Wednesday, August 8, 2007
In this morning’s Day we learn that John Edwards failed to score points with a union crowd in Chicago at a candidates debate. The debate took place before a large and raucous union crowd. How do we know that Edwards failed to score? Well, we don’t have to take the reporter’s (a labor reporter no less) word for it. Look at who confirmed his story line for him:
“I thought the candidates left the forum in exactly the same condition they came in,” said Marick Masters, professor of business administration with the Katz Business School at the University of Pittsburgh. “Clinton and Obama are still the front-runners. The race is still between them. I don’t think Edwards got in any major hits in this stadium.”
What’s that you say? You have your doubts about whether a professor of business administration necessarily talks for union members? Not to worry, there’s more:
Democratic analyst Donna Brazile said Clinton did a great impression of playing Muhammad Ali during the debate, dodging and weaving as her rivals threw punches.
“The other candidates are trying to take a piece of her but failed,” Brazile said. “She can avoid the punches and still land some blows. That speaks volumes on why she’s the front-runner.”
Still not impressed? A tad suspicious that Ms. Brazile might be a Clinton supporter, and that her analysis might be a tad slanted? Have no fear. A quick Google search fails to turn up a single instance in which she has expressed direct support for Hillary (this year). Please ignore the fact that she has been a member of the Clinton retinue for years.
As to union members or leaders? Not a single one is quoted.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
More short sightedness from the Democrats, at least according to the LA Times:
Democrats are not winning the battle to force Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales from office, stymied by a legal system that gives the Bush administration wide discretion to block investigations of itself. And they are not getting the White House witnesses or records they have demanded in recent weeks.
But many Democrats are fine with that.
Although they may prove fruitless, the Democrats’ investigative efforts may help keep President Bush and his administration the center of attention in next year’s elections, even as the Republican Party chooses a new standard-bearer and tries to move on.
It’s all well and good that the Democrats may be able to use Gonzales as a political issue in 2008, but it comes at the cost of demonstrating Congressional (and by extension, Democratic) impotence in the face of an imperial president. We can’t for a moment believe that the lesson will be lost on the next Republican president. When you govern an alleged democracy in the interests of a plutocracy, you tend to look for ways to get around democratic institutions. Bush has done just that, with relish. Nor can we be sure that the electorate will respond as the Democrats expect-they may just stay away from the polls in disgust at a system that is clearly rotten.
The article goes on to give the standard patter about how the Congress lacks the power to enforce its subpoenas, dismissing the power of inherent contempt in a single paragraph:
A third option involves a proceeding known as inherent contempt, in which the House would hold a mini-trial along the lines of an impeachment. The last time that was tried: 1935.
Tried successfully, it might be added. If the Congress refuses to flex its muscles, those muscles will atrophy. The myth that only the executive can enforce Congressional subpoenas will harden into settled law unless Congress uses its powers now. Miers, Rove, et. al. might keep their mouths shut if they were put in prison. So be it. At least their imprisonment would serve as an object lesson that one must pay the price if one blows off Congress.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
The Town of Springfield, Vermont is thinking of starting a museum commemorating its first in the nation showing of the Simpsons Movie. So reports the Eagle Times, Springfield’s local paper. You won’t, for some reason, find the story on the web. At least it’s not yet up. My search on the site for “Simpsons” revealed, as you might imagine, several stories about America’s favorite family, but not the one that’s in Sunday’s paper, which I read the old fashioned way:
The premiere brought national and international attention to Springfield, along with thousands of people looking to catch a glimpse of those involved in the show and movie. Simpsons lovers have continued to stop by not just to get a photograph with the town’s 13-foot landmark, but also to see the movie in the place where it was first shown.
As the movie continues to rake in millions at the box office, Springfield hopes to continue leveraging the exposure into longer term benefits.
The 13 foot landmark mentioned is the giant “Hand with Donut in Yellow and Pink” immortalized in these pages. Also slated for the museum is the couch on which the seated Simpsons watch the movie in the theater (also pictured on these pages). The question remains, how many people are dumb enough to go all the way to Springfield, Vermont just to see a movie where it was premiered or to see a bunch of Simpson’s kitsch?
One clue: We who live in the Mystic area know that tourists still line up to take their pictures in front of Mystic Pizza, the site at which the eponymous film was not filmed and which, at the time the movie was made, was a truly wretched pizza place. On the other hand, the town of Springfield, Vermont may find itself following its cartoon namesake into yet another failed community endeavor.
Neither we nor our visitors here in Vermont had seen the Simpsons Movie, and we all agreed that today, which started out rainy, would be the perfect day to see the movie in Springfield, Vermont, where it received its world premiere. We took in the matinee at the bargain price of $5.00 each. Here’s proof, consisting of a picture of yours truly in front of the historic Springfield Theater.
As further proof, of a sort, that we were on holy ground, I submit this picture of the back of the sculpture, where you can see the original artwork of Matt Groening and Mike Silverman. Click on the picture for a larger view.
I have no idea if all this stuff is at every theater, but inside the Simpsons themselves were watching the movie, with an extra seat on the couch for anyone who wanted to join them. Unfortunately, it was quite dark in the theater, so this picture is not the best. The lady rubbing Homer’s head is Lisa Shafer-Gill, who is visiting with us from Ohio.
Via the Seminal, we learn that Russia ranks 102nd of 167 countries in the scale of democracy, at least according to the Economist.
I neither endorse nor quarrel with the views of the Seminal writer. My immediate reaction was: Where stands the cradle of democracy, the land of the new birth of freedom, the country in which we ask the question whether any nation can survive which was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. How is democracy in that storied place?
Well, according to the Economist, we have slipped from Number One (circa 1776) to number 17, just behind Malta and Spain. It might salve a few right wing consciences to know that we are ahead of France, but that has to be more than balanced by the news that the bastion of socialism, Sweden, is number one.
Give the Economist credit, it draws the distinction between “democracy” and “liberal democracy”, recognizing that it is the latter that is the desirable form of government. (Note to Republican readers: do some homework before going ballistic).
If we are in fact as high as 17th on the list, it speaks volumes for the sorry state of democracy worldwide. In this world, at the present time, the extent of media concentration and government control thereof is the most important predictor of democratic health. By that measure, (not to mention our recent history of stolen elections and civil liberties violations) we are slipping rapidly toward the “flawed democracies” category. Can the internet save us? Stay tuned.
Every time Bush fails at something, he asks for increased authority. Every time he asks, Congress gives it to him. He then fails again, and asks again. Why this vicious cycle? In a word, Democrats continue to be frightened every time he accuses them of being soft on terror. The latest chapter is the expansion of FISA powers recently voted by both houses. Both houses essentially caved to Bush’s demands, with Democrats providing the vital edge. What is wrong with these people? There’s not a single power that they’ve given Bush that he hasn’t abused. It would almost be excusable if the abuse achieved results, but it never does.
Particularly irritating is this latest round, in which they selectively leak information supportive of their position while refusing to answer questions about the program in Congressional hearings.
It is with mixed emotions that I must report that my usual source of free internet service here at our vacation place in Vermont seems to have dried up this year. On the one hand, it means I can’t keep up with what’s going on in the world, making it difficult for me to blog. On the other hand, it means I can’t keep up with what’s going on in the world, giving me the perfect excuse not to blog. If and when this entry gets posted it is because I have made the trek to Java Baba’s in Ludlow, where I must pay through the nose for internet access, drastically reducing the time I can spend browsing and keeping up with the news.
Since at the moment I have nothing much to say, I am going to do another of my infrequent restaurant reviews.
We went to the Wagon Wheel in Gill, Massachusetts (about 2 miles from 91 taking Route 2 east)for breakfast on Saturday, on the recommendation of a friend, and I highly recommend it. The food was great, with an emphasis on locally grown and produced foods. But it was the decor that was unique. There are four tables for inside dining in an alcove in this fifties style roadside eatery. Of the three walls, one was covered with paint-by-the-numbers art; the other two by State commemorative plates. Interspersed with the plates were a host of schlocky clocks. Truly a case of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Individually, each piece was tasteless kitsch, but collectively they worked together brilliantly. The woman who created this display of Americana told us that she was particularly proud of the two paint by the numbers clown faces, which truly were archetypal examples of the form. The only thing lacking, she said, was a paint-by-the-numbers kitten, for which she is still searching. She had found the perfect setting for her collections of down scale Americana, and she displayed it with the skill of a curator.
I regret to say that I didn’t have my camera with me, or I’d be inflicting pictures on my readers. It’s well worth a stop at breakfast or lunchtime if you’re on your way to Vermont.
By the way, between the time I penned the first paragraph and the last, I started picking up a signal from the system whose signals I traditionally purloin. Hence, this post.
Saturday we make our annual trek to Vermont, and I’ll likely be pretty busy tomorrow getting ready. I’m hoping that once again once we get there we will have free Wi-Fi leaking into the house we are renting.
In any event, for the next couple of days, you won’t be hearing much from me.
By the way, a new kind of comment spam has been cropping up (no, not John McCommass), which I am doing my best to combat. At least two posts have slipped through the spam filters that I have installed, one for some sort of loan company and one that I don’t care to describe. I’ve deleted both. Unfortunately, if I’m unable to get on the internet for stretches of time I’m unaware of these things, so if you see a comment of that sort please chalk it up to the fact that I am unaware that it’s there. I am deleting them as soon as I find out about them. This isn’t a free speech issue, since these comments are all from spammers trying to sell something.
I love it when I see things on the net that echo something I’ve already written. I realize that such a reaction is rather childish, but there it is. I direct my readers to this article (Challenging the GOP’s Filibluster) from the American Prospect. In it, Andy Balkan makes the same points about the Democratic response to the Republican filibusters that I made here, here and here. (Since those posts were in real time they evolve a bit as I learned more about what Harry Reid was actually doing).
Balkan argues that Reid set a trap for himself by announcing beforehand that he would cut off debate on the Defense Bill after holding 30 hours of debate. The Republicans simply waited him out. He also argues that the Democrats should force the Republicans to really filibuster and that the first battle should be over a bill that has wide support in the country. He suggests that the debate be over the Webb Amendment, which mandates that American troops get sufficient rest between combat assignments.
Why? First off, the Webb amendment is exceptionally popular. Republicans can’t seriously oppose more rest and recuperation time for soldiers and marines. They’ll say that Congress shouldn’t micro-manage the war, but with many troops on their third tour in Iraq, that argument doesn’t carry much weight. Second, because the vote was so close last time, at the outset of this debate the outcome would be in sincere doubt. Add to that the fact that such Very Serious Republicans as John Warner and Dick Lugar have long billed September as the moment of truth regarding Bush’s surge, they may finally (with some pushing) feel the need to vote against the president, and the Webb amendment offers the perfect “non-defeat” bill on which to do it. All of this adds real uncertainty — which constitutes exactly the drama that the press loves. If Reid can keep the floor debate going for 3 or 4 days, the excitement will only build — if the Senate is deadlocked over the fate of thousands of U.S. soldiers, America will tune in.
I agree 100%. How could I not, since Balkan agrees with me 100%. I find it amazing that the Democrats apparently still believe that if they fight according to the Marquis of Queensbury rules, that guy kicking them in the balls is, at some point, going to see the error of his ways and stop.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Digby has a (as usual) excellent post today in response to David Frum’s observation that Republicans would be ahead even among the youth of this country if we only count white people. Frum makes no attempt to hide the fact that his underlying assumption is that white folks are the only legitimate Americans:
the legacy that will damage [George Bush’s] party is the legacy of immigration non-enforcement. This has imported a large new community of people who are both economically struggling (and thus open to Democratic arguments) but who lack deep attachment to the American nation (and who are thus immune to the most potent of Republican appeals). It is these voters who will sway elections in future. And thanks to this president’s immigration policies, there are going to be a lot more of them than there might otherwise have been.
Digby does a good job at demolishing these arguments, which practically refute themselves in any event. More interesting, she goes on to argue that it is racism like Frum’s that has inhibited the development in this country of social programs resembling those in Western Europe.
Sociologist Nathan Glazer of Harvard, who has long been interested in America’s underdeveloped welfare state, answers a related question — “Why Americans don’t care about income inequality” which may give us some clues. Citing a comprehensive study by economists Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser of Harvard and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth called, “Why Doesn’t the United States have a European-Style Welfare State?” (Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2/2001) he shows that the reluctance of Americans to embrace an egalitarian economic philosophy goes back to the beginning of the republic. But what is interesting is that both he and the economists offer some pretty conclusive evidence that the main reason for American “exceptionalism” in this case is, quite simply, racism.
Beyond the points she makes, I think another part of the dynamic is one explained brilliantly by Bob Dylan in one of his early songs: “Only a Pawn in Their Game“. Politicians and ruling elites in this country have used race as a handy tool to divide people who actually have common interests:
A South politician preaches to the poor white man,
“You got more than the blacks, don’t complain.
You’re better than them, you been born with white skin,” they explain.
And the Negro’s name
Is used it is plain
For the politician’s gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game.
The demagoguery has become a bit more refined since then, though lately it has reverted to language almost as crude. The basic tactic hasn’t changed though. In fact, it can be convincingly argued that the modern Republican party’s achieved its recent (past 36 years) successes more to exploitation of racism than to appeals to religious bigotry or to its alliance with corporate interests. It is far easier to get a person in this country to feel resentment toward someone worse off than them (particularly if that person has a different skin color) than it is to get them exorcised about the fact that a hedge fund manager making hundreds of million dollars a year pays less taxes than they do.