Skip to content

Bringing the light of democracy to Afghanistan

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Via Americablog, this is something of which everyone should be aware:

A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet. The sentence is then upheld by the country’s rulers. This is Afghanistan – not in Taliban times but six years after “liberation” and under the democratic rule of the West’s ally Hamid Karzai.

The fate of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh has led to domestic and international protests, and deepening concern about erosion of civil liberties in Afghanistan. He was accused of blasphemy after he downloaded a report from a Farsi website which stated that Muslim fundamentalists who claimed the Koran justified the oppression of women had misrepresented the views of the prophet Mohamed.

If you’re going to run an Empire the least you can do is do it right. Who allowed these people to set up religious courts with the power to impose death sentences?

Filed in Empire, Religion | | Comments (0)

Debate blogging

Thursday, January 31, 2008

We turned our TV on for the first time in months to watch Clinton and Obama debate in California. For my own part, it made me feel great about the party, because I got the impression that each of them is ready to take it to the Republicans and either of them would make a fine president.

Just one little thing. Clinton is still exposed on Iraq, and it’s really a shame she just can’t admit she blew it when she voted for war. At one point she channeled Condi when she said: “No one could have fully appreciated how obsessed this President was” about starting a war in Iraq.

Well, I guess I’m no one. I guess thousands of people who took the time to educate themselves on the issue were nobodies, and I guess all of us who realized that we were watching the world’s biggest con job were nobodies. Add to that the millions who knew that there was zero chance that there would be no war after that vote, despite the pro forma claim that war was a last resort. I give Clinton too much credit for intelligence to believe that she really believed she was giving Bush the tools to negotiate. She knew she was voting for war.

In all other respects, I thought she did a great job as did Obama. Each one of them appear to have found a way to properly package realistic thinking. I thought Obama was better responding to Wolf Blitzer’s outrage at the prospect that his taxes would be raised. Hillary was a bit too wonkish on that, though they both made the same basic point: Wolfie, you’ve had 8 years of a tax cut you didn’t deserve; you can’t complain if we put you back where you belong. It was truly refreshing to see two politicians not run for cover when a questioner accused them of “raising” taxes.

Interesting too that the crowd erupted at the prospect of the two of them on the same ticket. That would be something.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (1)

Crunch time

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

The Time has come, as the Walrus said. With John Edwards dropping out today, I find I must finally make a choice between Hillary and Barack. I knew this day would come, but I’m still not ready. My wife is no help. This is an even numbered day, so she’s for Hillary. Odd numbered days she’s for Barack. Of course, that pattern changes on the first, since there will be two odd days in a row, so it looks like she’ll be voting for Hillary.

There’s two considerations of course. Which can win, and which would be the better president.

Hillary must be a person of great personal strength. No one would voluntarily expose themselves to the onslaught of pure hate that will be directed at her if she gets the nomination. She has no illusions about what she’s getting into, and she’s doing it anyway. Were I in the same position, I think I’d take a pass. Not only does she know it’s coming, but she’s ready and willing to give as good as she gets. I’m not sure Barack either appreciates what will be in store for him, or is ready to fight back. If he really believes his talk about bi-partisan sweetness and light then he’s in for a shocker. But, if he can keep to that line while effectively dealing with the opposition, then he could do well. But, granting that Hillary is ready to fight back, have she and Bill perhaps developed political tin ears. Their negative campaign against Obama has been unsuccessful to date, but maybe they would be more effective against their natural enemies.

This might well be the dirtiest campaign in history. McCain has learned his lesson, and he’s prepared to sling mud. He’ll be enabled by the media, for whom he can do no wrong.

On balance, I’d say Hillary is more prepared for the road to the White House.

As to once they get there, I’m inclined toward Obama. I think he has the potential to be a more successful president. Hillary will be a repeat in many ways of the Clinton years. The media and the right will combine to gang up on her, and she will have difficulty accomplishing anything. Moreover, it’s pretty clear that her goals, as she has articulated them, are modest. We won’t have any startling departure from the status quo. Were she to try, the right would go into attack mode, and she’d get nowhere. They will not be cowed by her victory, no matter how overwhelming it might be, and I question whether she could rally the country around her. People will vote for her because they don’t want the alternative, and because they know she’ll do a competent job. Obama, on the other hand, generates real enthusiasm, and the Republicans might find themselves on the defensive if they get too oppositional with him. Maybe, once he’s elected, he’ll move toward the left a bit, and forcefully articulate a progressive vision, something he certainly hasn’t done yet. He’s certainly more of a blank slate than she is. Both would be good presidents, he has an outside chance to be a great president. On the other hand, if he really believes that bilge about Reagan he was spewing, then we have a problem.

I truly wish that Edwards had stayed in, so I could put off this choice. I have a sinking feeling I’ll be making it in the voting booth. My consolation, and it’s a big one, is that I could support either one with as much enthusiasm as a confirmed cynic can muster.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

America’s Mayor

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Via Atrios, I couldn’t resist:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AH47iuMTuC8[/youtube]

Filed in Media, Presidential Politics | | Comments (1)

The Times: what FISA bill?

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

I realize that it is mandatory that the press cover the State of the Union address, so I am not criticizing the New York Times for doing so. However, it is emblematic of all that is wrong with the press in this nation that the real important event that took place yesterday, the fact that the Senate Democrats finally took a stand, however temporary, against the White House and Senate Republicans on FISA, was not covered at all. There is not a single article in the Times on the issue.

There is a brief mention of it in the article reporting on the speech, in which the issue is cast in a light favorable to Bush:

He asked lawmakers to make his tax cuts permanent, and implored them to renew legislation permitting intelligence officials to eavesdrop on the communications of terrorism suspects and to provide legal immunity to phone companies that have helped in the wiretapping efforts.

The bill doesn’t just permit intelligence officials to eavesdrop on terrorism suspects, it permits them to eavedrop on all international communications and opens the door for even wider abuses. The article implies that the phone companies were co-operating with wiretaps authorized by the bill, but in fact they were engaging in clearly illegal wiretaps, which they knew to be illegal, at a period before the present law was in effect.

But, back to the coverage. There’s an even briefer mention in an article about Congressional reaction to the speech which notes that Clinton and Obama returned to the Senate “for a couple of intelligence-related votes”.

The FISA debate got less ink in the Times than the heartwarming vignette about the Bush twins taking time off from partying to watch Daddy give a State of the Union speech for the very first time.

Bush’s speech will be old news tomorrow. The FISA votes go to the heart of our democracy. The fact that this issue, so heavily covered on the blogs (see firedoglake’s coverage, for example), is ignored by the Times speaks volumes about the real State of the Union.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Media | | Comments (0)

Was Willard Wired?

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

In the interest of fairness (and in Willard’s case it’s hard to be interested), I must report that my source for the claim that Willard’s handlers admitted he takes direction at debates from a remote puppeteer (a la George Bush), now reports that his source is suspect.

This doesn’t mean that he wasn’t wearing a wire, only that there has been no admission. I guess I’m actually inclined to believe he wasn’t wearing a wire, since it would be far easier to just update his internal programming before every appearance.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Poor George, people are ignoring his economic miracle

Monday, January 28, 2008

We adjourned our Charter Revision Commission early enough to allow for members to watch the State of the Union. I’m no masochist, so I won’t be tuning in. In fact, I’ll soon be turning in, because I’m dead tired.

But I did want to point out this very interesting phenomenon, which Dean Baker points out at the American Prospect.

The New York Times reports this morning:

Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents. Yet much to the consternation of his political advisers, he has had trouble getting credit for it, in large part because Americans were consumed by the war in Iraq.

There’s a similar lead in an article in the Day, which was culled from the Washington Post:

For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation’s strong economic performance because of public discontent over the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.

Apparently, the strong economic performance is proven by the fact that Bush and his handlers say there has been strong economic performance. The facts (in the form of average annual GDP growth), to which we reality based folks still cling, seem to state otherwise:

President Bush’s growth record is better than his father’s, but it is worse than the record of every other president in the last half century. It’s not clear why [other presidents] would be envious. It is also not clear what his political advisers have to complain about.

Yet complain they do, and in the fact free zone that is our mainstream media, that’s good enough. If they say economic growth has been strong under Bush, why look at the facts. After all, would Bush or his handlers lie to us?

Addendum: the other premise of these quotes is wrong too. Bush is not getting credit for the “improvement in Iraq” because 1) the surge has not succeeded on the terms on which it was sold, and 2) everyone suspects, and rightly so, that the situation will go south again soon.

Filed in Economics, Media | | Comments (0)

Willard wearing a wire

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Willard Romney’s campaign confirms that he wears an earpiece so that his handlers can feed him debate responses. I wonder if he wears it in other venues, and whether they tailor his responses to suit the audience of the moment.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (1)

The Day hearts USA Today

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Today we readers of the Day are invited to vote among several new “looks” for the Day, each of which is a variation on the USA Today theme of less is less. Each dedicates more space on the lead pages (not sure about inside pages) to useless graphics. Needless to say, “none of the above” is not an option.

Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Of late, the Day has been following the Courant’s lead in headlining fluff. Recently, for example, we were treated to a front page story about a local lad who felt compelled to realize himself by going into the trade of boxing. It is not clear why we dedicating one’s life to bashing and getting bashed merited a front page, and of course, adulatory story.

The sad thing about all this is that there is no excuse for the trivialization of journalism at the Day. It is owned by a charitable trust. One purpose of the trust was to:

“preserve the newspaper as, to paraphrase Bodenwein’s will, a protector of the public interest and defender of the people’s rights.”

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Too rich to fail

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Query: should it make us feel better to know that the folks in the bottom 99% of the top 1% sometimes take a hit quite like that we bottom 99ers so often take from them? (Can you follow that?)

In today’s Times we learn that the guys most directly responsible for losing billions at the top financial institution (who often walked away with multi-million dollar severance packages) are being actively sought for high paying jobs to wreak destruction elsewhere, while the folks at the bottom of that section of the totem pole who were laid off due to the fallout from the havoc caused by those exalted few have few if any prospects for finding new jobs:

Under the stewardship of Dow Kim and Thomas G. Maheras, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup built positions in subprime-related securities that led to $34 billion in write-downs last year. The debacle cost chief executives their jobs and brought two of the world’s premier financial institutions to their knees.

In any other industry, Mr. Kim and Mr. Maheras would be pariahs. But in the looking-glass world of Wall Street, they — and others like them — are hot properties. The two executives are well on their way to reviving their careers, even as global markets shudder at the prospect that Merrill and Citigroup may report further subprime losses in the coming months.

Who can blame them. After all, no one but the looney left saw this one coming. In any event, they have precedent on their side:

Perhaps the most notorious example of failure leading to prosperity is John Meriwether. Ousted from Salomon Brothers in 1991 for his role in a bond trading scandal, he became a co-founder of Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund that nearly collapsed in 1998, rattling markets worldwide. He has since founded a second fund, JWM Partners, with assets of around $3 billion.

More recently, Brian Hunter, the energy trader at Amaranth Advisors whose disastrous bets led to the disintegration of that $9 billion hedge fund, is now advising a private equity fund called Peak Ridge on starting a hedge fund. Howard A. Rubin, a trader at Merrill Lynch, who lost $377 million in 1987, quickly landed a job at Bear Stearns, where he had a successful career.

But for the relatively hapless folks occupying the lower rungs, things don’t look so good:

The quick comebacks of these executives stand in stark contrast to the plight of the hundreds of investment bankers who have received pink slips in the last two weeks. They also illuminate a peculiar aspect of Wall Street’s own version of a class divide. Senior movers and shakers often land on their feet, no matter how egregious the losses tied to them. The industry rank and file, however, from mergers-and-acquisitions bankers at Bank of America to sales executives in Citigroup’s hedge-fund servicing business, see their jobs eliminated despite being far removed from the subprime crisis.

Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)