July 27, 2011

The Formerly Unthinkable

Who'd've thunk it?

We are about to reach a point long (and until last week) considered unthinkable -- a failure to raise the debt ceiling, resulting in the federal government unable to pay all of our obligations.

The right wing continues to press the claim that this situation has been brought about because liberal social democracy is 'unsustainable.' The only hope, they say, is to give Reaganomics/supply side/trickle-down economics more time to work.

The liberal response, typically, is that trickle-down has had over 30 years to work and has been an utter failure. Which it has.

But a failure at what, exactly?

But of course!

What trickle-down has failed at is sustaining liberal social democracy! And in that the social/economic right wing has been wildly successful.

Consider the march of neoconservative history since Reagan:
  • Tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, so revenues don't keep pace and the remaining burden is shifted onto the middle and working class;
  • Privatization of government services, adding profit share and therefore additional cost -- Medicare Advantage, multi-fold increases in defense & war spending, prison corporations, etc.;
  • A neocon majority on the Supreme Court, giving us Bush v. Gore and Citizens United vs. FEC;
  • Conservative talk radio and general media consolidation, creating uniformity in news reporting, opinion-forming and civic discourse.
In short, the right wing has increased the cost of Grover Norquist's 'beast' and made it impossible to defend and sustain in the long term.

And used control of mass media to define the terms of the debate, so that obvious, no-brainer and popular solutions (e.g., removing the FICA cap, having the rich pay their fair share, breaking up too-big-to-fail entities) are off the table.

The long con

Look back and see the long conservative game. We're standing at a transition: the end of the set-up, where the right wing has pushed liberal social democracy to the brink of the waterfall. With today's competing Reid and Boehner debt ceiling plans, the choice isn't between left and right solutions, but whether when we hit bottom we land in deep water, shallow water or on the rocks.

The next stage in the right wing's plan can be but one thing: the Ryan Plan or its equivalent, formalizing the dismantling of the New Deal and ushering in what they think will be Libertarian Fantasyland. Or Utopia -- which means 'no place.'

June 12, 2011

That Depends

"Is McKenna Really a Dan Evans Republican?" is what the mighty
Publicola wanted to know yesterday (http://goo.gl/S1zva).
Well that depends on which Dan Evans we're talking about. If it's the
Governor Dan Evans who started the Washington Department of Ecology,
supported a state income tax, and founded Evergreen State College
(goooo Geoducks!), then no, Rob McKenna is not a Dan Evans Republican
although that's what McKenna and the group Mainstream Republicans want
us to think.
Then again, there was the Evans who -- in order to be appointed
Senator Dan following the death of Scoop Jackson -- totally sold out
Governor Dan's moderate/progressive legacy. This was the Senator Evans
who voted to confirm Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, to fund the
Contras, and who generally voted straight down the Reagan party line.
In this respect, yeah -- Rob McKenna IS A DAN EVANS REPUBLICAN TO A T.

April 1, 2011

YouTutorial

This is how you embed the video of Krazy Eyes trying to avoid the L.A. Times, and have it start at a specific point:

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="200" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vwDFYwLbrtc?rel=0&start=455" title="YouTube video player" width="300"></iframe>

or if using the OLD format:

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vwDFYwLbrtc?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&start=455"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vwDFYwLbrtc?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0&start=455" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>


This way, you jump to the embarrassing statement -- and without pissing off YouTube or the copyright owner.

Click Play, it will jump to 7:35

November 5, 2010

16 tweets about the suspension of Keith Olbermann

Yours truly posted the following about Keith Olbermann's suspension on Twitter tonight, under @PRTandWiseline. I was moved to write it after a certain radio show producer jumped on me as though I were some sort of teabagger. I needed to make clear that when I disagreed with him about Olbermann (radio boy is pro-suspension) I was not doing so to harsh his morning drive-time happy talk. I was also not trying to "silence" him as he claimed -- because criticism is not censorship or prior restraint. I thought all liberals knew that.

I did it because I wanted him to influence his boss to have some solidarity with Olbermann, in order to start a boycott of MSNBC that would do something -- anything, even a little thing -- to hit back at media consolidation.

Anywho, here are the tweets (they were tagged #p2 #olbermann #boycott #msnbc).


1) I know a lot of tweeple want to be idealistic about politics, media, rules, & uniform application thereof.

2) But many folks seem to forget - or not realize - that we are in the middle of a very real ideological struggle...

3) ...over consolidation & access to mass media by points of view not approved by corporate ownership.

4) Did @keitholbermann break a Rule? Maybe. There's some question about whether the Rule applied to MSNBC.

5) But even if it applies, the truth is that the Rule serves no useful purpose. Because the Other Side that wants to...

6) ...stomp out liberals has thrown away the rules. They follow no rules. They do what they want in media...

7) ...they blur politics & media. @keitholbermann did not blur the line. His donations were personal...

8) ... & had no effect on how he did his job. If we sit on the sideline, letting @keitholbermann get punished...

9) ...is equivalent to the attack on Lauren Valle, & the next day Rand Paul says he opposes violence on both sides.

     9a) The violence was on ONE side. In today's case, the Rule(s) are only on 1 side.

10) @keitholbermann gave 3 donations. SO WHAT. He did it publicly, he knew they'd be reported to the FEC.

11) MSNBC's Phill Griffin suspending @keitholbermann for 'ethics' is nothing but a convenient pretext...

     11a) (the corporatists think liberals will see 'Rule violation' & shut up, since we believe in rule of law)

12) ...to please the network's new GOP-loving masters, Comcast. Silencing an endangered political viewpoint...

13) ...is precisely the reason this struggle about media consolidation is so important.

14) We are in an ideological war for media access. If the Other Side wins, the 1st Amendment won't matter...

15) ...because speech, without access to media, is not heard. So do we play by rules the other side ignores?

16) And do we let them take one of our generals off the board? Or do we boycott MSNBC?

August 4, 2010

'Arpaio Macht Frei'

Arizona's Sheriff Joe calls his Tent City a "concentration camp":

June 7, 2010

Helen Thomas retires over Palestine comments

I've watched The Video several times, and I don't hear any anti-Semitism in Helen Thomas' comments. She was offering her opinion that Jewish people should "get the hell out of Palestine," and return to, among other places, the United States -- and "everywhere."

Stopping an endless cycle of bloodshed and reprisal by suggesting one of the combatants think about relocating (to perfectly nice, developed economies) is not racism. Racism is something like driving by an Asian American and yelling Go Back To CHIna!

Rather, Thomas made the mistake of thinking that a culture's attachment to the land can be defined-out of a complex and highly charged struggle.

In that sense, Helen Thomas is just as naive as libertarians who seem to think prejudice and racism can be assumed out of existence, so civil rights laws (and Affirmative Action) are unnecessary. Interesting theory, but: No.