservatism. There is some diversity among Republicans -- their ranks range from Ayn Rand atheists to the Religious Right. But the nexus that held them together for 28 years was the idea that an economy can prosper through the unintended consequences of everybody rapaciously pursuing their own pot of gold.
Who needs planning? Who needs regulation? Who needs to pay taxes, for that matter?
We do. America does. And our rich friends in the gated communities are going to have to ante up as well. The old "tax and spend" and "class warfare" mantras of conservatives have become cliches that twentysomething Americans grew up hearing but don't buy anymore.
Specter, again, is no conservative. But his switch signals that centrists no longer believe that they have a place in the Republican Party. Our economy's future looks less like the Adam Smith model and more like that of John Maynard Keynes.
America has seen two distinct philosophies battling for hearts and minds for over a century. The Specter switch is, I think, one more big indicator of which side is ultimately going to win.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Governor Goodhair Redux: Texas Becomes Laughingstock Of D.C.
By Manifesto Joe
I promised more on Governor Goodhair. It seems that in our nation's capital, people are still, two weeks later, talking about Gov. Rick Perry's veiled threat of Texas secession. It's become the most popular joke on Capitol Hill.
It's been no secret to many of us here, for years, that we have a nice-looking cretin for a governor. I suppose that's a marginal improvement over an anthropoid-looking cretin. I refer here to Perry's predecessor, the one they call W., who recently left the White House. (Also known as Chimpy, and here as Il Doofus.)
But a cretin is still a cretin. In a state that once produced the likes of LBJ, Sam Rayburn, Olin Teague, Ralph Yarborough and others, it's frustrating to watch the procession of Republican half-wits in high office. Hell, I'd settle for Jim Wright, or even DINO Lloyd Bentsen.
Texas Democrats seized the day on this one. There's a T-shirt in circulation with Perry's face on it, with something like, "Republican Class of '09 -- most likely to secede."
The national comedians didn't miss this. Jay Leno, I thought, had the best line: He hoped that Texas really would secede from the Union "so we can invade them for their oil."
In Washington, McClatchy Newspapers reported this:
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D- San Antonio, said dryly, "It has been a topic of conversation. We have been the butt of many jokes." His favorite suggestion: "that Charlie Gonzalez be ambassador to the U.S. from Texas."
"I’m bilingual; I speak English and Texan," he said.
But on a more serious note, he said: "I think the governor got carried away. You see posturing in preparation for the Republican primary. It serves no useful purpose."
Perry is all but certain to be challenged by U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 GOP primary, and political analysts say the governor is playing to the party’s conservative base with his anti-government stance. Perry is one of a handful of GOP governors who have refused part of the federal stimulus money, specifically, $555 million for Texas in additional unemployment funds.
But the secession suggestion isn’t playing well with one Texas conservative: Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a former state Supreme Court judge.
"Well, I don’t think it’s particularly useful," he told reporters during his weekly interview. "The legal response is 'you can’t do it.’ We fought a Civil War. You can’t do it."
For the entire McClatchy story, here's the link.
This is clearly a gamble by Perry for the redneck vote, which is considerable in this state. But the sheer ignorance of this won't be lost on everybody -- apparently it wasn't lost even on the likes of Sen. John "Cornhole" Cornyn. And it may not be lost on all those unemployed people who will be denied benefits because of Governor Goodhair's grandstanding.
Not that Kay the Breck Girl (R.I.P. Molly Ivins) would be much of an improvement, but my money's on ol' Kay Bailey for next year's GOP gubernatorial nomination. We have it on authority as high as Kelly Clarkson that Kay has great taste in fragrances. And she was a UT cheerleader, while Perry was a "yell" leader at A&M.
Well, marginal improvements are better than none.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I promised more on Governor Goodhair. It seems that in our nation's capital, people are still, two weeks later, talking about Gov. Rick Perry's veiled threat of Texas secession. It's become the most popular joke on Capitol Hill.
It's been no secret to many of us here, for years, that we have a nice-looking cretin for a governor. I suppose that's a marginal improvement over an anthropoid-looking cretin. I refer here to Perry's predecessor, the one they call W., who recently left the White House. (Also known as Chimpy, and here as Il Doofus.)
But a cretin is still a cretin. In a state that once produced the likes of LBJ, Sam Rayburn, Olin Teague, Ralph Yarborough and others, it's frustrating to watch the procession of Republican half-wits in high office. Hell, I'd settle for Jim Wright, or even DINO Lloyd Bentsen.
Texas Democrats seized the day on this one. There's a T-shirt in circulation with Perry's face on it, with something like, "Republican Class of '09 -- most likely to secede."
The national comedians didn't miss this. Jay Leno, I thought, had the best line: He hoped that Texas really would secede from the Union "so we can invade them for their oil."
In Washington, McClatchy Newspapers reported this:
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D- San Antonio, said dryly, "It has been a topic of conversation. We have been the butt of many jokes." His favorite suggestion: "that Charlie Gonzalez be ambassador to the U.S. from Texas."
"I’m bilingual; I speak English and Texan," he said.
But on a more serious note, he said: "I think the governor got carried away. You see posturing in preparation for the Republican primary. It serves no useful purpose."
Perry is all but certain to be challenged by U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 GOP primary, and political analysts say the governor is playing to the party’s conservative base with his anti-government stance. Perry is one of a handful of GOP governors who have refused part of the federal stimulus money, specifically, $555 million for Texas in additional unemployment funds.
But the secession suggestion isn’t playing well with one Texas conservative: Republican U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a former state Supreme Court judge.
"Well, I don’t think it’s particularly useful," he told reporters during his weekly interview. "The legal response is 'you can’t do it.’ We fought a Civil War. You can’t do it."
For the entire McClatchy story, here's the link.
This is clearly a gamble by Perry for the redneck vote, which is considerable in this state. But the sheer ignorance of this won't be lost on everybody -- apparently it wasn't lost even on the likes of Sen. John "Cornhole" Cornyn. And it may not be lost on all those unemployed people who will be denied benefits because of Governor Goodhair's grandstanding.
Not that Kay the Breck Girl (R.I.P. Molly Ivins) would be much of an improvement, but my money's on ol' Kay Bailey for next year's GOP gubernatorial nomination. We have it on authority as high as Kelly Clarkson that Kay has great taste in fragrances. And she was a UT cheerleader, while Perry was a "yell" leader at A&M.
Well, marginal improvements are better than none.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Why Does Governor Goodhair Hate America?
By Manifesto Joe
By now I suppose that everybody who follows matters political knows that the governor of my state, Rick Perry, made a statement at a tax day "Tea Party" gathering that strongly suggested that Texas might, under great duress, want to secede from the Union.
I had hoped Governor Goodhair meant that we Texans could all just get out of the Teamsters or the United Auto Workers en masse. There ain't very many of us who is members of them there union outfits anyway, so there would be no change that anyone outside Texas urban areas would notice.
But unfortunately, I don't think that's quite what Governor Goodhair meant. He was probably pandering to the rubes, the people who don't quite get it -- that the reason they drive on paved streets, can cross bridges without crashing into the river, can get their elderly parents on Social Security, that their children can construct English sentences even if they haven't gone to Yale, is because taxes are collected.
There are a couple of things to remember about the governor's statement. One is that he's facing a potentially tough campaign for re-election, even though he's already been the state's longest-serving governor. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, appears to be tired of Washington and seems to want a swell job back home. She sort of looks like a moderate Republican by Texas standards, so Perry may be setting up early to line up the right-wing yahoo base.
Then there's the matter of intellect. Rick Perry has a great head of dark hair, and from all the female accounts that I've heard, he is the closest thing to a Ken doll we've ever had in high office in this state. But, as the late Molly Ivins often pointed out, Governor Goodhair ain't the sharpest pencil in the box. He's a grad of Texas A&M -- not a place known for high academic distinction -- and he majored in animal husbandry. His grade-point average was 2.3. Oh, by the way, he was an Aggie cheerleader.
This would explain why he's not quite up to the legal and civics questions here, i.e., that it actually would be quite illegal for Texas to quit the Union. The bozos actually did it along with several other Southern states back in 1861, and the sad result was 600,000 Americans killed on the battlefield. I guess they don't teach much about the Civil War in Animal Husbandry 101.
But I don't think Goodhair's lack of cultural literacy is to blame here. He's looking ahead to 14 years in the Governor's Mansion, and CNBC's Chris Matthews tells me that 31% of Texans who responded to a poll actually think that Texas has a legal right to secede from the Union. He's cynically betting that the ignorant rubes in this state are numerous enough to get him past Kay Bailey in a nasty 2010 Republican primary.
To read the latest on this, here's a link to the Houston Chronicle's online edition. Also, there will be more about our illustrious Governor Goodhair in subsequent posts.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
By now I suppose that everybody who follows matters political knows that the governor of my state, Rick Perry, made a statement at a tax day "Tea Party" gathering that strongly suggested that Texas might, under great duress, want to secede from the Union.
I had hoped Governor Goodhair meant that we Texans could all just get out of the Teamsters or the United Auto Workers en masse. There ain't very many of us who is members of them there union outfits anyway, so there would be no change that anyone outside Texas urban areas would notice.
But unfortunately, I don't think that's quite what Governor Goodhair meant. He was probably pandering to the rubes, the people who don't quite get it -- that the reason they drive on paved streets, can cross bridges without crashing into the river, can get their elderly parents on Social Security, that their children can construct English sentences even if they haven't gone to Yale, is because taxes are collected.
There are a couple of things to remember about the governor's statement. One is that he's facing a potentially tough campaign for re-election, even though he's already been the state's longest-serving governor. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, appears to be tired of Washington and seems to want a swell job back home. She sort of looks like a moderate Republican by Texas standards, so Perry may be setting up early to line up the right-wing yahoo base.
Then there's the matter of intellect. Rick Perry has a great head of dark hair, and from all the female accounts that I've heard, he is the closest thing to a Ken doll we've ever had in high office in this state. But, as the late Molly Ivins often pointed out, Governor Goodhair ain't the sharpest pencil in the box. He's a grad of Texas A&M -- not a place known for high academic distinction -- and he majored in animal husbandry. His grade-point average was 2.3. Oh, by the way, he was an Aggie cheerleader.
This would explain why he's not quite up to the legal and civics questions here, i.e., that it actually would be quite illegal for Texas to quit the Union. The bozos actually did it along with several other Southern states back in 1861, and the sad result was 600,000 Americans killed on the battlefield. I guess they don't teach much about the Civil War in Animal Husbandry 101.
But I don't think Goodhair's lack of cultural literacy is to blame here. He's looking ahead to 14 years in the Governor's Mansion, and CNBC's Chris Matthews tells me that 31% of Texans who responded to a poll actually think that Texas has a legal right to secede from the Union. He's cynically betting that the ignorant rubes in this state are numerous enough to get him past Kay Bailey in a nasty 2010 Republican primary.
To read the latest on this, here's a link to the Houston Chronicle's online edition. Also, there will be more about our illustrious Governor Goodhair in subsequent posts.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Politically Incorrect Thoughts: Would No Nukes Lead To More Kooks?
By Manifesto Joe
This is from a book by Roger Kahn:
Late in April 1915, as spring came to Flanders, the German army introduced poison gas -- greenish iridescent chlorine, choking, vomiting, lung-searing chlorine -- into trenches near the village of Ypres. In 1916 the German navy began unrestricted submarine warfare -- sinking cargo ships and passenger vessels without warning. ...
This was war, not marbles. The British army introduced its own weapon of terror, the armored tank, spitting machine-gun and cannon fire, crushing flowers, flesh, bone, everything in its path, the dreaded mythic juggernaut turned real. U.S. reporters applauded "Tommy Atkins' new toy." The German soldiers who found themselves facing the first tanks on September 18, 1916, reacted in an understandable way. They panicked and ran.
This passage came from an unlikely source, A Pure Flame of Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s. Kahn's 1999 sports biography shrewdly works in the ambiance of the times rather than just sticking to the details of legendary boxing champ Dempsey's tempestuous, colorful life.
While recovering from a prolonged illness, I was seeking something "light" to read, and found Kahn's work, surprisingly, somewhere in the middle. At the same time, I read accounts of President Barack Obama's idealistic call for a nuclear-free world.
The connection? Kahn pointed out briefly but eloquently what kind of enormities warring humans are capable of in a non-nuclear time. We've certainly seen plenty of carnage since the U.S. first used atomic bombs in 1945. But we've also seen circumspection and restraint that we might not have seen otherwise.
The main thing that kept the Cold War "cold" for 45 years was what came to be known as "mutual assured destruction" or by that most appropriate acronym "MAD." Looming large over nasty local conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua and Afghanistan was always the prospect of tens of millions dead, on both sides -- and untold horrors for the "survivors."
And, with "no nukes," can it be imagined what a conventional war between U.S.-NATO forces and a Soviet-Chinese alliance would have been like?
Let's suppose that a "Star Wars" ICBM interception system could be made to work, with virtual certainty. Suppose there were no exceptions -- U.S. cities and strategic bases would be protected from attack by bomber-delivered devices, and from low-flying cruise missiles launched from submarines.
In such a world, the dreams of Ronald Reagan, Edward Teller and the other 1980s "Star Wars" proponents would have all come true. I doubt that is quite what Barack Obama has in mind, but in such a scenario, nuclear weapons have been, for all practical purposes, eradicated from Earth.
If human history is the basis from which to forecast, the slaughter that might result would suffice to make a Joseph Mengele or Pol Pot queasy.
Humans have a vast history of being boundlessly greedy, paranoid and savagely unconcerned about the lives of others when they are not restrained by moral values, prison bars, higher reasoning, fear of damnation or anything else that can impose and enforce ethics. I do not know if this depravity is innate, but it has surely been witnessed by all but naive and sheltered people.
Nations behave in much the same way as individuals. If not bound by economic weakness, moral admonitions or fear of destruction, they are most certainly capable of enormities.
The "MAD" acronym has a ring of truth. Since 1945, we have spawned generations of closet neurotics. The neurosis has reared its head in forms as diverse as yippies and Lyndon LaRouche supporters. An estimated 19 percent of Americans are mentally ill and in need of treatment, some psychiatrists say. Drug abuse and alcoholism are common. We escape reality in elaborate worlds of frivolity created by the blind poets of our age, TV scriptwriters.
Approaching my 53rd birthday, I cannot recall a time in which nuclear weapons did not exist. As a small child mesmerized by TV, I saw an animated microcosm of the Cold War, a 1950s minimalist depiction of a human figure fleeing radioactive fallout. Public-service announcements about where to find shelter from radiation have long vanished from the little screen, but the image still haunts me.
All that considered, I would rather live in an age of anxiety than be killed or maimed in an age of greater carnage. War is far from obsolete -- but across much of the globe, unlimited warfare is of necessity a thing of the past -- for now. With all the terror that nuclear weapons present for humanity, arguably the world is now, in a grotesque way, a somewhat safer place in which to live.
I urge the unconvinced to dredge up history lessons and ponder the events of the decades before the use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima.
When Ronald Reagan was a preschooler, the colonial powers of Europe began a war. The U.S. was later lured into this war to "make the world safe for democracy."
Hundreds of thousands were killed in single battles, like at the Somme in 1916. The doomed were, like cattle, prodded headlong into ritual killing at the command of "over the top." Many more lost limbs, faces, lungs, minds.
That was supposed to be "the war to end all wars," but it wasn't. Fighting broke out during the 1930s in Spain, China and Ethiopia. Sometimes this was rivaled or exceeded by the organized slaughter and starvation orchestrated in the Soviet Union during those dark years.
After 1939 the world was immersed in a struggle of previously inconceivable proportions, in holocausts unrivaled in history, in a crimson, six-year nightmare -- until a warm, clear day in August, when the human race got a sobering glimpse of what the end might look like.
(An aside -- while hindsight is always 20/20, I think Harry Truman made a serious moral mistake in August 1945. He should have had the first A-bomb dropped just outside Tokyo Bay, as a demonstration, then sent a message to the imperial Japanese government: "Any questions?")
Barbarism certainly hasn't vanished since then, but its onslaught seems to have slowed. Holocausts seem to occur in remote areas like Sudan -- and, notably, in areas where there really are "no nukes." Carefully measured wars sometimes kill no more soldiers than U.S. highways kill motorists in the course of a year. (The civilians lost as "collateral damage" are, of course, often another question.)
Life now has a profound uneasiness. But it is life, as opposed to the very permanent alternative.
Where would I, an American male born in 1956, be now if nuclear weapons had never been invented, and the threat of their use did not exist? I suspect I would have been killed in battle long ago, or disfigured by sophisticated conventional weapons, fighting a war against communists that neither side would have been likely to "win."
Yet I find myself urged by my president, a manifestly brilliant and good man, to in some sense open the Pandora's box, to eliminate the nuclear threat, to potentially turn the conventional might of nations loose in the world once more.
I find myself looking back with neurotic nostalgia to the "MAD" theory. It may have kept me alive for nearly 53 years.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
This is from a book by Roger Kahn:
Late in April 1915, as spring came to Flanders, the German army introduced poison gas -- greenish iridescent chlorine, choking, vomiting, lung-searing chlorine -- into trenches near the village of Ypres. In 1916 the German navy began unrestricted submarine warfare -- sinking cargo ships and passenger vessels without warning. ...
This was war, not marbles. The British army introduced its own weapon of terror, the armored tank, spitting machine-gun and cannon fire, crushing flowers, flesh, bone, everything in its path, the dreaded mythic juggernaut turned real. U.S. reporters applauded "Tommy Atkins' new toy." The German soldiers who found themselves facing the first tanks on September 18, 1916, reacted in an understandable way. They panicked and ran.
This passage came from an unlikely source, A Pure Flame of Fire: Jack Dempsey and the Roaring '20s. Kahn's 1999 sports biography shrewdly works in the ambiance of the times rather than just sticking to the details of legendary boxing champ Dempsey's tempestuous, colorful life.
While recovering from a prolonged illness, I was seeking something "light" to read, and found Kahn's work, surprisingly, somewhere in the middle. At the same time, I read accounts of President Barack Obama's idealistic call for a nuclear-free world.
The connection? Kahn pointed out briefly but eloquently what kind of enormities warring humans are capable of in a non-nuclear time. We've certainly seen plenty of carnage since the U.S. first used atomic bombs in 1945. But we've also seen circumspection and restraint that we might not have seen otherwise.
The main thing that kept the Cold War "cold" for 45 years was what came to be known as "mutual assured destruction" or by that most appropriate acronym "MAD." Looming large over nasty local conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua and Afghanistan was always the prospect of tens of millions dead, on both sides -- and untold horrors for the "survivors."
And, with "no nukes," can it be imagined what a conventional war between U.S.-NATO forces and a Soviet-Chinese alliance would have been like?
Let's suppose that a "Star Wars" ICBM interception system could be made to work, with virtual certainty. Suppose there were no exceptions -- U.S. cities and strategic bases would be protected from attack by bomber-delivered devices, and from low-flying cruise missiles launched from submarines.
In such a world, the dreams of Ronald Reagan, Edward Teller and the other 1980s "Star Wars" proponents would have all come true. I doubt that is quite what Barack Obama has in mind, but in such a scenario, nuclear weapons have been, for all practical purposes, eradicated from Earth.
If human history is the basis from which to forecast, the slaughter that might result would suffice to make a Joseph Mengele or Pol Pot queasy.
Humans have a vast history of being boundlessly greedy, paranoid and savagely unconcerned about the lives of others when they are not restrained by moral values, prison bars, higher reasoning, fear of damnation or anything else that can impose and enforce ethics. I do not know if this depravity is innate, but it has surely been witnessed by all but naive and sheltered people.
Nations behave in much the same way as individuals. If not bound by economic weakness, moral admonitions or fear of destruction, they are most certainly capable of enormities.
The "MAD" acronym has a ring of truth. Since 1945, we have spawned generations of closet neurotics. The neurosis has reared its head in forms as diverse as yippies and Lyndon LaRouche supporters. An estimated 19 percent of Americans are mentally ill and in need of treatment, some psychiatrists say. Drug abuse and alcoholism are common. We escape reality in elaborate worlds of frivolity created by the blind poets of our age, TV scriptwriters.
Approaching my 53rd birthday, I cannot recall a time in which nuclear weapons did not exist. As a small child mesmerized by TV, I saw an animated microcosm of the Cold War, a 1950s minimalist depiction of a human figure fleeing radioactive fallout. Public-service announcements about where to find shelter from radiation have long vanished from the little screen, but the image still haunts me.
All that considered, I would rather live in an age of anxiety than be killed or maimed in an age of greater carnage. War is far from obsolete -- but across much of the globe, unlimited warfare is of necessity a thing of the past -- for now. With all the terror that nuclear weapons present for humanity, arguably the world is now, in a grotesque way, a somewhat safer place in which to live.
I urge the unconvinced to dredge up history lessons and ponder the events of the decades before the use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima.
When Ronald Reagan was a preschooler, the colonial powers of Europe began a war. The U.S. was later lured into this war to "make the world safe for democracy."
Hundreds of thousands were killed in single battles, like at the Somme in 1916. The doomed were, like cattle, prodded headlong into ritual killing at the command of "over the top." Many more lost limbs, faces, lungs, minds.
That was supposed to be "the war to end all wars," but it wasn't. Fighting broke out during the 1930s in Spain, China and Ethiopia. Sometimes this was rivaled or exceeded by the organized slaughter and starvation orchestrated in the Soviet Union during those dark years.
After 1939 the world was immersed in a struggle of previously inconceivable proportions, in holocausts unrivaled in history, in a crimson, six-year nightmare -- until a warm, clear day in August, when the human race got a sobering glimpse of what the end might look like.
(An aside -- while hindsight is always 20/20, I think Harry Truman made a serious moral mistake in August 1945. He should have had the first A-bomb dropped just outside Tokyo Bay, as a demonstration, then sent a message to the imperial Japanese government: "Any questions?")
Barbarism certainly hasn't vanished since then, but its onslaught seems to have slowed. Holocausts seem to occur in remote areas like Sudan -- and, notably, in areas where there really are "no nukes." Carefully measured wars sometimes kill no more soldiers than U.S. highways kill motorists in the course of a year. (The civilians lost as "collateral damage" are, of course, often another question.)
Life now has a profound uneasiness. But it is life, as opposed to the very permanent alternative.
Where would I, an American male born in 1956, be now if nuclear weapons had never been invented, and the threat of their use did not exist? I suspect I would have been killed in battle long ago, or disfigured by sophisticated conventional weapons, fighting a war against communists that neither side would have been likely to "win."
Yet I find myself urged by my president, a manifestly brilliant and good man, to in some sense open the Pandora's box, to eliminate the nuclear threat, to potentially turn the conventional might of nations loose in the world once more.
I find myself looking back with neurotic nostalgia to the "MAD" theory. It may have kept me alive for nearly 53 years.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Yes, I'm Still Alive ...
... But recovering from a prolonged illness. I will be posting within the next couple of days. -- MJ
Monday, March 16, 2009
Too Big To Fail: It's Time For The Ultimate Bailout, The Federal Government
By Manifesto Joe
AIG (American International Group Inc.), Americans are being told, must be bailed out because it is too big to fail. Originally the world's biggest insurance company, AIG got into trouble with a vast foray into derivatives trading, insuring the kind of trash that giant financial institutions were bundling after they got into the subprime mortgage quagmire.
It's useful to extend an argument. I pose that the ultimate entity that is too big to fail is the federal government itself. Hell, it now owns 80% of AIG, anyway. Let the ultimate bailout commence.
So, where would the bailout money come from? There used to be, even in this country, the allegedly socialist notion of progressive taxation -- that those with the ability to pay should be taxed more. I understand that we don't want to punish successful people, you know, like those bonus-wealthy executives and derivatives traders at AIG. After all, we've got to keep attracting and retaining "the best and the brightest" to our giant financial institutions.
But one cannot even propose a more progressive income tax in this country without having to endure endless caterwauling from the right-wing attack apparatus. This is from MoveOn.org:
The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6% -— even asking if that makes him a socialist.
But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.
Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!
Yes, we once had a progressive income tax in this country, and we even took that for granted -- like the right to organize a labor union, among other such quaint New Deal-era notions. There was even once a corporate income tax. It still exists on the books, but there are so many ways to elude it that 60% of American corporations don't pay anything. According to expert tax reporters Barlett and Steele, in 1959, corporations actually provided 39% of all IRS revenue. It's a fraction of that now.
I'm not even radical on this issue. To me, a 91% marginal tax rate on personal income does seem punitive. Even 70% sounds like too much. What sounds right? I'd say 50%, like at the end of Reagan's first term.
Even at 39.6%, the Clinton administration rate, the U.S. saw its last federal budget surplus, and the last we're likely to see for a while. President Barack Obama wants it there again, and he has shown an admirable fighting spirit.
But he's up against something very powerful. Facts and history mean nothing to these people. The objective is to defend the economic status quo, however toxic and indefensible. And they have a history of being able to mobilize armies of wage-enslaved fools who are more than willing to blame the wrong people for their problems. The idea at the core of their mission is not where we will be in 10 years. It is how much profit can be made for the right people in the next 10 minutes.
When we get down to it, the bailouts of financial institutions, all generally undeserving, won't cut it unless we do the ultimate bailout -- our own federal government. It is far too big to fail. Two plus two do not equal five, and if this economy is going to be put back on the tracks any time soon, it's clearly the federal government that's going to have to do it.
Granted, that's a scary thought -- almost as frightening as leaving it in "free-market" hands such as AIG's "best and brightest."
AIG (American International Group Inc.), Americans are being told, must be bailed out because it is too big to fail. Originally the world's biggest insurance company, AIG got into trouble with a vast foray into derivatives trading, insuring the kind of trash that giant financial institutions were bundling after they got into the subprime mortgage quagmire.
It's useful to extend an argument. I pose that the ultimate entity that is too big to fail is the federal government itself. Hell, it now owns 80% of AIG, anyway. Let the ultimate bailout commence.
So, where would the bailout money come from? There used to be, even in this country, the allegedly socialist notion of progressive taxation -- that those with the ability to pay should be taxed more. I understand that we don't want to punish successful people, you know, like those bonus-wealthy executives and derivatives traders at AIG. After all, we've got to keep attracting and retaining "the best and the brightest" to our giant financial institutions.
But one cannot even propose a more progressive income tax in this country without having to endure endless caterwauling from the right-wing attack apparatus. This is from MoveOn.org:
The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6% -— even asking if that makes him a socialist.
But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.
Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!
Yes, we once had a progressive income tax in this country, and we even took that for granted -- like the right to organize a labor union, among other such quaint New Deal-era notions. There was even once a corporate income tax. It still exists on the books, but there are so many ways to elude it that 60% of American corporations don't pay anything. According to expert tax reporters Barlett and Steele, in 1959, corporations actually provided 39% of all IRS revenue. It's a fraction of that now.
I'm not even radical on this issue. To me, a 91% marginal tax rate on personal income does seem punitive. Even 70% sounds like too much. What sounds right? I'd say 50%, like at the end of Reagan's first term.
Even at 39.6%, the Clinton administration rate, the U.S. saw its last federal budget surplus, and the last we're likely to see for a while. President Barack Obama wants it there again, and he has shown an admirable fighting spirit.
But he's up against something very powerful. Facts and history mean nothing to these people. The objective is to defend the economic status quo, however toxic and indefensible. And they have a history of being able to mobilize armies of wage-enslaved fools who are more than willing to blame the wrong people for their problems. The idea at the core of their mission is not where we will be in 10 years. It is how much profit can be made for the right people in the next 10 minutes.
When we get down to it, the bailouts of financial institutions, all generally undeserving, won't cut it unless we do the ultimate bailout -- our own federal government. It is far too big to fail. Two plus two do not equal five, and if this economy is going to be put back on the tracks any time soon, it's clearly the federal government that's going to have to do it.
Granted, that's a scary thought -- almost as frightening as leaving it in "free-market" hands such as AIG's "best and brightest."
Friday, March 6, 2009
Out Of Commission Again, But Will Be Back Soon
Wednesday night I was felled by an acute but serious illness. I'm recovering at home with the help of antibiotics and other meds. I won't be able to post for a few days, but hope to be back next week. -- MJ
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
No Ideological Bailout For Right-Wingers
By Manifesto Joe
Hi there, buckeroos. Been away for a while, tendin' to family business.
I have nonetheless been perusing recent doings in the mass media -- my job inevitably brings me into contact with that grotesque modern animal -- and I offer a few comments.
The one they call Michelle Bernard would be a fool.
Michelle is a glamorous-looking Jamaican-American lawyer who somewhat improbably became a right-winger, and then, somewhat more probably, a "conservative" TV political analyst for MSNBC. She flashes a dazzling mechanical smile at the camera the moment she's through with some inane comment. Her looks are enough for her to get by on, most of the time.
Last week, during the postmortem on President Barack Obama's address to a joint session of Congress, one couldn't help but see this person's sheltered, naive foolishness.
During an MSNBC discussion about the role of government in economic matters, Bernard talked about Hurricane Katrina, and its aftermath, as an example of why Americans shouldn't trust government or its proposed solutions. The implication, of course, was that Obama's new proactive role for government is wrongheaded.
That she would even bring up such an example is breathtaking in its stupidity. Let's consider all this:
-- How would the residents of New Orleans have effectively employed an ideology of "self-reliance," other than to just leave the city as the storm approached?
-- Then, unless they were financially independent, they would have to rely on relief services somewhere, from some source, in order to dress, eat and sleep. Where are these things coming from? FEMA? They couldn't rely very much on the agency under Bush, underfunded and led by Republican political hacks. Private sources? A lot of wonderful people pitched in, but the aid wasn't nearly enough for all the victims. There are still a lot of displaced people living in substandard trailers, wondering if they can ever go home.
-- As for those who stayed: What kind of self-reliance would have helped those people, other than to climb up onto the roofs of houses? And after that, who was going to rescue them? Private Blackwater contractors?
-- When the New Orleans levies failed, this was a preventable failure of government. Ask the Army Corps of Engineers about that one. It's no secret that government often fails us. It's in the hands of humans. But I've noticed that when it's in the hands of anti-government Republicans, it tends to fail more often. Could it be that this is because they underfund it, staff it with political hacks, and then predict its failure as a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy?
I've been through four hurricanes, and I can remember when FEMA was an agency that would be on site quickly and with effective help. That was when it was adequately funded, and staffed with professionals, not GOP fundraisers and functionaries.
I think your Michelle Bernard would be a fool, and just one more example of how any right-wing bozo (or bozette) who looks "right," and says the "right" things, can be elevated to the status of national political pundit.
The one they call Rush Limbaugh, once again, would be a fool.
This obese life-support system for a mouth has positioned himself as one of Obama's leading critics, and as a staunch defender of predatory capitalism as American patriotism.
How in the world does this man think the current crisis came about? It was the logical result of policies he's been bombastically pushing for decades -- low (or no) taxes on the wealthy and big corporations, little or no regulatory oversight of financial institutions, prosecution of elective wars without regard for where the financing would come from, sitting around and belching platitudes about the free market while millions of jobs were being exported. ... He was never worried about the deficit for 28 years. And now he is?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells Sunday morning talking heads that Obama is more "analytical" than Bush.
Is this a polite way of saying that Bush is stoooooopid?
It's all very unscientific.
(For those unfamiliar, there are allusions here to The King and I.)
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Hi there, buckeroos. Been away for a while, tendin' to family business.
I have nonetheless been perusing recent doings in the mass media -- my job inevitably brings me into contact with that grotesque modern animal -- and I offer a few comments.
The one they call Michelle Bernard would be a fool.
Michelle is a glamorous-looking Jamaican-American lawyer who somewhat improbably became a right-winger, and then, somewhat more probably, a "conservative" TV political analyst for MSNBC. She flashes a dazzling mechanical smile at the camera the moment she's through with some inane comment. Her looks are enough for her to get by on, most of the time.
Last week, during the postmortem on President Barack Obama's address to a joint session of Congress, one couldn't help but see this person's sheltered, naive foolishness.
During an MSNBC discussion about the role of government in economic matters, Bernard talked about Hurricane Katrina, and its aftermath, as an example of why Americans shouldn't trust government or its proposed solutions. The implication, of course, was that Obama's new proactive role for government is wrongheaded.
That she would even bring up such an example is breathtaking in its stupidity. Let's consider all this:
-- How would the residents of New Orleans have effectively employed an ideology of "self-reliance," other than to just leave the city as the storm approached?
-- Then, unless they were financially independent, they would have to rely on relief services somewhere, from some source, in order to dress, eat and sleep. Where are these things coming from? FEMA? They couldn't rely very much on the agency under Bush, underfunded and led by Republican political hacks. Private sources? A lot of wonderful people pitched in, but the aid wasn't nearly enough for all the victims. There are still a lot of displaced people living in substandard trailers, wondering if they can ever go home.
-- As for those who stayed: What kind of self-reliance would have helped those people, other than to climb up onto the roofs of houses? And after that, who was going to rescue them? Private Blackwater contractors?
-- When the New Orleans levies failed, this was a preventable failure of government. Ask the Army Corps of Engineers about that one. It's no secret that government often fails us. It's in the hands of humans. But I've noticed that when it's in the hands of anti-government Republicans, it tends to fail more often. Could it be that this is because they underfund it, staff it with political hacks, and then predict its failure as a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy?
I've been through four hurricanes, and I can remember when FEMA was an agency that would be on site quickly and with effective help. That was when it was adequately funded, and staffed with professionals, not GOP fundraisers and functionaries.
I think your Michelle Bernard would be a fool, and just one more example of how any right-wing bozo (or bozette) who looks "right," and says the "right" things, can be elevated to the status of national political pundit.
The one they call Rush Limbaugh, once again, would be a fool.
This obese life-support system for a mouth has positioned himself as one of Obama's leading critics, and as a staunch defender of predatory capitalism as American patriotism.
How in the world does this man think the current crisis came about? It was the logical result of policies he's been bombastically pushing for decades -- low (or no) taxes on the wealthy and big corporations, little or no regulatory oversight of financial institutions, prosecution of elective wars without regard for where the financing would come from, sitting around and belching platitudes about the free market while millions of jobs were being exported. ... He was never worried about the deficit for 28 years. And now he is?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates tells Sunday morning talking heads that Obama is more "analytical" than Bush.
Is this a polite way of saying that Bush is stoooooopid?
It's all very unscientific.
(For those unfamiliar, there are allusions here to The King and I.)
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
