If you read these thoughts on the last debate by liberal blogger Digby you find this little gem:
“If I had to pick a winner, I think tonight was Obama's night. He seemed loose and comfortable and in charge. He certainly had the best laugh line ---“
Liberals and Democrats just don’t get it. They continue to choose based upon who looks best or who is the most “electable”, not based on the quality of ideas.
What the Republicans realized a long time ago, is the electorate prefers conviction over looks, and values over electability. It does not matter if 99% of it is crap. The electorate wants consistency. They want to know where a candidate stands. They equate this with leadership, even if they disagree with the position. They do not want a wishy washy, flip flopper, who gives a complicated answer they cannot follow or understand. Republicans are not dumb, they know how to speak in complete sentences. It is Democrats who are too stupid to realize they have to communicate to an audience with the attention span of a 5 year old, who has just downed a litre of caffeinated pop and needs to find a toilet fast
Democratic candidates need to learn how to speak in simple declarative sentences. Democratic voters need to listen to what candidates say, and not how they look. For gosh sake forget the Nixon-Kennedy debate already. That was almost 50 years ago.
Pay attention dammit! Democrats have only had the White House once in the past 27 years. It is because they need to act more like Republicans, not be more like Republicans.
I like Ted Rall’s take on this.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Iranian Threat?
Iran has become the new cause of some conservatives. During Tuesday’s GOP Presidential debate, Duncan Hunter said he would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I hear other rumblings too. Last week heard one conservative say he prays that Bush will bomb Iran.
Well I don’t get it. Actually I do get it, but figure it is all a sham. What we are being told is not the reality of the situation. To a tin foil hat wearing nut case like me, the reality looks like this:
Iran is a democracy. Not one that follows the western model to be sure, but certainly more so than the former Soviet Union. Or our allies Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The religious fundamentalists have a lot of influence on the lives of Iranians, but there is an opposition and forces that would like to see a more liberal society in that country. This opposition is tolerated and given a chance might even be able to exert some influence. Would Iran become a secular state in a generation? Probably not, however remember that the country does have a democratic tradition that was squashed during the cold war.
The last thing the U.S. conservatives want is a liberal, secular Iran. This would present many problems for their allies in the region. Additionally, it eliminates an external enemy. The classic solution of a regime without a real base of support is to create external enemies to distract the populous from domestic issues. The conservatives need external enemies to distract us from the complete failure of conservative economic and social policies. Because conservatives need a threat, and Iran conveniently fills that role, they take actions that push Iran more and more toward the theocratic conservatives. I see this as a symbiosis of sorts. The external threat of the United States, helps to keep the theocratic conservatives in Iran in power.
It is useful to get beyond the domestic media when it comes to Iran. We only hear a very narrow party line in this country. This link to the BBC back ground page on Iran gives a more rational perspective here:
Be it Iran, or Chavez in Venezuela, we in the United States, get the line that these governments are somehow irrational. From what I observe, conservatives feel that anyone who does not completely and enthusiastically agree with them is dismissed as irrational or crazy. This is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, where not being completely happy with the “workers paradise” created by the fascists (no they were not any more socialists than the Chinese are today) in that country might land you in a mental institution.
So let’s just take a different perspective on Iran for a moment. It is hard, we are bombarded with a contrary perspective, and you may experience a bit of cognitive dissonance as in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon here:
Still suppose Iran has rational leaders, who, although they do not have the same core values as us, none the less want what is best for the people of Iran. Also suppose they see outside threats from a world and regional nuclear powers, and not without reason, fear attack or invasion by these powers. Anyone who has studied deterrence theory knows that when two parties have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of them being used diminishes. Nuclear weapons are additionally the best deterrent to ground invasion. In spite of what you may want to believe about the bomb, it really is an instrument of peace among rational actors. The latest example being India-Pakistan.
Now let’s take another wild leap. Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. The official line of the Iranian government is that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. All of the controversy is because we, the United States, say they are liars. As a result we have created a hostile environment where Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors complete access to their facilities. It is interesting that the IAEA report on this matter is restricted. I wonder what is so secret? I wonder what would happen if we just took Iran at their word and allowed them to have a nuclear energy program that did not violate the NPT?
There is a rub though. The capability to enrich Uranium is the key to being able to develop a bomb. An Iran with nuclear weapons threatens the hegemony of the only nuclear power in the region. It that a bad thing? Let’s take another baby step away from the conservative propaganda. If deterrence theory is correct, and nuclear weapons help to keep the peace, another nuclear power in the region would most likely make it more peaceful. The outcome might not be the most economically advantageous to the allies of our American conservatives, but it might actually be a good thing for both the majority of the people in the region and the world as a whole. Now, I am just a nut with a funny hat on, but I really don’t believe that the Iranians would give a bomb to “terrorists”. If you do a little research you will find the “suitcase bomb” as it is portrayed in the MSM is a myth. (Compact nuclear weapons take a lot of development, have low yields, and are still beyond the ability of a single person to practically lift and carry around) Giving a bomb to terrorists is irrational, and I just cannot for the life of me see the Iranian government as being any more irrational then our current administration.
But to a nut case like me the current strategy makes sense from the perspective on the conservatives. Even provoking Iran to build nuclear weapons makes sense. Attacking Iran makes sense. It all makes sense if your goal is to perpetuate a “long war” and insure conflict for years to come.
Well I don’t get it. Actually I do get it, but figure it is all a sham. What we are being told is not the reality of the situation. To a tin foil hat wearing nut case like me, the reality looks like this:
Iran is a democracy. Not one that follows the western model to be sure, but certainly more so than the former Soviet Union. Or our allies Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The religious fundamentalists have a lot of influence on the lives of Iranians, but there is an opposition and forces that would like to see a more liberal society in that country. This opposition is tolerated and given a chance might even be able to exert some influence. Would Iran become a secular state in a generation? Probably not, however remember that the country does have a democratic tradition that was squashed during the cold war.
The last thing the U.S. conservatives want is a liberal, secular Iran. This would present many problems for their allies in the region. Additionally, it eliminates an external enemy. The classic solution of a regime without a real base of support is to create external enemies to distract the populous from domestic issues. The conservatives need external enemies to distract us from the complete failure of conservative economic and social policies. Because conservatives need a threat, and Iran conveniently fills that role, they take actions that push Iran more and more toward the theocratic conservatives. I see this as a symbiosis of sorts. The external threat of the United States, helps to keep the theocratic conservatives in Iran in power.
It is useful to get beyond the domestic media when it comes to Iran. We only hear a very narrow party line in this country. This link to the BBC back ground page on Iran gives a more rational perspective here:
Be it Iran, or Chavez in Venezuela, we in the United States, get the line that these governments are somehow irrational. From what I observe, conservatives feel that anyone who does not completely and enthusiastically agree with them is dismissed as irrational or crazy. This is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, where not being completely happy with the “workers paradise” created by the fascists (no they were not any more socialists than the Chinese are today) in that country might land you in a mental institution.
So let’s just take a different perspective on Iran for a moment. It is hard, we are bombarded with a contrary perspective, and you may experience a bit of cognitive dissonance as in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon here:
Still suppose Iran has rational leaders, who, although they do not have the same core values as us, none the less want what is best for the people of Iran. Also suppose they see outside threats from a world and regional nuclear powers, and not without reason, fear attack or invasion by these powers. Anyone who has studied deterrence theory knows that when two parties have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of them being used diminishes. Nuclear weapons are additionally the best deterrent to ground invasion. In spite of what you may want to believe about the bomb, it really is an instrument of peace among rational actors. The latest example being India-Pakistan.
Now let’s take another wild leap. Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. The official line of the Iranian government is that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. All of the controversy is because we, the United States, say they are liars. As a result we have created a hostile environment where Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors complete access to their facilities. It is interesting that the IAEA report on this matter is restricted. I wonder what is so secret? I wonder what would happen if we just took Iran at their word and allowed them to have a nuclear energy program that did not violate the NPT?
There is a rub though. The capability to enrich Uranium is the key to being able to develop a bomb. An Iran with nuclear weapons threatens the hegemony of the only nuclear power in the region. It that a bad thing? Let’s take another baby step away from the conservative propaganda. If deterrence theory is correct, and nuclear weapons help to keep the peace, another nuclear power in the region would most likely make it more peaceful. The outcome might not be the most economically advantageous to the allies of our American conservatives, but it might actually be a good thing for both the majority of the people in the region and the world as a whole. Now, I am just a nut with a funny hat on, but I really don’t believe that the Iranians would give a bomb to “terrorists”. If you do a little research you will find the “suitcase bomb” as it is portrayed in the MSM is a myth. (Compact nuclear weapons take a lot of development, have low yields, and are still beyond the ability of a single person to practically lift and carry around) Giving a bomb to terrorists is irrational, and I just cannot for the life of me see the Iranian government as being any more irrational then our current administration.
But to a nut case like me the current strategy makes sense from the perspective on the conservatives. Even provoking Iran to build nuclear weapons makes sense. Attacking Iran makes sense. It all makes sense if your goal is to perpetuate a “long war” and insure conflict for years to come.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Leaders Inspire People to Follow
Al Gore in an interview with NY Times Columnist Bob Herbert: “But what politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I find I have in short supply”
Exactly! and what American voters want is someone who with cut through that crap. It is the difference between a person with ambition and a real leader. Someone who will tell reporters that they are idiots, and answer other questions with an equal degree of honesty. Someone who really will ignore the polls and the consultants and just be his or her self. Who will lay out what the believe and why and what they think we really ought to do as a nation.
The level of artifice in our politics has gotten to a point that people are numb. They buy into it, tolerate it, or quit participating all together. The elites like the third choice because it concentrates power, and invests more in those who are easily manipulated.
Al Gore could run the campaign of a contrarian. Be an anti candidate. Just get out there and talk to people. No polls, no consultants, limited adverts. Just Al Gore being the wooden, policy wonk, the MSM hates. He would get my vote, and a lot more. He would get my time my energy, and I’ll bet others would follow Al Gore. He is a leader.
Re-elect Gore in ’08!
Exactly! and what American voters want is someone who with cut through that crap. It is the difference between a person with ambition and a real leader. Someone who will tell reporters that they are idiots, and answer other questions with an equal degree of honesty. Someone who really will ignore the polls and the consultants and just be his or her self. Who will lay out what the believe and why and what they think we really ought to do as a nation.
The level of artifice in our politics has gotten to a point that people are numb. They buy into it, tolerate it, or quit participating all together. The elites like the third choice because it concentrates power, and invests more in those who are easily manipulated.
Al Gore could run the campaign of a contrarian. Be an anti candidate. Just get out there and talk to people. No polls, no consultants, limited adverts. Just Al Gore being the wooden, policy wonk, the MSM hates. He would get my vote, and a lot more. He would get my time my energy, and I’ll bet others would follow Al Gore. He is a leader.
Re-elect Gore in ’08!
Friday, June 1, 2007
Don't You Know? Global Warming is a Good Thing
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, on NPR May 31, 2007:
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
This is the new conservative line. In essence: Global warming is a good thing. Yeah I agree a good thing if your goal is to bring on the apocalypse. While I have no doubt this is the ultimate goal of some conservatives, it is not one I with which happen to agree.
As often happens, this leads me to question the underlying motives of the conservative movement. Aristocracy? Theocracy? I don’t know for sure, but I do know it involves the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. The penultimate goal is to show the American experiment in democracy to be a null hypothesis. Why do the conservatives hate America? Because in addition to economic liberty, to which they pay lip service, but support established interests who manipulate markets to concentrate wealth, it also offers social liberty. Conservatism is a movement based upon racism, and maintaining the long standing social order.
How does this relate to global warming? Controlling this man made phenomena will require a revolution. Changing all 7 aspects of society, in the classic definition of that term. This sort of change causes a reordering of things that displaces the status quo. The elites who now reap the majority of the benefits of our collective labor are worried. I doubt this has much to do with money. When you have that much it just becomes play money after a while. It is more about power, a sense of entitlement, a Calvinist view, and a feeling that they, the choosen, alone know what is best for the world.
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
This is the new conservative line. In essence: Global warming is a good thing. Yeah I agree a good thing if your goal is to bring on the apocalypse. While I have no doubt this is the ultimate goal of some conservatives, it is not one I with which happen to agree.
As often happens, this leads me to question the underlying motives of the conservative movement. Aristocracy? Theocracy? I don’t know for sure, but I do know it involves the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. The penultimate goal is to show the American experiment in democracy to be a null hypothesis. Why do the conservatives hate America? Because in addition to economic liberty, to which they pay lip service, but support established interests who manipulate markets to concentrate wealth, it also offers social liberty. Conservatism is a movement based upon racism, and maintaining the long standing social order.
How does this relate to global warming? Controlling this man made phenomena will require a revolution. Changing all 7 aspects of society, in the classic definition of that term. This sort of change causes a reordering of things that displaces the status quo. The elites who now reap the majority of the benefits of our collective labor are worried. I doubt this has much to do with money. When you have that much it just becomes play money after a while. It is more about power, a sense of entitlement, a Calvinist view, and a feeling that they, the choosen, alone know what is best for the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
