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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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