Archive for the 'Politics' Category

The Bush Was Right Meme

Monday, January 31st, 2011 by Kevin Moore

Taking a break from watching and reading about the revolutionary activity in Egypt so I can, ya know, write about it. It’s called “processing.” Or vomiting, your pick.

So the WaPo was the first Respectable Beltway News Organ to publish an opinion piece giving George Bush credit for the wave of popular democratic uprisings against Middle Eastern dictatorships. Yes, Instapundit and its clones jerked that knee first, but until it makes traction with the big boys, it’s not a meme with real revisionist potential. Yet you knew it was coming. When the national security threat posed by Iraq began to look shaky (much earlier for the more observant and better informed than for others, btw), exporting free market democracy was a fallback position. Neocons took a perfectly reasonable position — that the U.S. has been supporting dictatorships in the Middle East in a devil’s bargain that will do us more long-term harm than good — and turned it into a reason to wage wars of expansion, resource pillage and client state building. Now they are treating popular uprisings against U.S. client states as comparable to an illegal invasion and occupation that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. For Iraqis themselves, the irony is not lost.

Another irony is that throughout Bush’s presidency, neocons were quite critical of what they considered a betrayal by the administration of Egyptian democratic aspirations. Here from an opinion piece at the American Enterprise Institute — the neocon think tank where so many bullshit rationalizations for the Iraq invasion were gestated:

On April 30, the Egyptian government extended the country’s emergency laws for two more years. Under such laws, the government can censor media, ban public demonstrations and detain political dissidents indefinitely. Most political activists had hoped that Mr. Mubarak, under pressure from Washington, would annul them. But the White House remained silent.

Determining U.S. rhetoric to be hollow, Mr. Mubarak pushed further. On May 18, thousands of police clamped down on demonstrators expressing solidarity for two pro-reform judges, Hesham Bastawisi and Mahmoud Mekki, who sit on Egypt’s highest appellate court. The government harassed the judges after they questioned government vote rigging during September’s presidential election. Security forces have rounded up scores of other pro-democracy activists.

Still, democracy activists continued their vigils. President Bush’s words at his second inauguration seem to have resonance in the Arab world: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors.” But excuse the oppressors is exactly what the White House did.

For more on Bush’s “double talk,” see Mona Eltahawy, who has more recently penned a great piece in The Guardian on the Middle East uprisings.

As the latter piece makes clear, these uprisings have been a long time coming, and are independent of the policy desires and national interests of foreign powers, including those of Washington, DC. Robert Grenier expresses eloquently and with some humor thoughts I have been having lately as I have watched my government struggle to come to terms with the events in Egypt:

Events in the Middle East have slipped away from us. Having long since opted in favour of political stability over the risks and uncertainties of democracy, having told ourselves that the people of the region are not ready to shoulder the burdens of freedom, having stressed that the necessary underpinnings of self-government go well beyond mere elections, suddenly the US has nothing it can credibly say as people take to the streets to try to seize control of their collective destiny.

All the US can do is “watch and respond”, trying to make the best of what it transparently regards as a bad situation.

Our words betray us. US spokesmen stress the protesters’ desire for jobs and for economic opportunity, as though that were the full extent of their aspirations. They entreat the wobbling, repressive governments in the region to “respect civil society”, and the right of the people to protest peacefully, as though these thoroughly discredited autocrats were actually capable of reform.

They urge calm and restraint. One listens in vain, however, for a ringing endorsement of freedom, or for a statement of encouragement to those willing to risk everything to assert their rights and their human dignity – values which the US nominally regards as universal.

Grenier continues with thoughts on the limits of American influence in the region, limits made narrower by the betrayals and compromises Washington has made in the name of my country. With the recent appointment of Omar Suleiman as Mubarak’s V.P. — the go-to guy for the CIA’s program of extra-rendition of terror suspects it wanted to torture without getting its hands dirty — we should be incredibly skeptical about Secretary of State Clinton’s bureaucratic insistence on an orderly six-month transition process. This here video should put that shit in perspective.

Spoof on US State Departments Position on Egypt

Spread the joy…

Go-Go Tunisia, Egypt and … Yemen?

Friday, January 28th, 2011 by Kevin Moore

Official U.S. responses to the wave of revolutions rolling over Arab dictatorships should tell us something about my government’s attitudes toward other people’s freedoms. In his State of the Union address, the president praised Tunisia as an example of people’s democratic aspirations. Secretary of State Clinton continues to urge the Mubarak government to refrain from violence in reacting to protests — to what practical effect, not much, but it has its rhetorical value, I suppose.

But Yemen? How should we gauge the official reaction to street protests against the U.S.-backed regime there? Tepid. At WaPo, Greg Sargent summarizes why:

The administration has relied on Saleh as a key partner in their counterterrorism efforts. The Washington Post’s Dana Priest has reported that American forces have assisted the Yemeni government in counterterrorism operations against AQAP. Saleh has given the U.S. cover for its use of targeted drone strikes against AQAP by taking credit for them. Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen says that nevertheless, the drone strikes have provoked popular sympathies for extremists.

Johnsen has also argued that the administration’s focus on seeing Yemen “only through the prism of counterterrorism” has produced the kind of instability they were trying to avoid. Yemen’s population is also poorer, and there’s far more potential for extremist groups to take advantage of a potential power vacuum.

For the poor, of course, there has always been a vacuum, at least in terms of services, stability, and standard of living. Dropping bombs on them because their neighborhoods have been infiltrated by select enemies of Western powers may not be the best long-term strategy for promoting peace and stability in the region — not to mention the people’s democratic aspirations.

Spread the joy…

National Public Ridiculous

Monday, January 24th, 2011 by Kevin Moore

Driving my daughter home from school, I caught the first fifteen minutes of All Things Considered. First up, a story on the “bipartisan” seating arrangements between Democratic and Republican congress-things during tomorrow’s State of the Union address. Secondly came a piece on the speech itself, discussed by Mara Liasson with an emphasis on the “narrative” that Obama will need to frame the next two years until the 2012 election. And finally, NPR brought us the earth-shattering news that the 2012 Obama reelection headquarters had set up in Chicago, not in or near Washington, DC as so many presidential campaign teams have done in the past.

And NPR listeners love to pride themselves on being so well-informed.

Look, I know FOXNews is a black hole of disinformation and reactionary ideology, but you don’t have to be a screaming right wing bottom-feeder to get frustrated by the superficial banalities of its more “respectable” rivals. You could be a perfectly sane human being hoping to learn something about the world or get some information about how and why it is in such terrible shape. If Tom Coburn and Chuck Schumer start giving each other handjobs tomorrow night, it still won’t drive down the cost of health care or the rate of unemployment.

Spread the joy…

Sarah Palin Found a Useful Idiot

Saturday, January 15th, 2011 by Kevin Moore

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach at the Wall Street Journal:

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

If we define it vaguely enough and stretch the definition a little bit, we can surely apply “blood libel” to a highly simplified and distorted portrayal of media coverage of the Tuscon shootings and right wing rhetoric.

To be fair, Rabbi Boteach does a very good job of explaining the origins and history of antisemitic murder that the “blood libel” myth represents. All the more disappointing that he has chosen to trivialize this history for partisan purposes.

Spread the joy…

Boehner’s Agenda

Friday, January 14th, 2011 by Cronjob


click for comic

Boehner’s a tool. Matt Taibbi expands on that, and backs it up with facts in this article.

Unless someone is dead, dying, or making you watch something Seth MacFarlane created, crying in public is unacceptable, for both men and women. If you’re not comfortable farting in front of someone, you shouldn’t cry in front of them. Babies fart and shit all over the place, so naturally they’re allowed to cry whenever they want. In summation, tears are eye-farts; keep them to yourself and loved ones.

Next Week: Fun with Football


All Heat, No Light

Wednesday, December 8th, 2010 by Kevin Moore

Nothing to really say about the Julian Assange rape allegations. Either his accusers speak the truth, making him guilty; or the U.S. diplomatic and intelligence communities have concocted this mess, making him innocent. It is even possible for both to be true, as disgusting as that sounds all around. (It would make the basis for a good le Carré novel, now that I think of it.) Hopefully Assange receives due process, gets a fair hearing, and a just verdict.

But it’s a sideshow. The status of Assange’s guilt is irrelevant to the importance of the information that Wikileaks has released about secret detention, covert wars, diplomatic espionage, and the covering up of war crimes. As citizens, we can do something with that information. We can hold our governments accountable.

If we gave a shit.

Juan Cole continues to separate the wheat from the chaff. Amanda Marcotte has two great posts on the knee-jerk sexism and appealing for more complex thinking about this case. (Can’t seem to get a working link to that last one allasudden. Will try later.) Also Kate Harding’s piece does a great job of tackling the poor quality of source material used by Assange’s defenders: “What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.”

Spread the joy…

Third Party, Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

Friday, November 5th, 2010 by Kevin Moore

Despite the addition of 151K new jobs in the U.S. in October (and 1.1 million jobs since January), unemployment numbers still suck.

Nearly 15 million people are out of work and actively looking, and the unemployment rate, which remained steady at 9.6 percent, has been relatively flat since May.

A broader measure of unemployment, which includes people who are working part-time because they cannot find full-time jobs and people who have given up looking for work, ticked down slightly to 17 percent from 17.1 percent in September.

To get a little personal here (on my blog? The nerve!), I think I am in the latter group. I chose to be a stay-at-home dad, mostly because I could not find full-time or part-time librarian positions that would either accommodate my child-rearing responsibilities or afford before-and-after school daycare. And I am in one of the few parts of the country where libraries are eagerly supported by public levies or by educational institutions. There are still hiring freezes and maintaining productivity with less — “less” being either fewer workers or fewer hours to employ those workers. Perhaps these are special circumstances — especially for creative types like me — that would hold no matter the state of the economy; but I have met more parents in similar situations over the past couple years. I am a lucky ducky to the extent that I am on the on-call lists at two library systems, so I get to pull in some extra bucks at about one shift a week. Rollin’ in the green!

So speaking as one of the under-employed, I get the frustration the rest of the electorate has expressed (if we read the tea leaves correctly) in the mid-term elections. But that only takes me so far. The argument goes that if the Obama White House had done more to create jobs and had done a better job advertising this fact, the demise of Blue Dog Democrats and the rise of Teabag Republicans could have been avoided. There is truth there, but what I don’t understand is why the electorate would put in place people even less likely to solve the country’s economic problems. If the GOP or the Tea Party had actually advanced real ideas about creating jobs and strengthening the economy’s fundamentals, their victories on Tuesday would make more sense. But they didn’t. They espoused only a more extreme version of the same tax-cut-and-small-government rhetoric we heard ad nauseum during the Bush years — an eight-year reign that ended only two years ago, mind you, with disastrous results. They should have been “shellacked” at the polls just as harshly as the Blue Dogs.

But by what? This is a two-party system. If you punish one party, you can only do it with the other. The only virtues of the Tea Party has been their espoused distrust of both parties and their tactical infiltration of GOP. A more reasonable and more productive response by voters would have been to form a strong third party to propose policies and solutions that the other two parties are incapable (by virtue of their corporate backing) of formulating. So far, this has not happened. I won’t rehearse the history of third party failures over the past 20 years (Perot, Nader, etc.), but they have direct bearing on what happened on Tuesday.

If we have no party to articulate alternative solutions and policies, then the only ones we will hear and become enacted are the same old formulas that corporate and political elites are capable of cobbling together. (To wit, Obama’s “infrastructure spending and tax breaks for businesses.”) If no political movement bothers to organize and maintain the involvement of youth and minorities, then those groups will not show up to vote, because they see no positive expression of their interests among the choices available. “Lesser of two evils” is not a sustainable motivation for most people to get involved in the process. Not when one side is bat shit crazy and the other side is corrupt. Or both.

Spread the joy…

Where the Democratic Base is Hiding

Friday, October 8th, 2010 by Kevin Moore


click for comic

Of course the Democrats have done nothing to inspire my support lately, but these Tea Party morons have driven me away from political coverage entirely. They’ve shifted political debate so far from reasonable territory, anyone who engages with them is only contributing to the farce. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to my bunker to watch Idiocracy.

Next Week: Lifestyles of the Internet Famous


Third Rail, Sacred Cow, etc, etc….

Sunday, September 5th, 2010 by Kevin Moore

Glenn Greenwald defends Alan Simpson — not for what he said about cow teats, but for being the only one on President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission to speak to the public. It’s a good, enraging read, but let me skip to the end (not counting Greenwald’s inevitable updates):

Leaving aside the fact that Social Security is not really a deficit issue, the true causes of America’s debt and deficits are absolutely sacrosanct and will never be attacked by this Commission. Does anyone believe it’s even remotely possible that meaningful cuts in America’s war and military spending, surveillance and intelligence networks, or even corporate-plundering of America’s health care system will be enacted as a result of this Commission process? Of course not. Those genuine debt-causing policies are “sacrosanct” because the people who profit from them own and control Washington (and share common socio-economic interests with the millionaire Commission members targeting social programs and the billionaires who are behind this). It’s the people who don’t control Washington — ordinary Americans who need Social Security — who are being targeted in order to feed even further the fattest, most piggish factions actually in control. That’s what makes this process so ugly and odious.

A-yup.

So if Obama succeeds where Bush failed in turning Social Security into a joke — whether through privatization (Bush’s preference, but not to be ruled out when “bipartisanship” seizes Obama’s brain) or gutting it to paltry levels — who but the most starry-eyed or self-interested will defend him?

Honestly, I can’t see Democrats allowing this to happen. Oh, wait — hahahahaha — whom am I kidding? Just because it’s suicidal doesn’t mean they won’t do it.

Originally published at mooreroom

Third Rail, Sacred Cow, etc, etc….

Sunday, September 5th, 2010 by Kevin Moore

Glenn Greenwald defends Alan Simpson — not for what he said about cow teats, but for being the only one on President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Commission to speak to the public. It’s a good, enraging read, but let me skip to the end (not counting Greenwald’s inevitable updates):

Leaving aside the fact that Social Security is not really a deficit issue, the true causes of America’s debt and deficits are absolutely sacrosanct and will never be attacked by this Commission. Does anyone believe it’s even remotely possible that meaningful cuts in America’s war and military spending, surveillance and intelligence networks, or even corporate-plundering of America’s health care system will be enacted as a result of this Commission process? Of course not. Those genuine debt-causing policies are “sacrosanct” because the people who profit from them own and control Washington (and share common socio-economic interests with the millionaire Commission members targeting social programs and the billionaires who are behind this). It’s the people who don’t control Washington — ordinary Americans who need Social Security — who are being targeted in order to feed even further the fattest, most piggish factions actually in control. That’s what makes this process so ugly and odious.

A-yup.

So if Obama succeeds where Bush failed in turning Social Security into a joke — whether through privatization (Bush’s preference, but not to be ruled out when “bipartisanship” seizes Obama’s brain) or gutting it to paltry levels — who but the most starry-eyed or self-interested will defend him?

Honestly, I can’t see Democrats allowing this to happen. Oh, wait — hahahahaha — whom am I kidding? Just because it’s suicidal doesn’t mean they won’t do it.

Spread the joy…