2008 EDITORIALS


THE SECOND WEEK
SHAPING UP
THEY STILL DON'T GET IT
STALIN IS BACK
THE SUMMER CAMPAIGN
PROPERLY REMEMBERING RUSSERT
MORE OF THE SAME
HERE WE GO AGAIN
UNSOPHISTCATED ABOUT SEX
OBAMA'S MINISTER
HE'S FINALLY DONE
PROUD OR ASHAMED?
LAST CHANCE GONE
STIMULATION
2008


THE SECOND WEEK

   Well, the conventions are over and the digestion can begin. It was more razzle dazzle than any comparable political conclaves in at least half a century, with ground breaking on both sides. Two things worked for the McCain camp. First, the conventions were scheduled back to back and the Republican Senator stepped on the buzz from Barack Obama's acceptance speech with the nationally unknown, Sarah Palin choice for VP. Then hurricane Gustav delivered the gift of President Bush's absence, confining him to a short speech from Washington where he pretended to care about the latest flood victims. VP Cheney had already been hustled off to Europe. Out of sight, out of mind.
    All this played into the new tack of McCain the reformer. Forget experience, that wasn't working enough apparently. Perhaps the Biden pick for VP finished it off. In any case, McCain didn't like or couldn't choose (because of a far right backlash) from the most prominent vice presidential candidates so while posing as a man who puts country first, he chose a relative political novice, who isn't president ready, just to get elected. Then he had the eye popping audacity to tell Charlie Gibson and the American people that she was fully qualified to step into the president's job as soon as necessary because she had a little executive experience with a relatively homogeneous population in one of the least populous and most distant states in America! If that flies, regardless of her campaign prowess, then almost any public figure supposedly would be qualified to run the country. As Cris Mathews noted, it was a Clarence Thomas pick from the Bush I play book. Sneak in a right wing idealogue under the cover of a "minority". And one wonders if she would have been picked if she was even more qualified but looked more like Janet Reno. Can super models for VP be far behind?
    All this led to a lot of stress on biography and little on issues' substance. The convention itself was essentially a 2 day affair. There were no comparable Republican Clintons to speculate about and all the fallen competitors dutifully prepped for a high post in a McCain administration. There was the tearing down of Obama and the repeated McCain Viet Nam war stories which tried to blot out that his military service decades ago didn't make him qualified to be President. Carly Fiorino talked about freedom but not the constriction of freedom that comes with poverty stemming from an every man for himself, conservative philosophy. Romney blamed liberals for the wasteful spending which Republicans were responsible for. Giuliani foisted on us the Palin executive experience advantage over Obama but no one volunteered that such an experiential advantage also applied to McCain too. He has never run a business or a city or a state either. All his life he has been publicly supported, from the military to elective office.
    Senator Graham and Joe Lieberman, McCain's closest advisors, spoke, the latter rehashing the differences about Iraq. If a president McCain became impaired would they be able to tacitly run the country, pushing Palin aside or would there be a constant battle for authority in the midst of ongoing problems or a crisis? There was no such speculation. There should have been.
    Palin came out remarkably aggressive, acting as attack dog on Obama. Will she grab onto sympathy if Biden attacks back? Are women = to men in raising children? Are her social conservative credentials undermined by her daughter's pregnancy? No sex education at home? Obama gave her a pass, something almost unthinkable if it had been Obama's daughter, especially with all the stress on family in lieu of political positions.
    As expected, McCain's speech was anti-climactic. Domestic specifics were left to him and he only provided Reaganesque generalities that Obama had already better elucidated. But Obama had given him an opening by omitting the corruption issue in his speech. [Perhaps he couldn't talk about political influence given the money he has received from Wall Street, the telecoms, the medical and real estate industries as presented in a recent The Nation magazine article.] And, joined at the hip to Palin, McCain has dived right in. But his math didn't add up either. After repeating the lie that Obama would raise our taxes (inferring all) he described how he would cut taxes (presumably for Exxon too) while bringing out the panoply of alternate energy resources. Like that would be cost free. And how he was going to save all that bacon money from a Democratic congress Republicans (who are the biggest looters) are always bashing, wasn't specified.
    So the battle is now on to see who is the more believable reformer. As Doris Kerns Goodwin put it, McCain will tout reform from the top down, Obama from the bottom up. If McCain wins that means Republicans can commit any atrocities and then bail themselves out with pretend make overs. Forget the past.
    In this case forget that McCain has voted with Bush over 90% of the time and stated that he agrees with Bush on all major issues. Meanwhile, the media, which was taking an Obama win for granted, doesn't seriously challenge all the distortions that are spouted by the flacks and the gullible remain under informed, confused and non-issue oriented. Just what the right wants.
    By the way, if you want an updated definition of yahoos, visualize the delegates.
September 5, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

SHAPING UP

   Now that the Olympics are over the presidential race is beginning to shape up in earnest. In the last week, Senator Obama picked fellow Senator Joe Biden to be his running mate, as good a complimentary fit as practically possible. Biden blunts the Republican attacks about Obama's foreign policy inexperience and provides a "common man" attack dog that the ticket needs. And he is president ready. The fact that Biden said that he didn't want the job and that it wasn't him (that would be chosen) apparently has been forgotten.
    The convention speeches, first by Mrs. Obama, which really wasn't very important (anyone paying attention knows the gist of his story by now), then by the Clintons, who dutifully struck the right talking points, went as well as could be expected. The fixed smile on Hillary's face didn't match the seriousness of her message but that would be considered quibbling. Biden got off to an awful start with prattle about his personal relationships and history but he warmed up on McCain as he was supposed to do. Apparently Senator Kerry did a better job on McCain but wasn't on in prime time.
    The stage was set and the pressure was on Obama to deliver the knock out punch of the convention, although as previously noted, the low wage, low educated voters he really needed to reach probably weren't paying attention to the convention anyway. The speech was masterfully delivered by one of our best orators of all time. It was accurately described as a collage, covering many points and positions that the Bush administration has left us with and McCain intends to continue. But covering so many bases left the speech without a building theme and no final "punch" that would dig deep into our emotions and memories.
    When it was over, MSMBC's Keith Olberman asked if there was anything more that could be said. The correct answer is "there sure was"; although neither Cris Mathews, Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw nor Chuck Todd spoke up about it. There was no mention of the biggest issue we have to first overcome--the corruption of congress. None of Obama's big plans will be properly realized as long as big corporations and the rich have the inside track on legislation. And for 3 days running, Brian Ross of ABC nightly news ran stories of the corporate parties and entertainments, the congressmen schmoozing with lobbyists and the undoubted deal making that was going on during all those high minded speeches. There was a complete disconnect but there won't be when it comes time to actually make, pass and enforce new legislation.
    Then there was the glaring omission about government spying on average citizens. Obama had to stay away from that subject after voting for the FISA bill which excused the Bush violations. There was no mention of opening up government to the public by repealing the Bush clamp down on FOIA and other access. Apparently, judging from his speech, an Obama administration intends to pick up where the Bush political thugs have left off. Finally, given all the investments Obama wants to make in energy, infrastructure, education, environment etc., just closing corporate loopholes, ending the Bush tax cuts, creating a windfall profits tax, even restoring progressive taxation is unlikely to cover those expenditures, especially when the government is nominally bankrupt. Saving money by bringing the troops home from Iraq is unlikely when they will be turned around and sent to Afghanistan and used to shore up Europe against a new Russian threat and we will need additional funds to rebuild our military hardware after being warn down in Iraq. And don't forget that military spending went up after the cold war was over, after all congressmen have to bring home the defense contractor bacon. Yes Keith, there was a lot left unsaid but most will consider the convention a great success. We'll see what the polls show.
    Now let's see what McCain and the Republicans have to offer.
August 29, 2008
JBM

GO BACK TO TOP

THEY STILL DON'T GET IT

   Now that Barack Obama has picked Joe Biden as his running mate and the Democratic convention begins, there is all this blabber by the campaigners and media talking heads about pulling the party together, introducing Obama to the skeptical and delineating the advantageous Democratic issue positions. While the verbiage has been copious, the glaring omission remains undiscussed, let alone unremedied.
    The left believes that they only have to describe how they will be better for the American people and they will win the White House. When the voters understand that McCain will bring 4 more years of failed Bush policies and that they will bring fundamental change, they will win the presidential election. What the media continuously fails to take into account is that most people aren't paying attention to the issues in any sensible way. They know that some things could be better but they don't really know how or why, and they don't care to know. If people still don't know about Obama by now, they haven't been paying attention to politics. And given the immensity of our growing problems, brought to us by plutocratic Conservatives, they should have been alarmed enough to already know what is going on and who is at fault. Lack of such attention and understanding indicates that they never will be competent voters, if they vote at all.
    Now there are reasons for this. Obama has been much too vague thus far. His has been a strategy that takes into account that it is much easier to rally around "no" but much harder to get agreement on specific remedies. The long, tough primary contest with Hillary reduced his time for bringing out new specifics.
    Then there is the wide swath of the population that is too dumb to see through the right wing propaganda machine. They get their news from right wing talk radio (e.g. Rush etc.) and Fox. They are not only underinformed, (the polite term for politically moronic/masochistic), but they are proud of it and resent anyone who seems more intelligent--like Obama. They either can't or don't want to do the hard work of sifting through they grays of our complicated society and instead they fasten on a few simple, black or white ideas to base their votes on. Hence all the attention to sexual peccadillos and so little understanding of economic/financial malfeasance.
    And our educational emphasis is largely to blame. As corporations have taken control and other countries have become more competitive, the schooling emphasis has caved to job training, not citizen competency. The liberal arts are now seen as something extraneous, not the vital core that they should be and were.
    All the talk of finally paying attention now that the conventions have arrived flies in the face of the fact that the conventions are so ignored that the major networks cut off two thirds of the coverage years ago. In truth, most of the time is devoted to fluff and ego exercise of the state's delegates. Every state is "The great state of..." even though their voters put in the low lifes that have brought the country down. Then there is the specter of lobbyists throwing those lavish parties for "our" representatives in congress in order to buy their allegiance.
    The Dems had better wake up to the fact that close to half of the voters can't be reached by common sense attention to the issues. Likability and trust save all that work needed to sort out candidates by their positions. It is much easier to tune in Entertainment Tonight et. al. or a ball game. Recognizing the problem is a necessary first step but efficaciously addressing the problem is going to be much, much harder.
August 25, 2008
JBM

GO BACK TO TOP

STALIN IS BACK

   The problems of the western "democracies" (so-called in the U.S.) just got an additional jolt when the real Vladimer Putin showed himself by the invasion of Georgia, though anyone paying attention should not have been surprised. This has been a hot spot of contention, ignored by Bush, for years.
    For those who care to remember, Putin was hand picked from the KBG by former Russian president Boris Yeltsen to safe guard his retirement. Putin quickly took advantage of the chaos and deprivation that was the post USSR collapse to marginalize all opposition (including the murder of dissident reporters) and control all significant media. His tactics against the breakaway Chechnia province demonstrated a care not attitude about civilian wants and needs. Since Chechnia was actually part of Russia, little outside objection was raised.
    But now a new step has been taken, one that shows that there is no restraint on Putin's ambition to recolonize all of the former republics around Russia--for starters. Using the South Ossetia pretext, Russian troops have marched well past that region's borders, despite his blatant lies, and into Gori, threatening the capital of Toblisi itself. A second incursion has sprung from the Abkhazia region on the Black sea coast, cutting off any help that might come from ships. While the tank led forces cordon off the captured territory, South Ossetian para military goons "cleanse" the region (read kill, torture, rape, pillage and destroy) behind its shield. When one has the total power, as Putin has, he incurs total responsibility for any outcomes.
    President Bush, Defense Secretary Gates, Secretary of State Rice and others in the administration bluster and bluff but are obviously helpless. Gates even gave a tacit green light to the incursion by rushing out to state that we would not put up any military resistance; another case of America's befriend and abandon foreign policy. Capturing the oil pipe line that supplies fuel to Western Europe will effectively neutralize any willingness on its part to stand up to this and continued aggression. Just the threat of cut off is sufficient. We have a new Stalin in our midst and he should be recognized as such. The difference is that Putin's Russia has the economic/oil power the old USSR didn't. The largest transfer of wealth in human history, from west to producer nations, is in the process of turning the world's power balance upside down, with the worse guys on top.
    America's twilight as a super power has been rapidly approaching as it is, given the export of our manufacturing base, the failure to keep up our physical and soft infrastructure, our monstrous debt load (federal, financial, trade and personal), the thorough corruption of our leadership class and the feckless character of the American people, led by an irresponsible media. Given our weakness, we will undoubtedly be treated to more Nevil Chamberlain impersonations. After all, we have already been looking the other way from Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma and Tibet partly because of our subservience to China. The Georgian outrage is just another step down. The only question now is how many more and how fast.
    One may come to wonder just what we have been doing with all the military spending we have done since the USSR broke apart at the end of the Reagan regime. Clearly we have had too few troops available even before this latest crisis, even with all the private contractor employees hired. It may be that the only potent defender of human rights in the world can not maintain civility with only an all volunteer military but any politician who campaigns to restore the draft will lose his next election bid. We would rather hunker down with our computer games and watch the Olympics and the new football season. And don't forget, we're broke.
August 15, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

THE SUMMER CAMPAIGN

   As we head into August it has become clear that the campaigns for president continue to avoid the truths neither side wants to tell and the mainstream media that doesn't want to inform the public about. These are questions raised on this site repeatedly so it is not that they are inconceivable--in fact they are issues the next president will have to deal with or ignore at our peril. The indictment is true of Senators Obama and McCain specifically and their surrogates.
    Much of the campaign has revolved around the conduct of the war in Iraq and the economy here at home. In truth, although both Obama and McCain want you to think that they have divergent approaches, in fact their positions are quite similar and close to the current administration's. The troops are coming out of Iraq and some will shift to Afghanistan--as conditions warrant. All sides are working on a loose time table, although Republicans won't call it that. McCain keeps harping on Obama's supposed error about the benefits of the surge while omitting the contributions of the Sunnis kicking out al-Queda, the separation of Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad and the consolidation of the latter in southern Iraq. Iranian influence in that region is unreported although this was a great concern early in the war. McCain has even asserted that the surge began 6 months before our additional 30,000 troops got to Baghdad. It is doubtful that any but a handful (maybe even less) of Americans understood that. Or do now.
     But the housing down turn and credit problems have become the biggest issue now that the violence in Iraq has lessened. There is much contention about cutting taxes. McCain has changed his position about Bush's tax cuts and deliberately misrepresented Obama's tax cut plan. In truth, both hope to buy votes with government hand outs from a treasury that is insolvent. But here is the question that McCain is never faced with: his position, the conservative Republican position, is that tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy. The increased buying power of the public will provide business profits and jobs even though some of that preserved income might go to wasteful consumer purchases from foreign producers with the profits going overseas. Some of that money, considering that the tax cuts are aimed at the well off, is likely to be invested--overseas. Or to create another market bubble.
    On the other hand, if the government kept that money, and even raised taxes, that revenue could be invested solely in America, in ways that would not only stimulate the economy progressively by providing better paying jobs but would result in efficiencies and future productivity, compounding the benefits. Instead of buying copious Xmas toys for the kids, flat screen TVs, SUVs, designer clothes and jewelry, entertainment tickets, fast, fat foods etc. we could be spending on health R&D, energy research and development, transportation upgrades, health insurance for all, better teacher pay and inner city schools and the like. Why isn't that better? "We are eating our seed corn Senator....Ah...Senator McCain, you didn't answer the question. I'll try it again."
    The truth is that the government is spending money on some of these needs with funds it doesn't have. Republicans in particular, are handing off a debt load that is unconscionable. Democrats, as usual, are standing back.
    Given that McCain has no national health care plan (at least he hasn't promoted one), Obama's position has to be considered superior. However, Obama has never been pinned down about tolerating the blood sucking insurance industry which "earns" its living by making across-the-board health care less affordable. Thousands are dying unnecessarily each year as a result. Government single payer plans are less confusing, more egalitarian and more efficient. They are the preferred plans in all other advanced countries. Why not here?
    And while it has been brought up, neither candidate has had to face a tough confrontation about their FISA votes. Obama sanctioned the Bush administration's warrantless wire tapping, a clear illegality. The bill sanctioned not only the invasion of privacy but attacked the separation of powers. If either or both candidates could condone that, what would be next? And why won't they pledge to investigate and prosecute all Bush administration officials, including Bush himself, if criminal and/or unconstitutional acts were committed?
    Issues like the destruction of marine biology and species extinction, what to do about Putin, Hugo Chavez, the Chinese leadership, Mugabe and Basheir, get scant attention. The focus on meteor deflection capability is never even mentioned. Neither candidate, nor the mainstream media mentions John Edwards' "Half in Ten" campaign to reduce poverty. And so on.
    The dumbed down public won't demand answers to these and other questions but they'll vote (or not) in November. Then they will be "shocked" by what the new president does (or doesn't do) and wonder why some of these issues weren't raised before the election.
July 30, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

PROPERLY REMEMBERING RUSSERT

   The sudden death of Tim Russert, moderator of Meet the Press for almost 2 decades, has elicited effusive tributes from TV network co-workers and competitors alike. The citations for his family ties, his enthusiasm, collegiality, copious knowledge of Washington politics and hard hitting interviews have been numerous and heart felt.

     However unsurprising, it is, or should be, a distressing sign that no one in his business had the honesty and/or integrity to tell the truth about how he let us all down. In truth, Russert didn't ask many of the questions he should have, didn't ask the harsh questions of the powerful, or certainly not enough of them, and he didn't come out with his condemnation of the causes of America's decline. In effect, as a leader of the TV news bureaus, he sat by and enabled the US to convert to a plutocracy in the last 30 years. He kept his mouth shut as we transformed into a second gilded age. He not only didn't go after the corruption that pervades Washington, he didn't expose the nation's second biggest problem--the inadequacy of our civic comprehension--which he contributed to. He fiddled while the country rotted for the benefit of the ultra rich.
     It demeans the concept to call Russert a journalist because a true journalist goes to where the evidence leads, without convenient blinders on. Yes this means that one won't get the big name guests on their shows because the bad guys won't face the public with the fallacies and flaws in their positions, policies and agendas. In any case, a journalist keeps his distance from his subjects. Caving in means selling out. No one brought this up because--you guessed it--they've all sold out. And they have been compromised for so long that some probably don't even realize it.
    There was a glimmer of revelation when George Stephanopulous asked John Edwards what they could do better and he answered that the revealing of real issues was being sacrificed by all the concentration on the horse races, campaign tactics and irrelevancies. And last week Keith Oberman lit into Senator John McCain's Iraq stance with the thoroughness and passion that should be more commonplace. In network programming, no serious self criticism comes out from within.
    Critics of Russert only have to go back to his hour long interview of President GW Bush in 2004. Instead of ripping into Bush's egregious priorities he tossed him sponge balls to hit out of the park. There wasn't even any mention of the Medicare drug plan which prohibits the negotiation of prices. /In the October 2007 editorial posted on this site there were 20 questions that Russert didn't ask the presidential candidates. Two more could be added: "What are you going to do about heading off our growing clean water crisis? and "Are you going to transfer NASA and Air Force funding from space exploration and military operations to finding and preparing to deflect incoming asteroids or comets which just might destroy much of the world (see the June issue of The Atlantic magazine)?" Given the tightly restricted number of campaign issues talked about on TV, it is highly doubtful if he ever would have.
    Representative Dennis Kucinich read off a 65 page indictment of President Bush (for the purpose of trying to start impeachment proceedings) last week and it got no network coverage at all. Given Russert's track record it is doubtful that the subject would have been brought up on his next MTP.
     So let's get the final record straight; Russert and his colleges in network news may be fine fellows but they aren't journalists, they are facilitators of our decline and historians will hopefully judge them so.
June 16, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

MORE OF THE SAME

   The Democratic campaign for the presidential nomination between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama slogs on with each side ripping the other while John McCain quietly tours the country trying to emphasize his character and patriotism because he loses on almost all the issues, just as President Bush has.
    And the major media talking heads continue to dumb down the electorate by concentrating on "gotcha" incidents which are of minuscule importance compared with the tremendous problems the Bush administration is leaving us with. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous were rightly chastised for wasting nearly half (if you count commercial time) of the 2 hour ABC debate digging at Obama for Reverend Wright's comments, Obama's contention about ruralites resorting to guns and religion and why he hasn't worn a flag pin. Apparently the response was so critical that Gibson even brought it up on the following ABC nightly news.
    But Tim Russert didn't learn anything from that rebuke. He wasted nearly 20 minutes on Wright when interviewing Obama on Meet the Press on May 4th. Meanwhile Stephanopolous started right off grilling Clinton on the concurrent This Week..., opening with her gas tax relief proposal. She again defended it, contrasting her idea with McCain's which wouldn't charge the profit bloated oil companies for the revenue loss. Even though a consensus of economists thought the idea was insignificant and Obama denounced it as a political pandering ploy, he never offered any short term relief plan of his own, ducking the question altogether on CBS. But none of the candidates were ever asked, nor did they volunteer answers for the contribution of the weak dollar to our higher oil prices. Nor did any of them address the NIMBY problem when it comes to citing any new oil refineries. Focusing on such a limited relief plan to the exclusion of underlying factors gives us no clue to what any would do when in the oval office.
    One has to wonder if certain questions are precluded by the candidates or if the network anchors and hosts are that oblivious to the many issues never raised. Are they also that ignorant of the fact that they can drive public opinion by calling sufficient attention to a subject as opposed to just reflecting poll revealing public sentiment? Given that corruption is the number one problem holding this country back, why hasn't the issue been raised and the candidates been forced to deal with it? Too many super delegates would be threatened and would vote against the staunchest supporter of real reform? Or is it that the network executives might have their corporations threatened if their lobbyists couldn't control congress with their bribes? Don't forget that the networks, and affiliates, rake in the political spot ad loot each election season and the figures keep going up. You would think that NBC could at least afford to televise original programming on prime time weekends like they used to.
    Now that Billary couldn't close the delegate gap after North Carolina, pundits have declared Obama the winner. Still she carries on drawing increasing ire from Democrats who think she is hurting Obama's chances in the fall. And we still don't know what either would do about China, or the foods shortages etc., let alone the Marshall Islands' poverty.
May 8, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

HERE WE GO AGAIN

   The title phrase is one of the very few President Reagan utterances that bears repeating but it aptly describes the new fuss over some sentences produced by Barak Obama at a campaign fund raiser a week or so ago. This distraction is likely to have legs due to a mainstream media which doesn't want to deal with the real issues and opponents who haven't anything better to talk about.
    Critics want to paint Obama as elitist and his statement, saying to the effect that Pennsylvania ruralites cling to guns and religion out of bitterness over their sliding circumstances, purports to support that characterization. Republican candidate John McCain and even Billary Clinton have attacked Obama over this mole hill they are trying to make into a mountain. Few have actually broken down his speech into what actually may constitute fault. There are at least 3 facets to the controversy.
    1-Were his words accurate or (2) did they just tell people what they didn't want to hear and (3) was this speech given in the wrong place (where it wasn't for general consumption).
    The 1st problem seems to be his omission of the word "some", as in "some people cling...." However, surely he wouldn't have meant that each and every gun owner and believer in the state behaved out of bitterness alone. The statement had all the appearance of a generalization, not a universality, and a generalization denotes some exceptions. The question then becomes how many is "some"; an overwhelming number, a majority or a few? No one pinned him down on this percentage.
    And the percentage makes a difference in the validity of the contention. Maybe he was right, depending how many "some" are. McCain and Clinton apparently don't think so but they offered no more evidence than he did. And it is not unreasonable to suggest a correlation between rural decline and guns and God. But correlation doesn't guarantee cause and effect.
    And suppose he was in the ball park if not on home plate. Should a candidate be chastised for telling people what they don't want to hear when most believe we are going in the wrong direction? After all, our decline is because some of us are doing the wrong things--like voting for the wrong people (Republicans) over the last 26 years. And many of those red, rural voters based their votes on guns and God. Maybe real honesty (in contrast with McCain's "straight talk") would not only have identified these morons but properly blasted them for not only hurting themselves but the nation as a whole. [Remember the Republicans be all and end all is servicing the rich.]
    Yes, Obama's statements looked condescending when spoken out in San Francisco and not to the faces of the accused. He could be faulted for that. And one has to be concerned that again he backed down somewhat in the face of criticism, although this time he did defend his contentions. What was more unseemly was Hillary's attack, again suggesting desperation. She even took a page out of the old, super rich former NY governor, Nelson Rockafeller book, downing a beer instead of coming down to eat a hot dog during a campaign. This squalid display may back fire. But her hammering Obama certainly poses the credible risk of costing the now presumptive Democratic nominee votes in the general election, the last thing anyone concerned about the welfare of the country should want. And given who is giving her the big money it certainly looks like it's the Clintons first, the country second, as far as they are concerned.
    No one should be enthusiastic about any of the candidates remaining. They all come from the arguably most corrupt and dysfunctional body in the advanced world--the US congress. Yet none of the candidates have made cleaning up the rot that is killing us, literally and figuratively, their top priority. Obama has been in the Senate the shortest time so he has a small advantage on that score. But once again, it looks like the choice is between lesser evils.
April 15, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

UNSOPHISTICATED ABOUT SEX

   For national columnists, Susan Estrich and Lenore Skenazy seem rather unsophisticated about the fundamental differences between men and women regarding our sexual drives. Both wrote columns in the last month decrying former NY governor Eliot Spitzer's judgmental lapse concerning his hooker patronage. Some common assumptions that these 2 writers implicitly or explicitly expressed need to be better examined.
    First though, let's get our agreements out of the way. It is agreed that hypocrisy and lack of discretion in such matters is not excusable. You don't bust prostitution rings while paying for play yourself. You don't risk spreading STDs or pregnancy. You don't lie. And, especially if you are prominent and married, you don't get careless about privacy unless you want to lose your family and/or your job.
    On the other hand, women have long fought to control, and have successfully won the battle, at least in the US, over what is morally wrong in the arrangement of sexual partners. However, a contrasting male view shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
    Lifelong monogamy is the gold standard no matter how much it conflicts with a man's sexual nature. It is understandable that women want the life long security of a devoted husband (who they may "cheat" on to have better physical offspring), even with our longer life spans. It is understandable that they frequently take that security for granted. It is understandable that they ignore the complexities of spousal relationships, equating companionship with love with sexual desire. But just because it is understandable doesn't mean that it should be unassailable.
    Men and women are different (apparently some reminder is needed). They are basically different regarding sexual needs. Those differences have contributed to the survival and eventual success of the species. That shouldn't be conveniently overlooked. Men usually want more sex then their partners, especially those who attach love with copulation. Unlike women, men have almost unlimited chances, well into advanced age, of begetting offspring. We climax almost every time (with or without love), which reenforces our greater sex drive. Men can achieve gene succession by impregnating multiple partners and moving on, or one partner, which they stay with to insure the development of their children into procreating adulthood, or something in between such as with polygamy. That bottom line, basic drive difference from women sometimes obscures or overcomes the overlay of modern culturally acceptable norms, norms that spring from American religious neurosis. And powerful men, confident men, winning men, often have more (sperm) to give and drive to give it. Conquest, in business, warfare or bed, is an aphrodisiac. Women fall for powerful men so it works for some of them too. All these things go on mostly at the subconscious level. Some women get all this and don't condemn, others don't and do.
    Already liking variety, it shouldn't be surprising that some husbands wander when their wives flag, in appearance, interest, and/or spice, in sexual relations. This is rarely mentioned in the chorus of condemnations. And what these 2 columnists don't apparently get is that without using hookers men would more likely take mistresses, with which they might develop more encompassing relationships, to the detriment of the wives and children involved.
    Clearly, the Mann act was, or should have been, meant to prohibit the transport of prostitutes against their will across state lines (as with organized crime) which wasn't close to the case with Spitzer. The law is either outdated or overly encompassing. It, like prostitution itself, should have been taken off the criminal books long ago (forcing someone anywhere is kidnapping, forcing sex is rape). Spitzer can be almost entirely excused for not taking Mann seriously in this situation.
    Women turn to prostitution because they have nothing better to turn to, otherwise they would be doing something better. Some women even like their work. It can make some feel desirable and even powerful. And "dehumanized" (Estrich), quicky, sex for money is just the ticket, compared to some alternatives, to hold a weak marriage together. No other attachments are involved. And some men can't get young, sometimes attractive women to have sex with them, even if they are powerful. The otherwise assumption Estrich makes--that attractive, willing women are always available to powerful men when desired, is ridiculous. Anyway, what busy man always has the time to wine and dine a strange admirer?
    We have lived in a religiously puritanical, sexually repressive society which tolerates hypocrisy (think Vegas and the Internet etc.) because it is so antithetical to human sexual drive. It is long past time that we stop letting others make people feel guilty because they indulge in consensual adult behavior. Spitzer should have lost his job because of his outrageous hypocrisy and any misspent public funds. Nothing more.
April 4, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

OBAMA'S MINISTER

   It is well past time to nationally condemn the major media, particularly the 3 major TV networks (Fox is just Murdock's mouth piece) for their continuous drive to keep the public uninformed and misinformed about the issues we should judge the 3 remaining presidential candidates by. The latest sidetrack is the constant attention to what Obama's minister said in a rant or two absent any overall sermon context. This minor story (after all, does anyone think that a President Obama would try and get anti-white legislation passed through a white congress?) is being chewed over for weeks by the news divisions as if it were vital to our national interest. It is being played up for so long that one has to suspect the intent is to foment racial conflict in order to boost ratings.
    Fortunately, the polls seem to indicate that the public doesn't see this as important despite the repeated harangue by even prominent network news anchors. Even Maria Bartaromo, the stock market promoter for NBC, went to this well for her interview with Obama. Recently ABC news anchor, Charlie Gibson, blew an opportunity to ask serious questions of Obama by going over the same ground again.
    If trying to stir up racial resentments haven't been the hidden goal of the network news divisions, another motive is glaring. By playing up "gotcha" personal circumstances, they don't have to inform the voters about real issues, issues that might adversely affect their parent corporate conglomerates if not the networks themselves (think of the issue of media consolidation for instance). After all, if the lid on gross government/corporate corruption was lifted, no telling where it might lead. If someone woke the sleeping electorate about the monstrous disparity of income and wealth, and how that wealth was achieved (read Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston), their own exorbitant compensation packages might be threatened.
    In truth, we now live in a plutocratic kleptocracy, but you would never know it by our nightly news casts. The conversion has taken place since Reagan became president and he signaled to the rich and powerful that "greed is good" and that oversight and curtailment by government is bad. We have been devolving ever since.
    Some of the really important questions that should have been asked of the candidates by now were posed in my 10/2007 editorial "Unasked Questions". Just to take 2 which are prominent in the news right now: "What would you do about Darfur in your 1st month in the President's office, or better yet, since the Chinese leadership supports Bashier, the ruthless Burmese generals, the crushing of Tibet, the intimidation of Taiwan, as well as industrial spying on us and using unfair trade practices to eat out our economy, what are you going to do about China?" A domestic question might well be: Why are you advocating for-profit entities into your universal health care plan, if you have any such plan at all? After all, they only drain away money that is badly needed for any equitable plan at the cost of needless suffering and premature death." Two other vital questions would be: are you going to propose legislation that would federalize corporate charters with stipulations that would bring them under control and are you going to restore real progressive taxation to restore the middle class? Of course the biggest question, since it affects all else: "What kind of Congressional campaign finance reform and impeachment rules are you going to campaign for once in office?"
    But these questions aren't being brought to the front burner by a corruption captured media. Remember that the next time you watch Gibson, Kuric and/or Williamns, along with Russert, Scheiffer and Stephanopoulos.
March 31, 2008
JBM

GO BACK TO TOP

HE'S FINALLY DONE

   Last week William F. Buckley finally died at age 82. He won't be spewing his conservative socioeconomic venom any longer.
    Born to the elite, he espoused an every-man-for-himself, personal responsibility philosophy that conveniently ignored his favored upbringing; a stable and educational start in life most others never enjoy and that he never was responsible for.
    And he used his intellect to promote defacto aristocracy. On his PBS Firing Line show he got the better of his opponents in conservative vs. liberal debate with gestures (e.g. the wagging tongue and raised eyebrow), big words and complicated syntax. He mastered the art of dodging and smoke screen when his positional weaknesses were about to be pinned down. He didn't search for the truth and never admitted his opponents had a significant point. Using his Christian belief as an unassailable butress, he promulgated the self serving edict that the rich were being deservedly rewarded by the Almighty.   In short, he was a propagandist, a characterization he probably wouldn't object to, given how wedded he was to the cause.    
    Acolyte Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal credited Buckley with pulling together the disparate segments of conservativism and making it a movement that the likes of Barry Goldwater, Jack Kemp, Milton Freidman and Ronald Reagan ran with. Deregulate, let business do business, let the market place decide, diminish government and programs for the disadvantaged, cut taxes for the rich so the benefits can trickle down to the rest, all worked to hollow out the middle class and make the poor relatively worse off in an ever greater insecure and unaccountable social/economic/political environment.
    Republicans in good standing all adhere to the basic tenants, including John McCain, anything less is heresy. And the right wing propaganda machine (talk radio, Fox, Regnery publishing, etc.), well financed by the rich benefactors, has used any distraction, distortion and lie to bamboozle the culturally illiterate public and get them to vote against their own interests--and everyone elses.
    In a few months, if not before, we can expect to see a spate of hagiographic (to use a Buckley word) tomes. Few are willing to speak ill of the dead. But historical accuracy demands it. Buckley was an ideologue and inconvenient facts should not be hidden. On the old Have Gun Will Travel TV western series, Paladin, played by actor Richard Boone, confronted the head of a lynch mob (or some such) and quoted a line that fits men such as Buckley. It went something like "spare me from men who do harm but really spare me from the men who do harm in the name of good."
    Unfortunately, Buckley died before he ever had to face an avalanche of castigation and scorn. However, if he was "universally" denounced, one can reasonably assume that he would just rationalize it away and subsume himself in the fiction he enjoyed writing. Escaping uncomfortable realities is so pleasant.
March 3, 2008
JBM

GO BACK TO TOP

PROUD OR ASHAMED?

   Earlier this week, Michelle Obama, the wife of Senator Obama, who is leading in the Democratic primary campaign for the Presidency, told an audience in Milwaukee that for the first time in her adult life she is proud of our country. The McCain's (John is the apparent Republican nominee for president) immediately jumped on the comment with Cindy McCain claiming that she has always been "proud of my country."
    The proper response to that political salvo should have come from Senator Obama and it should have gone something like this:
    In his next speech Obama should have stated "I'm not proud that we have a federal government almost $10 trillion in debt, I'm not proud that we have no foreseeable way to pay for our future obligations, I'm not proud that we have uncontrollable trade debt and a sinking dollar because we have let globalization run wild instead of insisting on fair trade, I'm not proud that we are the only so-called advanced country in the world without universal health insurance, I'm not proud that our school students rank well down compared to their counterparts in other nations, I'm not proud that we are the stumbling block in reducing global warming which threatens to kill millions and eliminate many species, I'm not proud that we can't control our borders, I'm not proud that congress is run by K street and that runaway earmark spending has become the norm, I'm not proud that we've shipped our manufacturing jobs south of the border or over seas reducing middle class jobs and productivity increases, I'm not proud of the mortgage mess, I'm not proud that people here are homeless and hungry while we have more billionaires than ever. I'm not proud that we have become dependent on tyrannies for our oil supplies, I'm not proud of FEMA and its response to hurricane Katrina, I'm not proud about how we have engaged the war on terror with secrecy and curtailment of privacy rights, I'm not proud of torturing our enemies, I'm not proud that we have gone from high regard to scorn around the world and I'm not proud that our electorate has chosen the people who have led us to where we are at. I'm not proud of what our country has become in the last 27 years; are you proud of these accomplishments Senator McCain and Mrs. McCain?
    I entered this race on the basis of change; change from the direction America has been going under Republican/Conservative rule. Change from the ways of Ronald Reagan, Milton Freidman, Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Carl Rove, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, people you are apparently wedded to. Change from the self serving chicanery of supply side economics and deregulation. Change from suckering religious conservatives into forking over their hard earned incomes to the top 1%. Change from deriding government in order to cut taxes imposed on the super rich and programs for the disadvantaged. Change from the 'my way or the high way' hard ball, steam roller approach to government. Change which you apparently don't endorse if you are proud of what we have become."
    Instead he said little or nothing about his wife's statement and she backed down with the excuse that she was not fully understood. This is not leadership. This is the kind of back down approach to politics Democrats are now noted for. It bespeaks of character inadequacy from a candidate already short on specific proposals. It indicates an unwillingness to "straight talk" to Americans.
    And, as one would expect, while reporting on this nothing story, the media missed the point. In truth, no one with a conscience and some awareness of what is going on can be proud of what we have become. It is shame that is appropriate.
February 21, 2008
JBM

GO BACK TO TOP

LAST CHANCE GONE

   Once again the rubes and political dolts of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (as well as Michigan and Nevada) have given us unacceptable choices for the next president in 2009. As listed in the AMERICAS'S FUTURE link, this "retail politics" procedure adds confirmation to the fact that we still don't know how to elect efficacious leadership. Even ABC anchor Charlie Gibson, in a recent moment of candor, admitted that the current electoral process is unfair and, in essence, dysfunctional.
    It is not like better candidates weren't running. John Edwards and Joe Biden (and even Dennis Kucinich) looked like they would have given us better leadership, and as suggested here last summer, the 2 should have teamed up, not that it would have made much difference. And now that Edwards has dropped out, we are confronted with inadequacy again. Women wanted one of their own no matter that she's tied to establishment players and would probably continue on with her husband's failed tenure and blacks wanted a national novice who tells us almost nothing specific about the changes he has in mind. There can be no doubt that our electorates, at least in these states, are incompetent.
    On the Republican side, the fanatical far right and country club conservatives drain any reasonableness from their candidates. All try to tie themselves to Ronald Reagan, perhaps the worst president in at least modern times if not ever (only the current one rivals). Fred Thompson never brought anything to the table, Giuliani's strategy failed because either Florida's voters were dependent on the "wisdom" of rural state hicks or because he never convinced the sunshine state electorate that he was the man for the job. The ascendence of the economy as the major issue detracted from his tough on terrorists theme. Ron Paul is an ideological wingding, Mike Huckabee doesn't believe in science (repudiating evolution repudiates scientific method) and he is being pilloried by the Rush Limbough types for showing a few progressive economic signs. That should tell you where the true Republican heart lies. Mitt Romney, when he isn't blustering platitudes, indicates that he would continue the plutocratic agenda of the current president and John McCain tacks right whenever he can to placate the Conservative base. Remember that any of these guys will move the Supreme Court further right, increasing the power of malevolent corporations and abusive government agencies over the public. In taking credit for the Iraq surge strategy McCain conveniently omits that reduced violence is also attributable to the religious segregation in the cities, the Sunni ouster of al-Queda in Ambar province and the Shiite takeover of the south, with ties to Iran, as the British have retreated. Although the last was once considered ominous, now it isn't mentioned.
    Given that all Republicans are plutocrats these days, neither Romney nor McCain is acceptable. And given Clinton's baggage and Obama's inexperience (these attributes of the 2 leading Dems were brought up in a web ed on this site over a year ago), with virtually no paper trail to judge him on, it is time to hope that a 3rd party candidate runs, perhaps Mike Blumberg, or even Ralph Nader again.
    It was surprising to see Edwards drop out only a couple of days after he said, yet again to a national audience, that he would remain in the race to the convention. This credibility sapping turnaround makes one wonder if he got an offer that he wouldn't refuse. Neither Clinton nor Obama has indicated that they share his confrontative, progressive thrust.
    There will be a lot of hopeful talk and fanfare between the low road smear tactics which will take place until November but the safe bet is that the public will continue to believe that we are going in the wrong direction 4 years from now because there is no sign that the remaining candidates, hampered by the Republicans and bad Democrats in congress, will significantly alter our downward course.
February 1, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP

STIMULATION

   Republicans, sensing that a recession could be the coup de grace in defeating Democrats in congress and retaining the White House, have joined in the legislative panic to stimulate the economy by issuing rebates to federal income tax payers in order to spur flagging consumer spending. Democrats rightfully point out their hatred for the under class who don't pay income taxes and contribute to campaigns, although the less fortunate get hit by regressive payroll and sales taxes, as well as state taxes. This Republican hatred manifests itself in excluding these people from relief whenever they can.
    We will see if, in this election year, Republicans succumb to helping the poor, who are the most likely to spend any new income right away and how successful they will be in covertly helping out the rich in the process. In any case, any few that raise the question of additional debt will get no serious attention, largely because our federal debt and unfunded liabilities (the latter being something like $50-100t) are so monstrous as to be beyond comprehension, let alone political solution.
    Congressmen like passing out candy even when protein is needed. Our leaders would rather we spend our money on new toys, big screen TVs and SUVs etc., even if they are made overseas, than have the government spend it for us on new schools in poor districts, road and bridge upgrades, expanding broad band accessibility and/or retrofitting housing with insulation to save on fuel consumption etc.. We prefer to fritter rather than invest. This is another sure symptom of national decline. Even though government targeted spending will pay dividends and certify that the money is spent, and spent here, the Republican mantra of tax cuts above all, prevails. That propaganda mantra has so brain washed the public that no serious proposals to tax the rich to pay for any hand outs or investments ever gain traction.
    Judging by the initial attentive cooperation the economy is quickly getting in Washington, the problem is likely worse than we are being told. When the big Wall Street boys holler, congress listens and Bush makes it a top priority. And apparently, as this written, the world outside the US is in a frenzy too. There is a lot of phantom wealth around the world (in equities), propped up by nothing more than hopeful trust. Regaining lost trust in a world of unregulated and unprosecuted sharks won't be easy or quick. In a global economy, the intertwined connections and consequences are just too complicated.
    Time will tell if any federal stimulus package passed this spring will be too little, too late and/or ill advised. But judging from congressional history over the last decades there is little cause for comfort. Pay attention to the players.
January 22, 2008
JBM

GO BACK TO TOP

2008

    Looking back to the 2007 editorial reveals several slightly off base speculations and predictions.
    The consensus is that the troop surge in Iraq has worked with an important, if under valued, assist from Sunis turning on al-Queda and ethnic cleansing. But McCain didn't gain top seed in the Republican nominating process because of his clash with the religious right over immigration and less repressive social stands. Huckabee found that audience which shunned Mormon Romney. Clearly, both are defective, given their ostentatious supernatural beliefs.
    As Iran has backed down somewhat, al-Queda has started infiltrating Pakistan and Musharrif has been unwilling, or unable, to meet the threat head on. As surmised, this country is the focal point of terrorist activity. Yet we still won't go into the western provinces to attack the al-Queda strong hold and apparently Bush won't do that in his term. The next President is even less likely to do it, absent a severe strike against the US here. The NK situation drifts on.
    It's no surprise that Americans debt problem manifested itself, in this case the mortgage sub-prime and securitization mess. This has started off the housing bubble burst and the only question now is how wide, deep and long the slump will continue. There is nothing to fall back on except printing more money. Oil and food prices are already up and stagflation is possible. And virtually nothing has been done to curb our other growing problems as Republican Senators are standing fast with Bush to stop real reform. They must pay for their recalcitrance at the polls or congress will continue to under perform.
    So what's ahead? The economy will become more important in the presidential election race. Figure Clinton vs. Giuliani but don't place any bets. It will be a brutal race, in part because there will be too much time for dirty tricks and too many sources for them, given Internet expansion. Any nationwide enthusiasm will be gone by October. Don't look for any serious 3rd party candidate to run a reconciliation campaign, despite encouraging media speculation. Remember, the media players want tight, multi dimensional races in order to have more to say and keep viewers paying attention. While on the subject, look for a long writer's strike. Much will ride on how willing TV viewers will be to watch substitute programming. With all the hedge fund money swirling around, don't be shocked if there is a bid to buy a network. And with mandatory digital coming in 2009, the face of network and cable TV may be substantially changed--and not for the better.
    The 2 biggest issues, corruption and the environment, won't get sufficient attention. Under Bush, there won't be adequate health care reform. Housing, affordable housing that is, will be a bigger problem. Education reform will slide for another year. In short, little will get better as the country waits for a new presidential administration. We will ignore the rest of the world unless violence grabs our attention.
    Any positive breakthroughs will come in the form of medical, computing/communication and/or energy technology advances and implementation. Changes in the way we receive words and pictures are fluid and some new phenomena may burst out as "the next best thing". But more will be under financial stress and class separation will grow, leading to a nastier cultural milieu. January 1, 2008
JBM
GO BACK TO TOP