What 2010 Meant

The Lame Duck Congress has ended the year with a Marathon of Epic Legislation.  I can't help being impressed.  Obama said he wanted Congress to do with Don't Ask Don't Tell, to repeal it legislatively, and not have it end up as a court-mandated order.  I can understand this, especially given the rightward shift of the judiciary.  But the way in which he went about it seemed doomed and certainly angered a lot of people who thought he was breaking a campaign promise.  (The puzzling lunacy of his own justice department challenging a court-led effort must have looked like one more instance of Obama backing off from what he'd said he was going to do.)  I am a bit astonished that he got his way. A great deal of the apparent confusion over Obama's actions could stem from his seeming insistence that Congress do the heavy lifting for much of his agenda.  And while there's a lot to be said for going this route, what's troubling is his failure to effectively use the bully pulpit in his own causes.  And the fact that he has fallen short on much.   It would be, perhaps, reassuring to think that his strategy is something well-considered, that things the public knows little about will come to fruition by, say, his second term. (Will he have a second term?  Unless Republicans can front someone with more brains and less novelty than a Sarah Palin and more weight than a Mitt Romney, probably.  I have seen no one among the GOP ranks who looks even remotely electable.  The thing that might snuff Obama's chances would be a challenge from the Democrats themselves, but that would require a show of conviction the party has been unwilling overall to muster.) The Crash of 2008 caused a panic of identity.  Unemployment had been creeping upward prior to that due to a number of factors, not least of which is the chronic outsourcing that has become, hand-in-glove, as derided a practice as CEO compensation packages and "golden parachutes," and just as protected in practice by a persistent nostalgia that refuses to consider practical solutions that might result in actual interventions in the way we do business.  No one wants the jobs to go overseas but no one wants to impose protectionist policies on companies that outsource.  Just as no one likes the fact that top management is absurdly paid for jobs apparently done better 40 years ago by people drawing a tenth the amount, but no one wants to impose corrective policies that might curtail what amounts to corporate pillage.  It is the nostalgia for an America everyone believes once existed that functioned by the good will of its custodians and did not require laws to force people to do the morally right thing.  After a couple decades of hearing the refrain "You can't legislate morality" it has finally sunk in but for the wrong segment of social practice. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingWhat 2010 Meant

Progressives need a story

I have previously written about the importance of storytelling. It is arguably the most effective way to make a memorable and effective argument. In the January 3, 2011 edition of The Nation, Eric Alterman argues that conservatives have a story and progressives do not.

[I]f you ask most Americans what conservatives believe will fix whatever is wrong with America at any given time, they can give you a simple, coherent response: lower taxes, less government, more “freedom.” It may be wrong. It may benefit only the rich. But it is easy to understand and repeat, particularly when billions of dollars have been invested to make it appear plausible.… Liberals do not appear to address potential solutions with anything like the far right's aura of God-given self-confidence.
Alterman points out that the Democrats' lack of a story lets Republicans run wild. It allows Republicans to proudly argue for “a tax 'compromise' with the president in which they are happy to assign more than 133 billion (out of a total of 347 billion) to fewer than five million Americans--the five million who are already lucky enough to be earning more than $250,000 per year.”

Continue ReadingProgressives need a story

The Money & Media Election Compex

John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney have put together about the best description that I've ever seen of the what ails us. Look, if we can't elect unbiased representatives and if our media can't fairly report the events of the day, what chance do we have of peacefully reforming the corrupt system we have? It turns out that these two problems are intimately connected. Here are a couple excerpts about ourMoney & Media Election Complex, which appeared in the November 29, 2010 edition ofThe Nation:

[I]t's not just corporations and consultants who are setting the new agenda. The most important yet least-recognized piece of the money-and-media election complex is the commercial broadcasting industry, which just had its best money-making election season ever. Political advertising has become an enormous cash cow for it—roughly two-thirds of the campaign spending this year flowed into the coffers of TV stations; the final figure is likely to be well above $2 billion. Whereas in the 1990s the average commercial TV station received about 3 percent of its revenues from campaign ads, this year campaign money could account for as much as 20 percent. And station owners are not missing a beat; thirty-second spots that went for $2,000 in 2008 were jacked up to $5,000 this year, according to the Los Angeles Times. Much of this money will go to stations owned by a handful of Fortune 500 firms. No wonder station owners oppose campaign finance reform; their lobby role in Washington is similar to the NRA's in battling bans on assault weapons. Yet commercial broadcasters receive monopoly licenses for their scarce channels at no charge from the government under the condition that they serve the public interest. By any account, the most important role of our media is to make the electoral system serve the voters, who, as surveys continue to demonstrate, rely on local TV as their main source for news. However, local TV covers far less than it did two or three decades ago; according to the Norman Lear Center at the University of Southern California, a thirty-minute newscast at election time has more political advertising than campaign news. Even when politics does get covered, the focus, increasingly, is on "analyzing" ads. And the cumulative effect of endless advertising overwhelms what little remains of independent on-air coverage. What incentive do commercial stations have to cover politics when they can force candidates and players to pay for it? Nice work if you can get it.
Are we lacking in options? Hardly:
Gathering the data and grilling the guilty players will make the case for fundamental reform, which must come at multiple levels. The FCC could require stations to grant equal advertising time to any candidate who is attacked in an ad paid for by corporations, with the free response ad to immediately follow the hit job. The FCC should consider requiring free TV ads for every candidate on the ballot if any candidate buys his or her own spots. This would allow wealthy candidates access but would prevent them from shouting everyone else down. Let the stations jack up rates to cover all the time, if they want. We suspect the appeal of TV ads will decline if the result is simply to open an equal debate rather than allow one side to dominate. And of course there is the long-overdue matter of providing free airtime to candidates and requiring debates to be broadcast. Radical ideas? Hardly. Much of what we're talking about was outlined in the original version of the McCain-Feingold bill of the 1990s and in other proposals advanced over the years. It's time to renew them.

Continue ReadingThe Money & Media Election Compex

Not torture = torture

Anyone who reads this post from David E. Coombs, Bradley Manning's lawyer will realize that Bradley Manning is being tortured by the United States of America. He is being tortured in our name. Bradley Manning has not been convicted of any crime. Even if he were convicted of a hideous crime, torture would be immoral. The United States claims that it is not torturing Manning, but consider one example of many disgraceful revelations made by David E. Coombs:

The guards are required to check on PFC Manning every five minutes by asking him if he is okay. PFC Manning is required to respond in some affirmative manner. At night, if the guards cannot see PFC Manning clearly, because he has a blanket over his head or is curled up towards the wall, they will wake him in order to ensure he is okay.
What the phuque. This is not making sure he is "OK," as the military claims. Rather, this is sleep deprivation and it is a way to damage cognitive functioning. For those who suggest that this is not a problem, would they ever allow this to be done to someone they loved? And why is it that medical websites universally caution that we get enough sleep?
Learning and memory: Sleep helps the brain commit new information to memory through a process called memory consolidation. In studies, people who’d slept after learning a task did better on tests later. Metabolism and weight: Chronic sleep deprivation may cause weight gain by affecting the way our bodies process and store carbohydrates, and by altering levels of hormones that affect our appetite. Safety: Sleep debt contributes to a greater tendency to fall asleep during the daytime. These lapses may cause falls and mistakes such as medical errors, air traffic mishaps, and road accidents. Mood: Sleep loss may result in irritability, impatience, inability to concentrate, and moodiness. Too little sleep can also leave you too tired to do the things you like to do. Cardiovascular health: Serious sleep disorders have been linked to hypertension, increased stress hormone levels, and irregular heartbeat. Disease: Sleep deprivation alters immune function, including the activity of the body’s killer cells. Keeping up with sleep may also help fight cancer.
Why would anyone do this to anyone else, other than to torture them? Why, especially, would you do this to a man who has never been convicted of a crime? This is the character of the perennial war-monger totalitarian state coming through loud and clear, and Barack Obama is not willing to step in and call a halt to this despicably immoral situation. Bradley Manning had the guts to speak truth to power, and now, in my name and yours, he is being made into a hideous example so that none of the rest of us get any foolish ideas.

Continue ReadingNot torture = torture

Ralph Nader and Julian Assange on Wikimania

Ralph Nader has commented about the government witchhunt of Wikileaks:

Secrecy-keeping the people and Congress in the dark-is the cancer eating at the vitals of democracy. What is remarkable about all the official hullabaloo by government officials, who leak plenty themselves, is that there never is any indictment or prosecution of government big wigs who continually suppress facts and knowledge in order to carry out very devastating actions like invading Iraq under false pretenses and covering up corporate contractors abuses. The morbid and corporate-indentured secrecy of government over the years has cost many American lives, sent Americans to illegal wars, bilked consumers of billions of dollars and harmed the safety and economic well-being of workers.

Meanwhile, Julian Assange warned those who work for traditional media outlets that they should not try to dissociate the work of Wikileaks from the work that they do. In fact, he argues that once the U.S. government criminally prosecutes him, that they will be next, and that will be the end of serious government journalism. This link includes a long interview with Assange by Cenk Uygur of MSNBC. Here's what he had to say about the various calls for him to be illegally murdered, coming from several prominent American politicians:

If we are to have a civil society, you cannot have senior people making calls on national TV to go around the judiciary and illegally murder people," he said. "That is incitement to commit murder.

Continue ReadingRalph Nader and Julian Assange on Wikimania