Here’s an observation by Charles Baxter in his review of Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom:

“What has happened, I think, is that the public sphere is regarded here as a total loss, so that all the big problems are imagined as unsolvable. The result is a particular kind of despair, the sort that arises from rage with no outlet, the core emotion of a large proportion of educated readers during the George W. Bush administration. Corrupted by ruinous quantities of money and the cynical application of power, the public world depicted here seems incapable of saving anything of value. At every point where a citizen tries to enter that world, he encounters active lying and the operations of expedient logic, and, in the novel’s view, he becomes a collaborator.”

…and thus the ongoing dilemma…who would want to be a collaborator?

Yet in trying to share with others that sense of despair, in trying to communicate the rage behind it, one is constantly met with the exasperating rejoinder – well, what are you doing about it?.

The only honest answer, of course, for those like myself who remain firmly ensconced on the margins, is nothing…or very little, besides criticizing the seemingly infinite menagerie of the criticizable (or whining, as some folks would say, employing what just might be the most annoying word of recent times).

In short, one evidently should not criticize (complain, whine) about political/social/cultural phenomena unless one is not only prepared to, but actively engaged in doing something about it. --- which, to go back to Baxter’s description, would locate the now-legitimized doer in the realm of collaborator – at least according to that person’s own values.

…and so the long, drawn-out howl of rage, dissipating into despair, is heard echoing in some far-off distance in this, yet another winter of our discontent…like the tree falling in the forest of everyone’s favorite philosophical cliché…

sly, cunning, amoral...smart!

Here's a Tom Hartmann quote (http://www.truth-out.org/stop-them-eating-my-town65481 ) that quite succinctly captures the exasperating arrogance (and maleficent ignorance) of "free-market" ideologues:

--In the worldview of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, everybody in the world is motivated purely by “self-interest.” There are the “smart” people pursuing their own self-interest (also known as “the rich”) and the “lazy” people pursuing their own self- interest by using an instrument of force (government regulations, minimum-wage laws, collective bargaining laws, and the like) to extract wealth from the “smart” people for themselves. These latter people are labeled by Randians and Friedmanites as “parasites” or “moochers.”--

There was a time when an argument could be made that such "smart" (which today simply means amoral) people were entrepreneurs, inventors, people with useful ideas who were motivated to implement those ideas and make life better for others...and the more they succeeded in doing so, the wealthier they become. That still may hold true for some. But in general, since the age of Reagan (an epoch we continue to wither in), the majority of those "smart" folks are simply the sly, cunning, amoral ones. Quite often, absolute shitheads.

...and thus the downfall of the American economy, the "American dream"...and American-style capitalism throughout the world.

microwave history

I really like this quote from Maureen Dowd's column today in the NYT:

"Together again were the president and vice president who invaded, deregulated, overspent, created a climate of fear and intensified the class divide with tax cuts — all so recklessly that our resources are sapped just as we need to step up and compete with our banker, China."

It's taken Bush 2 years of hiding behind the right wing idiocy barrage to emerge...now that he thinks it safe, now that he thinks, in accordance with Cheney, that "history is beginning to come around"...this after two years...history.

Odd view of history...but soon "history" will cook and emerge faster than a meal from the microwave

exponentially mounting absurdities

A friend is currently representing a city council in its attempt not to be pre-empted by a Second Amendment-extremist-inspired state law in terms of firearms regulations. Interestingly, the case hinges on the right of the city to its political autonomy vis-à-vis the state in terms of gun regulation. Gun rights advocates are always screaming about states’ rights in this matter. This case turns that relation on its head within a state.

In any case, it's a tough fight. The second amendment does more than guarantee the "right to bear arms"...it guarantees the "right to fear", the "right to be afraid", the "right to perceive the world and one's society in a Hobbesian light"...

You can take away Americans' jobs, their homes, their health, a presidential election, their life savings, their pensions, their chances for upward mobility...and they will remain docile enough for those behind those heists to remain in power (indeed, to put and keep them in power)...but threaten to take away their "right to fear"...compel them to show some valor, some courage...and they'll be all over your case....

Damn if the Grand Inquisitor wasn't right about the need for miracle, mystery and authority. The holy trinity indeed.

Has it, alas, always been this way - in the sense that whenever one concludes that things couldn't get any more absurd, new absurdities make the earlier ones seem tame? I am thinking now of the great neo-liberal (in the European sense of the word - meaning "free market" fundamentalism) heist, and the vociferousness with which everyone from Tea Party types to "respectable" pundits are screaming for more more more free market, and less less less public sector power. This after the repeal of Glass-Steagall oh so surprisingly led to the almost complete destruction of international financial stability and viability, thanks to the thoroughly-to-be-expected greed and ineptitude of the private sector...financial stability that was only partially saved (for how long??) through the wholesale purging of present and future public funds in the US and much of Western Europe...with the consequence that public treasuries were hit by the double-punch of suddenly monstrous deficits and drastically reduced tax revenue due to the crisis...alas!, what a great time for right wingers to argue for deficit reduction! Which I would expect from them, being blind ideologues far more radical and anarchistic and certainly anti-American than any Weatherman from the 60's (and infinitely more destructive)...yet it's not just those right wing ideologues, it's also the corporate media in general...the NY Times never misses a chance to feature another bit of drivel about the terminal problems afflicting the European welfare state (which was doing just fine, thank you, in terms of fiscal stability (far better than the US) before the latest implosion).

the sun slowly setting on American democracy

The pathetic elections have provided an answer to the question posed in the last post. No, there is no way to avoid that conclusion. Corporate idiocy, foaming-at-the-mouth greed and ignorance...a mass of spoiled children running amok in their hand-made hell, figuratively gnawing on each other's heads...ah yes, the American electorate.

Goodbye to Russ Feingold, one of the few decent people in American politics - defeated by dollars, hate, stupidity, fear...ah yes, the American electorate.

How does a thinking person avoid being drawn into the inevitable vortex of Ambrose Bierce-ville? Where are today's Menckens?

Are there any grown-ups in the American corporate press? Does anyone at the NY Times really reflect, just for a moment, on the daily foolishness posing as "all the news that's fit to print" on their front page?

..."toda la pobre inocencia de la gente"...sang Mercedes Sosa...the poor innocence of the people"...yeah, right. There is nothing innocent about "the people". They are a mass of frightened, pathetic fools, who rabidly cling to their ignorance like a hungry dog its bone...who prize, cherish their ignorance, who worship it as their one true god, and who in the end will erect their own Tower of American Babel out of the brick and mortar of their own bristling stupidity.

¡Hay que joderse!

fatal flaw?

What does it say about America - or democracy in general - that elections can be "bought"? What does that mean? More money spent on a campaign doesn't buy better policies, nor better arguments or presentations, nor better candidates. It simply buys exposure - most importantly on tv - which is inevitably shallow and most often based on manipulating fear and insecurity, making copious use of logical fallacy. Most paid campaign publicity is an insult to the intelligence of the citizenry…and yet it works!

I’d like to put forth a question: is there any way to avoid the sad conclusion that Jefferson and his peers were simply naïve?

Sometimes one runs across the perfect quote. I just did...from a Matt Taibbi piece in Rolling Stone back in 2009:

...in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy...

Stunningly true.

let em eat cake with their tea

As the idiocy goes on - the people behind the NY Times lead online page seem to have completely lost their wits, with ideology-tinged blitherings leading the site for two consecutive days this week (one about Obama's "overreach" when dealing with corporations, the other stupidly wondering just how big is the Gulf oil disaster...smaller than it seems, they would have it)...with all this idiocy, there's always Frank Rich. He came up with this gem today: While the greatest environmental disaster in our history is a trying juncture for Obama, it also provides him with a nearly unparalleled opening to make his and government’s case. The spill’s sole positive benefit has been to unambiguously expose the hard right, for all its populist pandering to the Tea Partiers, as a stalking horse for its most rapacious corporate patrons. If this president can speak lucidly of race to America, he can certainly explain how the antigovernment crusaders are often the paid toadies of bad actors like BP. Such big corporations are only too glad to replace big government with governance of their own, by their own, and for their own profit — while the “small people” are left to eat cake at their tea parties.

Damn straight.

Once again, more neo-liberal foolishness from the NY Times. Today's lead "news analysis" is entitled "Obama's Twist of BP's Arm stirs debate on Frequent Tactic" - that frequent tactic being the exercise of public power over corporate incompetence and malfeasance. The writer - David Sanger, cites several examples of this "frequent tactic" - firing the CEO of General Motors after it was saved from bankruptcy by public funds, forcing Chrysler into a merger (again, after public wealth, or at least the chimera of public wealth saved it), curbing executive pay at banks that were bailed out (the overreach!...the overreach!)...all of this, in fact, being put forth in that irritating way the NYT has of displaying clear ideology in the guise of "objective reporting".

Finally Obama makes some moves - timid given the situation - to stop corporate power from pushing the USA off the edge towards total decline. And this raises the question of government overreach. This after weeks of articles analyzing the perception of Obama as weak and unable to tackle the barrage of problems facing the nation.

It is almost psychedelic that so many blithering idiots on the right accuse the NYT of having a "liberal bias"...meaning, of course, a left-leaning bias. Putting "neo" in front might save these people from their ignorance...if indeed they knew what neo-liberal means.

Textbook Case

A rapacious private sector (in this case that large part of it comprising the financial "industry") is unleashed from intelligent regulatory control. Over the course of a decade it artificially creates a massive amount of false wealth (for which it charges handsomely) that inevitably leads to an acute, worldwide economic crisis caused by the inevitable disappearance (or rather, realization of the non-existence) of that false wealth. Said crisis has a profound effect on the public finances of countries throughout the world - not solely due to severe drops in tax revenues (caused, again, by private sector mismanagement), but in part by the questionable practices of large financial players doing business with governments. In order to sanitize their budgets, governments must make substantial cuts in social spending, while increasing taxes where politically viable (read: social services, govt. employee salaries, etc.).

This then leads to an outpouring in the corporate media of questioning the viability of the "welfare state". Somehow, the evident failure of the "market" to properly and intelligently manage world finances is totally ignored, with the blame placed on public sector inefficiency (see the NY Times, http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/the-twilight-of-the-welfare-state/?scp=1&sq=welfare%20state&st=Search for a good example).

Clearly a textbook case of ideology (in this case, neo-liberalism) trumping reason and evidence.

Demonstrably false

Today's NY Times ran a front-page (or rather home-page) piece, the headline for which is demonstrably false. The headline claims that the "U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege".

Hmm, well that does sound like important news, given that these were the folks who shared the Nobel Prize some years back with Al Gore, and are probably the most public face for climate change science in the world. If they are facing a "Credibility Siege", well then, the reasonable reader might surmise, perhaps the credibility of global warming science should be placed into doubt.

A quick read of the piece, shows, however, that the "siege" is coming from a few far-right corporate news sources in Britain, from one Christopher Monckton, "a leading climate skeptic" (what makes him "leading", it would seem, is the propensity of these corporate news outlets to quote him), and from an organization called the Science and Public Policy Institute - clearly another cooked "news and opinion" factory paid for by the industries to be affected by any climate change legislation. In short, spin factories twisting the truth and contaminating the public debate, working directly for large economic interests.

It doesn't take many minutes of online research to determine this. However, the spin-makers know that this will not commonly happen - that this "news", blessed with the imprimatur of the NY Times, will be picked up by the rest of the corporate media and spread like wildfire - not to mention serving as more fuel for the idiocy-spouting hate-mongers of Fox, etc.

If you read into the 8th or 9th paragraph of the Times piece, it does give Dr. Pachauri (the head of the Panel "under siege") a chance to defend himself from the perverted smears being thrown at him. But in general, the story is a great example of the typical twisted use of "objective" journalism. Objective? Bullshit. Absolutely atrocious (and dangerous!) journalism by the so-called "liberal" (huh?) NY Times.

shit

I’m not keen on ascribing grand inevitabilities to the human condition, nor all but the most basic fixed qualities to human “nature”. After all, our most outstanding quality is that which places us in contrast to nature. “Man-made” tends to signify as an antonym to “natural”.

Why then, do I feel compelled to note the maxim that shit always rises to the top when thinking about the good folks acting as executives at Goldman Sachs or AIG, etc. Or about those smooth talkers and quick thinkers working as lobbyists for some amoral power group or another.

After floating up there a while, the shit does inevitably decompose and sink to the bottom. But alas, this metaphor is beginning to decompose itself…