Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« April 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Sunday, 30 April 2006
Hot of the Virtual Press

Hot of the Virtual Press

Just Above Sunset logoThe new issue of Just Above Sunset, the weekly magazine-format site that is parent to this daily web log, is now online. This is Volume 4, Number 18 for the week of April 30, 2006.

This week you will find six extended commentaries on current events, with notes on the disintegration in Washington as the week began, then, for adults, the new hot book on a sensible, reality-based way to respond to that. There is a detailed bit of meta-political analysis, which would be observations not so much on current events, but on what people observe about current events, which is one level higher, or lower, or something. Then there's an item on whose story is getting out there, and why, and there's an account of Friday's hot stories - arrests, drugs and sex and even Watergate, again, and Darfur and Iran being more than difficult, and more. And there's an item on what happens when the American Dream bumps up against economic data, and it's not pretty.

Curiosities this week? Our man in Paris, Ric Erickson, editor of MetropoleParis, tells us Chicagoans can always eat foie gras in Paris, and there some amazing Hollywood history, related to Rochester, up in New York.

The photography this week? Seven pages of the unusual out here, signs in Hollywood - not what you'd see in Peoria - and some very picturesque wrecked ships, and some intense red façades, and some nature (birds and bees, actually), snazzy palm tree shots suitable for framing, and some really flashy close-up botanicals.

There's a big helping of the weird from Texas, of course, and the quotes are from the master, Samuel Johnson, ones you may not have encountered.

Direct links to specific pages -

Extended Observations on Current Events ______________________

Damage Assessment: The Great Unraveling, or Something
What Adults Do
Policy: The conceptual flaw in the "intimidation model" for getting what you want...
Truth and Authenticity: More on the Power of Narrative
A Friday Flurry: Could It Be That We're Now Living in the Only Banana Republic Armed with Nuclear Weapons?
Economics: The American Dream and the Economic Facts of Life

Curiosities ______________________

Our Man in Paris: Chicagoans Can Eat Foie Gras In Paris
Hollywood Notes: Off the beaten path...

Southern California Photography ______________________

Signage: Displays in Hollywood
Abstracts: Just Patterns from Hollywood Boulevard
Blue: Nautical Shots of a Sort
Red: Doors and Posters
Nature: The Birds and the Bees
Palms
Botanicals: Hot Ice

The Weird: WEIRD, BIZARRE and UNUSUAL
Quotes for the week of April 23, 2006 - Sam's Club

Posted by Alan at 18:44 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Saturday, 29 April 2006
Economics: The American Dream and the Economic Facts of Life
Topic: The Economy

Economics: The American Dream and the Economic Facts of Life

In these pages back in late August, 2003, there was a dialog concerning economic issues, as a few conservative friends out here had said some things about what was dysfunctional in our economy.

It was pretty standard Reagan economics, and it ran something like this -

First, there was the great economic Satan - FDR's social policies to get us out of the Great Depression failed miserably. The idea was, and is, all those spending programs to get people into any kind of work - the WPA and all that, and starting up the Social Security Program - made people believe the world, or at least the government, owes them something. These policies and programs took away their initiative and made them into whining "victims" who always expect a bail-out and don't want to actually do anything. FDR is thus the most evil of American presidents, as his policies pretty much destroyed the character of the "frontier" American who was, previous to this, a self-reliant self-starter who, when he saw a problem, fixed it himself and didn't expect some paternalistic government to save his butt. The only thing that saved America is that FDR realized all this crap wasn't working and got us into World War II when we didn't actually have to fight. He finally figured it out - getting in was the only way to cover the total failure of his economic policies. You might have heard that here and there.

And most of us have heard a conservative friend say this of the current Social Security Program, where people have had part of the wages set aside during all their working lives to cover rent and food and such when they retire - "I don't see why my tax dollars should pay for someone else's retirement when they didn't have the brains to set aside money for their old age. Why should I pay because they were just stupid?"

This of course is based on the idea that the funds available after the next decade or two won't cover the contractual obligation to cover the monthly check to the retiree. The demographics are the problem - aging folks who live longer. FDR didn't see that one coming.

Another is the more rarely heard, "Why should I pay for your kids' schooling?" The idea there is that if you choose to have children you should take the responsibility, the personal responsibility, to acquire sufficient money to pay for their education, or school them at home. Why are you turning to the government to provide what you are too lazy or too cheap to provide for your own children? Why do insist on using MY money to educate YOUR kids? The education of your children is your responsibly - there should be no government funding for any of it, and no standards imposed by any government bureaucrats at any level. It's your responsibility and as such, the government has no business regulating it, or even considering it as an issue. And public schools are a dismal failure anyway, as all can see. And over the last three years the calls for home schooling have increased, but oddly enough, not based on any economic argument but rather on a religious one - home schooling will keep the kids from those who undermine the revealed and literal truth of the Bible with evolutionary biology, and the geology that supports it, and the math and chemistry that support the geology (the deeply and sincerely religious who also understand the concept of metaphor, and don't confuse it with the literal, have less problem with publicly funded general education). The number of private Christian academies has exploded, of course.

But the religious issue aside, for now, the Reagan argument has won the public. As he tersely put it, government isn't the answer to anything, it's the problem. And thus the general idea has been that the government should tax as little as possible, provide only essential services - national defense and road repair and such - and get otherwise get out of everyone's lives. And pretty standard laissez-faire economic policy follows, where unfettered business competes to provide goods and services, driving price down and quality up, and no one much gets any support from the government, so no one plays the victim and everyone works hard and everyone achieves what they can. Reagan was fond of mocking "welfare queens" - with their Cadillac sedans, popping chocolates and watching soap operas, when they weren't popping out babies so their welfare check would get bigger.

Sure, there was the not so hidden racism in his comments, but that was beside the point, as Reagan himself was far too genial for sustained racial hatred. He just did little bursts of that. The bigger concept, now ascendant, was the rages-to-riches Horatio Alger view of the American Dream - anyone could be successful without handouts from the government, or support services that provided "special assistance." All you had to do is "take personal responsibility" (and quit whining) and get off you fat, pampered ass and make something of yourself. He had done something like that himself, and so all his supporters and followers said they had. That was the ticket - make something of yourself, and do it yourself. That's what responsible people do. No racism involved.

This of course ties into the long-standing Republican opposition to everything associated with civil rights legislation - from opposing segregation until it was inevitable to affirmative action and all the other anti-discrimination legislation. They were troubled at being called racists, and they had a point. The modern Republican Party, not the Republican Party of Lincoln, operates from a philosophic and economic place where race is simply irrelevant - in a free market an employer should be able to hire whomever he or she wants, for any reason, a landlord should be able to rent his own property to whomever he wishes, for whatever reason, and so on. The government has no business in any of that. And there are, after all, examples of blacks and Hispanics who, in the past, made something of themselves by just working hard and using their brains and talents. These were proof of the ideas - these people took personal responsibility, ignored the slights and abuses, and became successful. Those who didn't? They didn't have the right attitude, that sunny all-American positive outlook.

So that's what we believe. Work hard, be positive, and you can achieve anything.

Then there are the facts of the matter.

Our economy, under this model, directed by a president who considers himself a self-made man, in spite of his life of privilege and power and being the son of a former president, is humming along. Cutting taxes for the wealthy who hold substantial capital, and taxing corporations at the lowest rate in history, seems to have produced results.

On the last Friday of the month there was this from Reuters -
The U.S. economy grew at its fastest rate in 2-1/2 years during the first quarter on strong spending and investment, while moderate price rises reinforced hopes for a pause in U.S. interest rate rises this summer.

Gross domestic product grew at a 4.8 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, the Commerce Department said on Friday, more than twice the fourth quarter's 1.7 percent rate.

It was the best quarterly GDP performance since a 7.2 percent spurt in the third quarter of 2003.

"This rapid growth is another sign that our economy is on the fast track," President George W. Bush told reporters. Growth is expected to moderate as the year wears on, giving the Federal Reserve room to pause in its rate-rise campaign.
That sounds great, except later in the item we get this -
Separately, the Labor Department said employment costs measuring what employers pay in wages and benefits rose at the slowest pace in seven years during the first quarter, which should temper concerns about potential wage-induced inflation.

Its Employment Cost Index rose 0.6 percent in the first quarter, down from a 0.8 percent rise in the fourth quarter and well short of the 0.9 percent gain that had been forecast.

Financial markets on Friday faced an avalanche of data - not all of it strong - including a University of Michigan survey showing the consumer sentiment index slipped to 87.4 in April from 88.9 in March. In addition, a Chicago Purchasing Managers Index fell to 57.2 in April from 60.4 in March.
In short, business is great, and wages and benefits aren't. So for those who aren't in executive management, or shareholders, hard work gets you what, exactly?

In an item printed in anticipation of Friday report, the New York Times noted this -
In the most recent CBS News poll, conducted last month, 55 percent of respondents rated the economy as good, even though 66 percent of Americans said the country was on the wrong track. In 23 years of polling by CBS, only once - in late 2005 - did a higher percentage of people say the country was on the wrong track.
That's interesting. People aren't dumb. They know the general economy is doing just fine, and it's not doing them much good.

The Times tosses in this -
Spending by upper-income families appears to be driving much of the economy's growth. The average hourly wage for rank-and-file workers - who make up roughly 80 percent of the work force - has fallen by 5 cents in the last four years, to $16.49, after inflation is taken into account.
Eighty percent of the work force has lower wages now, and they know it. Heck, it's hard not to notice, and with gas prices skyrocketing it's getting worse.

Curiously, the new White House chief-of-staff, Josh Bolten, has his new five point recovery plan to boost the standing of his boss, the president. One of the five points is "brag more" - specifically about the economy. The plan is to hit all the business shows and get the talking heads talking even more about how well the economy is doing. Brit Hume on Fox News is always bemoaning how people are so dumb saying the economy is bad in all the polls, when they just don't see how strong the economy really is, based on the data anyone can see.

Of course it's a matter of perspective, and a bit of an 80-20 thing. Perhaps this Bolten should be bragging to the eighty percent, as they are the ones being polled. But then, bragging becomes difficult.

By way of Political Affairs, an openly Marxist magazine, here, they reprint an item from the Labor Research Association - the folks who provide research and educational services for trade unions. So consider the source.

On the other hand, the item cites data from Mercer Consulting and PricewaterhouseCooper's Saratoga Institute, and those of us with long years in the business work know Mercer and Saratoga and have dealt with them. They're basic consulting and research firms with no political axe to grind. They're in business to make money by figuring out what's going on.

The item opens with this -
The new spike in oil and gasoline prices is the last nail in the coffin for workers who hoped to see any real improvement in wages this year. Inflation for 2006 is likely to remain in the 3.4 percent to 3.8 percent range, wiping out average wage increases of 3.0 percent to 3.5 percent and leaving workers with less purchasing power.

Over the past five years, as gasoline prices have steadily increased, profits for U.S. oil production and refinery companies have jumped by an average of more than 30 percent per year, according to the Fortune 500 list released in April.

Revenues per worker are highest in the oil industry, where the top pipeline company pulls in $15.6 million per employee. Exxon Mobil generates $4.1 million in revenues for every worker.

New data released by a number of different sources demonstrate that the rise in profits and the decline in real wages extend well beyond the oil industry.
And those data?

It's not pretty.

"New data on salaries for exempt employees from Mercer Consulting shows that pay for salaried workers at 350 large companies barely kept pace with inflation in 2005" - planned salary increases for salaried employees average 3.5 percent for 2006, "which means that their gains will be obliterated by higher consumer prices."

Production workers? "New data on salaries for exempt employees from Mercer Consulting shows that pay for salaried workers at 350 large companies barely kept pace with inflation in 2005. Planned salary increases for salaried employees average 3.5 percent for 2006, which means that their gains will be obliterated by higher consumer prices."

Corporate profits? "As wage increases for exempt employees fell to 3.4 percent in 2004 among the 350 companies studied by Mercer, profits at those companies rose 23 percent. In 2005, the average salary increase of 3.6 percent for exempt employees was wiped out by the 3.4 percent increase inflation, but profits rose 13 percent."

The CEO guys? "...at the same 350 companies saw their salary and bonus jump 14.5 percent in 2004 and 7.1 percent in 2005. This does not include their stock grants and other long-term incentives that add millions to their pay packages and represent more than 60 percent of total CEO compensation."

What the worker provides? "The new 2006 Fortune 500 list of the largest companies reveals that median revenues per employee for the Fortune 500 hit $400,000 in 2005, up from $300,000 in 2003 and 2004." And this - "Corporate profits per full-time equivalent employee jumped 190.7 percent from 2001 to 2004."

General employment? There's lot of data, but this jumps out - "Overall, the Fortune 500 increased their number of employees by just 2 percent in 2005, but revenues rose 10.2 percent and profits jumped 18.8 percent."

So for the eighty percent, who work hard and take personal responsibility for their own success, they get... well, they get not much for it, actually.

There may be something wrong with the Reagan model, the current version of the American Dream. Bragging may not help much, nor mocking the "losers" with their "bad attitude," telling them their lack of success is really their own personal fault.

People are catching on. The polls show it. They look in their wallets and figure out those Horatio Alger stories were fiction, after all. You don't base economic policy on a series of turn of the century short novels for readers in their early teens. But we have done that.

But wait. There's more.

That would be this from Reuters -
America may still think of itself as the land of opportunity, but the chances of living a rags-to-riches life are a lot lower than elsewhere in the world, according to a new study published on Wednesday.

The likelihood that a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is just one percent, according to "Understanding Mobility in America," a study by economist Tom Hertz from American University.

By contrast, a child born rich had a 22 percent chance of being rich as an adult, he said.

"In other words, the chances of getting rich are about 20 times higher if you are born rich than if you are born in a low-income family," he told an audience at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank sponsoring the work.

He also found the United States had one of the lowest levels of inter-generational mobility in the wealthy world, on a par with Britain but way behind most of Europe.

"Consider a rich and poor family in the United States and a similar pair of families in Denmark, and ask how much of the difference in the parents' incomes would be transmitted, on average, to their grandchildren," Hertz said.

"In the United States this would be 22 percent; in Denmark it would be two percent," he said.
Oh. So that part of the story wasn't true either.

Maybe the methodology was wrong, as this was sponsored by "a liberal think-tank."

No - "The research was based on a panel of over 4,000 children, whose parents' income were observed in 1968, and whose income as adults was reviewed again in 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999. The survey did not include immigrants, who were not captured in the original data pool. Millions of immigrants work in the U.S, many illegally, earnings much higher salaries than they could get back home."

And Reuters quotes Bhashkar Mazumder, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, an expert in this field - "This debunks the myth of America as the land of opportunity, but it doesn't tell us what to do to fix it."

No, it doesn't. It's just data.

And there was the survey for the New York Times last year they mention - the one that found that eighty percent of those polled believed that it was possible to start out poor, work hard and become rich, compared with less than sixty percent back in 1983. The Reagan view of the American Dream not only persists, it is growing to overwhelming proportions.

The facts run the other way. There's a collision coming.

So what's the problem?

This -
Hertz examined channels transmitting income across generations and identified education as the single largest factor, explaining 30 percent of the income-correlation, in an argument to boost public access to universities.

Breaking the survey down by race spotlighted this as the next most powerful force to explain why the poor stay poor.

On average, 47 percent of poor families remain poor. But within this, 32 percent of whites stay poor while the figure for blacks is 63 percent.

It works the other way as well, with only 3 percent of blacks making it from the bottom quarter of the income ladder to the top quarter, versus 14 percent of whites.

"Part of the reason mobility is so low in America is that race still makes a difference in economic life," he said.
So race isn't irrelevant, and maybe undermining public education might be a bad idea?

That seems to be the implication. The modern Republican Party is on the other side.

The full study is here, if you're interested.

Ezra Klein here covers some interesting comparisons Reuters doesn't cover - our peculiar "American lack of fatalism, the belief in opportunity and mobility" -
When asked if people get rewarded for their effort, 61 percent of Americans agreed, versus 49 percent of Canadians, 33 percent of the British, and 23 percent of the French (weirdly, the Philippines wins this one, with 63 percent agreeing). But of all these societies (save the Philippines), America is one of the least mobile, which is to say the least dependent on hard work rather than social station. In Denmark, the relationship between your parent's income and yours is 15% percent or so. In Canada, it's 19% percent. In France, it's 41 percent. And in America, it's 47 percent. The only country more hidebound and hierarchal is ... England (50 percent), also the country most closely approximating the American economic model.

As it is, if you're born in the lowest income quintile, you have a 1 percent chance of reaching the top 5 percent. If you're born rich, you've a 22 percent shot at remaining there. For the middle class, hard work and productivity have begun to count far less. In 2003 and 2004, years when the GDP saw strong growth, the median household was no more upwardly mobile than in 1990-91, during a deep recession. Think about that for a second: Inequality has reached such a height that the average household is actually worse off during today's expansion than yesterday's recession.

There's been a serious increase in downward mobility, too, with only 13 percent of families seeing a $20,000 (in real terms) loss during the 1990-91 recession, while nearly 17 percent experienced such a drop during the 2003-04 expansion. By contrast, households in the top 10 percent have seen a reduction in downward mobility during the same period. And while it used to be the case that you could combat stagnation through hard work, even that's dying out. Households where the adults worked more than 40 hours a week were able, during 1990-91 and 1997-98, to translate their labor into upward mobility. Now, the correlation has disappeared. Americans may believe that hard work ends up offering great rewards, but the data shows that that's simply not the case. Remember that next time you hear some conservative flack - maybe one named Tony Snow? - trumpeting the economy's underreported strength. Why should folks appreciate a muscle-bound economy if it's using those biceps to pummel the working class?
That's good question, but the more interesting question is whether there will be a shift in the core support for the Republican Party, the "values voters." Yes, those in power do the work of Jesus, and they'll keep the gays and the swarthy ones away, and unlike the Democrats these guys will start a major war with any other nation on earth that looks at us funny, but then, when you've worked hard and been positive and asked no one for anything, and you're down to you last dollar no matter how hard you work, and you can't afford the gas to get to work, maybe you start humming Woodie Guthrie songs. Things can change.

Posted by Alan at 18:01 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Saturday, 29 April 2006 18:09 PDT home

Friday, 28 April 2006
A Friday Flurry: Could It Be That We're Now Living in the Only Banana Republic Armed with Nuclear Weapons?
Topic: Couldn't be so...

A Friday Flurry: Could It Be That We're Now Living in the Only Banana Republic Armed with Nuclear Weapons?

Are we living in the only banana republic armed with nuclear weapons? More on the specifics of that below.

But just what was the state of play as the week ended? At six in the evening on Friday, April 28th, out here on Los Angeles (three in the morning Saturday in Paris and early afternoon Saturday in Baghdad and Tehran) in the other room the television, on mute, was showing, for the fourth of fifth time this week, The Hunt for Red October. Harriet-the-Cat was watching. At one point in that film the Lithuanian-born soviet sub captain, played by Sean Connery in Scottish-accented English and Russian, peers through the periscope, sees the periscope of the American sub chasing him and barks out "mark this bearing."

So mark this bearing.

Note that the end of the week there was this, as the business with Iran came to a head -
The United Nations' atomic monitoring agency reported Friday that Iran continues to expand its uranium enrichment technology and to hold back information that would allow inspectors to determine whether a covert military nuclear program exists.

The report by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran is conducting an enrichment program in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands to halt it. Agency inspectors who visited Iranian sites observed construction of additional centrifuges for expanding uranium enrichment operations, the report said.

Agency inspectors found no "undeclared nuclear material in Iran," the report said. But it added that because of information gaps, "including the role of the military in Iran's nuclear program, the agency is unable to make progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran."

The report gives the United States and other Western countries ammunition to convene a debate in the U.N. Security Council next week on possible sanctions or other international pressures against Iran. Within minutes of the report becoming public late Friday afternoon Europe time, British officials urged such a debate.

... Members of the U.N. Security Council are divided on how best to persuade Tehran to back off from its nuclear program. The United States, France and Britain have been seeking international support for possible sanctions. But, China and Russia, which both have veto power on the council and strong trade ties to Iran, are advocating less provocative diplomatic channels.
This is not good. The IAEA reported back that they just cannot say if Iran is working on someday making nuclear weapons. Iran is holding back key information, just as they said they would, in reaction to all the not so subtle threats we made through third parties (we certainly won't talk with them). And it appears the UN will be useless here, as Russian and China, two members of the Permanent Security Council, don't much want severe action.

Earlier in the day, our UN ambassador, John Bolton, the man who made a career out of saying the UN was useless and should be abolished, and who the Senate would not confirm to this UN post, was on television saying this Iran was a grave danger, and hinting we might have to bomb the crap out of Iran to slow their nuclear program if the UN turned out to be as useless as he has always said it was. Yeah, yeah, the self-fulfilling prophecy and all that. Secretary of State Rice was saying the UN just had to do something about this, hinting that if the UN didn't we would. The president was making statements that now the diplomacy would really begin, by which he seemed to mean other people's diplomacy and certainly not ours - we're the nation that stands back while other nations try diplomacy, telling them it never works but they should probably try, while making comments on how hopeless diplomacy usually is, and when it doesn't work we say "told you so." Then we use our tool of choice, our military. It's very curious.

But Friday was the day things came to head. It'll eventually be the diplomacy of the "lesser nations" - the ones forced by their powerlessness to rely on diplomacy - that resolves this, or the military of the world's one remaining superpower, or hyper-power as the French would put it. That is unless everyone agrees that over there - what the heck - Israel, Pakistan, India and soon Saudi Arabia have the bomb. And to the north Russian has the bomb. Let Iran go for it. What difference does it make now?

And as for the hyper-power business, note this - al-Qaida Leader Sees 'Broken' U.S. in Iraq - "Hundreds of suicide bombings in Iraq have 'broken the back' of the U.S. military, al-Qaida's No. 2 said in a video posted Saturday - the latest in a series of messages from the terror network."

That's the third in a week. Last weekend it was Osama himself saying he didn't much like our "Zionist-crusader war on Islam" and urging militants to fight in Sudan too, and calling for attacks on civilians in the west, as they elected those waging "war on Islam." Tuesday it was the man who is "al Qaeda in Iraq" - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - dismissing Iraq's new government as an American "stooge" and calling it a "poisoned dagger" in the heart of the Muslim world. Now Osama bin Laden's Dick Cheney is saying this here hyper-power is basically broken.

Our Dick Cheney will no doubt say these three messages just prove how desperate al Qaeda is, and say they are proof we're winning "big time." Or maybe he already has said that. If he hasn't he will. He always does.

It hardy matters. It's just talk.

As for what else came to a head as the odd week ended, there was this, a story out of Chicago that hit the New York Times Friday but finally ended up where it should, in Saturday's International Herald Tribune (Paris) -
The City Council has voted to make Chicago the first city in the United States to outlaw the sale of foie gras, the fatty livers of geese and ducks that many consider a delicacy but that animal rights advocates describe as a product of inhumane treatment.

The ban, adopted Wednesday on a vote of 48 to 1, makes "food dispensing establishments" - restaurants and retail stores - subject to a fine of $500 for selling foie gras. The ordinance, which takes effect in 90 days, will be enforced by means of citizen complaints, said Joe Moore, the alderman who sponsored it.

Many in the restaurant industry said the ban would have little effect on business, but they condemned it as an unwarranted intrusion by city officials.

"Government shouldn't be dictating what we eat," said Rick Tramonto, executive chef at a French restaurant, Tru. "It's just not right."

... Mayor Richard Daley was not enthusiastic.

"We have children getting killed by gang leaders and dope dealers," Daley said in an interview with The Chicago Sun-Times. "We have real issues here in this city. And we're dealing with foie gras? Let's get some priorities."
Richard Daley has a point, and his frustration mirrors the national mixing of the minor with the major - at the end of the week the possibility of the United States launching a pre-emptive war on a nation that might one day be a threat and starting a major regional war in the Middle East was given less press coverage than the business with the lacrosse players at Duke (went there for graduate school so no comment) and the outrage that someone had recorded a version of the National Anthem in Spanish (the president said that was just wrong and Howard Dean said on MSNBC that he didn't care what language anyone sang it in, as it seemed actually kind of a patriotic thing.

The other big story that wasn't was this first reported in a Bradenton Florida newspaper -
Rush Limbaugh was arrested Friday on prescription drug charges, law enforcement officials said.

Limbaugh turned himself in to authorities on a warrant issued by the State Attorney's Office, said Teri Barbera, a spokeswoman for the State Attorney's Office.

The conservative radio commentator came into the jail at about 4 p.m. with his attorney Roy Black and bonded out an hour later on a $3,000 bail, Barbera said.

The warrant was for fraud to conceal information to obtain prescription, Barbera said.
But it wasn't what it seemed, as the Associated Press reported here -
In response to media and other inquiries, Roy Black, Rush Limbaugh's attorney, released the following statement today concerning a settlement agreement with the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office to end the investigation of Mr. Limbaugh:

"I am pleased to announce that the State Attorney's Office and Mr. Limbaugh have reached an agreement whereby a single count charge of doctor shopping filed today by the State Attorney will be dismissed in 18 months. As a primary condition of the dismissal, Mr. Limbaugh must continue to seek treatment from the doctor he has seen for the past two and one half years. This is the same doctor under whose care Mr. Limbaugh has remained free of his addiction without relapse.

"Mr. Limbaugh and I have maintained from the start that there was no doctor shopping, and we continue to hold this position. Accordingly, we filed today with the Court a plea of 'Not Guilty' to the charge filed by the State.

"As part of this agreement, Mr. Limbaugh also has agreed to make a $30,000 payment to the State of Florida to defray the public cost of the investigation. The agreement also provides that he must refrain from violating the law during this 18 months, must pay $30 per month for the cost of "supervision" and comply with other similar provisions of the agreement.
There was no arrest. This was a plea deal in an old case that no one wanted to pursue. Charges will be dismissed in eighteen months. And it's much better than a deferred judgment which requires a guilty plea, as one attorney noted. The mug shot, all over the web, and the court appearance, were just administrative crap. False alarm. The voice of conservative talk radio was just tying up some loose ends.

The real arrests of interest as the week ended were reported here -
WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - Five members of the U.S. Congress were arrested on Friday at a demonstration held at the Sudan embassy to protest atrocities in that country's Darfur region, congressional aides said.

The lawmakers, all Democrats, were Reps. Tom Lantos of California, James McGovern and John Oliver of Massachusetts, James Moran of Virginia, and Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, aides to McGovern and Lantos said.
Now that's cool. It's not every day five members of congress are arrested for disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly. Actually, that may be a first. Want to see video footage of the arrests? That's here (QuickTime) or here (Windows Media).

But of course these congress folks aren't very photogenic. As someone once said, Washington is Hollywood for ugly people. The day before, as noted in the Los Angeles Times entertainment section here, the superstar George Clooney (and his elderly retired newsman father Nick), just back from Chad (as close as you can get Darfur in western Sudan these days) the day before held a press conference with the wildly conservative Oklahoma senator Sam Brownback and the rising progress-liberal star of the Senate, Barack Obama of Illinois. The basically said preventing genocide is not exactly a partisan issue - and this clearly is genocide as the Sudanese government bombs the folks they want out of the western Sudan and then the semi-official militias move in, kill all the men and children and rape the women. Those who escape to the west end up in Chad, without food and shelter, dying there. We're talking hundreds of thousand of people here, and, as above, Osama bin Laden is calling for all Muslims to drop by and help the Sudanese government get rid of the "wrong Muslims" there, and their non-Muslim friends.

There's not a lot of ambiguity here. Even our president has said this is genocide, and thinks maybe NATO or someone should do something about it, maybe even the totally useless UN.

The Times quotes Clooney suggesting maybe more people should know just what's going on, and do something, even if it's just sending blankets and food - "There's no right or left, there is no conservative or liberal point of view. There is only right or wrong." He was all over the airwaves at the end of the week, CNN, MSNBC, and even Fox News, where Sheppard Smith solemnly agreed with him.

Yeah, well, it's always more complicated, as noted here -
The reflexive new comment to make about Darfur is "what better way to tick off Osama bin Laden?" now that he has linked support for the Sudanese government to fighting the United States. The reality is sadder and more complex - while a moral person has no choice but to proactively engage the only declared genocide of the century, America is forced to consider what effect any action in the Middle East will have on the war on terror. The tragedy (upon Tragedy) is that Osama's latest tape should be a gift to us. What better propaganda opportunity for the United States than to show the wholesale slaughter of - Muslims - to the Muslim World (Arab and elsewhere) and ask who they stand with? Isn't that exactly what "the Enemy" does with images from the Palestinian occupation? If we had that Radio/TV Free Middle East we were promised, Darfur would make for a great campaign, but the Administration values intelligence ties with Sudan and relations with Sudan's protectors in the Arab league more than the thought of a direct appeal to the "Arab Street."
Thus we talk about how someone should do something. But it won't be us, no matter how many congressmen are arrested at demonstrations, or who shows up from Hollywood.

Besides, the president has other issues on his plate, specifically the record high price of gasoline. Yeah, so he started a war in Iraq that took a good chunk of the world's supply of oil off the market for more than three years, just when demand in China and India was exploding. Oops. Prices rose. It's a supply and demand thing. But he has a solution - Friday he announced he wants congress to give him the power to set mileage standards for American cars, bypassing any laws they pass and whatever the Transportation Administration says, or the Environmental Protection Agency, or anyone else at all. He said he alone should be "the decider" and said he'd use the power "wisely" - you could trust him. Congress may respond next week. It's a test. The response will weed out the traitors to him in his own party, and let him know, and the idea settles in with the resulting news stories, if the polls are all wrong and people still really do trust him.

That should be interesting.

You should trust him and his supporters? Maybe, but the same day there was this - Congresswoman Jean Schmidt of Ohio, down Cincinnati way, the woman who, on the House floor, called a decorated war veteran and military insider a coward for suggesting there might be better ways to get things done in Iraq, was reprimanded by the Ohio Elections Commission for padding her resume. Severely. She said she had two college degrees when she had only one, a violation of campaign law, and they mentioned a long series of other deceptions and distortions. They were one step away from suggesting she be sent to jail. Oops.

Ah well, the Vietnam War fighter pilot president would never mislead people like that. Schmidt was never a fighter pilot.

And the Schmidt story is a minor thing, and has at its core stuff about college degrees. Boring, boring, boring. What we need is a story about sex!

And glory be, we got one! And it was all over the web as the week ended.

Oddly, it first surfaced in the Wall Street Journal here, but then everyone knows the Wall Street Journal is a first rate and objective newspaper, with a whacky right-wing editorial page.

The item -
Federal prosecutors are investigating whether two contractors implicated in the bribery of former Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham supplied him with prostitutes and free use of a limousine and hotel suites, pursuing evidence that could broaden their long-running inquiry.

Besides scrutinizing the prostitution scheme for evidence that might implicate contractor Brent Wilkes, investigators are focusing on whether any other members of Congress, or their staffs, may also have used the same free services, though it isn't clear whether investigators have turned up anything to implicate others.
Cool. And that was followed a short item in Harpers here -
The two defense contractors who allegedly bribed Cunningham, said the Journal, were Brent Wilkes, the founder of ADCS Inc., and Mitchell Wade, the founder of MZM Inc.; both firms profited greatly from their connections with Cunningham. The Journal also suggested that other lawmakers might be implicated. I've learned from a well-connected source that those under intense scrutiny by the FBI are current and former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence committees - including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post. I've also been able to learn the name of the limousine service that was used to ferry the guests and other attendees to the parties: Shirlington Limousine and Transportation of Arlington, Virginia. Wilkes, I've learned, even hired Shirlington as his personal limousine service.

It gets even more interesting: the man who has been identified as the CEO of Shirlington has a 62-page rap sheet (I recently obtained a copy) that runs from at least 1979 through 1989 and lists charges of petit larceny, robbery, receiving stolen goods, assault, and more. Curiously - or perhaps not so curiously given the company's connections - Shirlington Limousine is also a Department of Homeland Security contractor; according to the Washington Post, last fall it won a $21.2 million contract for shuttle services and transportation support. (I tried to contact Shirlington but was unable to get past their answering service.)

As to the festivities themselves, I hear that party nights began early with poker games and degenerated into what the source described as a "frat party" scene - real bacchanals. Apparently photographs were taken, and investigators are anxiously procuring copies. My heart beats faster in fevered anticipation.
Juicy stuff, and everyone thinks the person "who now holds a powerful intelligence post" is Poster Goss, the current CIA director, who was a Florida congressman back then, head of the house intelligence committee. Amd the kicker is all this took place at the Watergate complex. Watergate? Amusing.

But the San Diego Tribune owns the story, and note this -
Last night on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Dean Calbreath of the San Diego Union Tribune - which recently won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of the Cunningham case - said that "as many as a half a dozen" members of Congress could ultimately be implicated in the prostitution scandal.
This is so much more fun than a strange, butter woman from southern Ohio lying on her résumé.

Then it gets positively Byzantine, as the San Diego paper adds this -
People who were present at the games said one of the regular players was Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, who has been Wilkes' best friend since the two attended junior high school in Chula Vista in the late 1960s. In October, Foggo was named the CIA's executive director - the agency's third-highest position.
Now this Foggo fellow has come up in these pages before - from March 5th see Getting the Details Wrong, and the Concept - and he certainly has a great name.

The key comment? Bill Montgomery here -
As long as it's only a contracting scandal (with the added fillips of sex and spies) this really isn't much more than a surreal variation on standard operating procedure in Jack Abramoff's Washington - even if the call girl angle does get the cable news juices flowing (so to speak.)

But it's at least possible that the intersection of sex, money and official secrecy will turn this story into something much more special. Who knows? Depending on how high the guest list goes for Wilkes's poker-and-prostitution soirées, this might even become the redneck equivalent of the Christine Keeler affair.

... It's only an educated guess - but also a reasonable one, given that Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade, the two contractors involved, were maneuvering to stick their dicks in the intelligence community's contracting honeypot as well as the Pentagon's. Goss's previous jobs as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and vice chairman of the low-key but powerful House Rules Committee (which controls the flow of legislation to the floor) obviously would have made him an extremely attractive piece of bowel material to a couple of intestinal parasites like Wilkes and Wade.
But Porter Goss, head of the CIA, involved in all this? Maybe. Maybe not. As in this -
On the other hand, Goss has a lot of enemies, including just about the entire career staff at the CIA, which he has been industriously purging of suspected Democrats at the behest of his White House masters. (If Porter ever turns up dead, the suspect list is going to include half of the McLean, Va. phone book and most of the world's professional assassins.) So who knows? Maybe it's just ex-spook disinformation - like the bit about the couple of dozen senior White House aides who were supposed to be indicted in the Plame case last October.

... OK, I know I'm getting carried away here. But this is really creepy stuff - and only contributes to the impression I sometimes have that we're now living in the only banana republic armed with nuclear weapons. (Or, as I've also been known to call it, North Argentina.)

I mean, we've got political purges underway in the organs of state security; a one-party legislature run by guys who write their names above the urinals at expensive K Street restaurants ("For a good time, call Duke") and - according to Harper's - limo services tied to call girl rings pulling down multi-million dollar contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, which itself sounds like a name dreamed up for the movie Brazil.

Forget Fellini, even Terry Gilliam couldn't do this justice.
Who knows what's going on? But note here - the reporter calls Goss' office at the CIA and gets a denial. He was not involved in any of this.

But what's this about this being the only banana republic armed with nuclear weapons?

Well, there's Glenn Greenwald here -
Over the last five years, our country has been gradually though incessantly changing in fundamental and radical ways. The things we see and hear our government doing are squarely at odds with how we perceive of ourselves as a nation and the values which Americans, by definition, universally embrace. We have watched while this administration imprisoned U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and claimed the right to keep them there indefinitely with no trial, no charges and no access to lawyers; routinely used torture as an interrogation tool; created secret gulags in former Soviet Eastern European prisons in order to detain people beyond the reach of the law or monitoring; and eavesdropped on American citizens, on U.S. soil, without warrants or oversight of any kind in patent violation of a 28-year-old law which makes warrantless eavesdropping on Americans a criminal offense.

Those scandals have received their fair share of attention, but this critical point has not: all of those scandals stem from the fact that we have a president who, expressly and out in the open, claims that he has the power to act in the broadly defined area of national security (which includes measures taken against American citizens on U.S. soil) without any "interference" from anyone - including Congress, the courts, and even the law. In sum, we are radically changing our system of government, and, in the process, have transformed ourselves from a country that, for decades, was widely respected as a restrained and principled superpower into an amoral, highly militaristic and aggressive state which is widely feared and despised.

... The president's approval rating didn't plummet from 60% to 33% because "liberals" changed their minds. That has happened because people who were open to standing behind the president -and who, for several years, did support him and his policies - have changed their minds about his competence, his likeability, his trustworthiness, and the overall wisdom of his world-view. That is an extraordinary shift. The group of people who believe that the Bush presidency is a failure extends far beyond "the Left" and includes virtually every group on every point on the political spectrum.

George Bush isn't just an unpopular president. He is close to reaching historic levels of disapproval. Richard Nixon's approval rating at the time he resigned his office after two years of the Watergate scandal was 25% - only 8 points below the lowly level to which Bush has tumbled. As is clear, the vast majority of Americans believe that the Bush presidency has taken us down a very ill-advised and destructive path and attempts to explore how and why that happened - and what can be done about it - are naturally going to find a receptive audience.
Well, Greenwald's new book was number one on the Amazon bestseller list, three weeks before its publication date, as the week ended. It seems a good number of people just don't want to live in a sort of banana republic with an insecure braggart tin-pot dictator in charge. Maybe it's nostalgia, for what we think we once were, and may actually have been.

And feeding the nostalgia is the old rocker from the late sixties and seventies, Neil Young, who started his career when he met the guys who formed Buffalo Springfield one block down the street at Sunset and Laurel Avenue, a block east of where the Garden of Allah complex once stood, the bungalows of the stars they tore down to build a strip mall and Joni Mitchell sang about in "they tore paradise down and put up a parking lot" (they really did). Joni Mitchell used to live just up the hill in Laurel Canyon. So did Neil Young, and he's back, with a new album and a hot single - "Let's Impeach the President." You can listen to the single here or the whole album, "Living With War" here. It's free. It's a sixties thing.

We will, of course, have a new president in a few years, and maybe Hillary Clinton, but note what Eric Rauchway says here -
If the lineup of our Presidents were to read Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, that in itself would suggest that our republic is broken. I know, only old Catonians like me find it troubling that we'd evidently like to hand the Constitution over to two feudin' clans. But it's flat not right.
Yep, it's banana republic stuff. But that's what we have. But you can also think of it as the Hatfield-McCoy model, and we get to choose which hillbilly dolt we dislike a bit less than the other at the moment.

And the banana republic stuff rolls on, as Matthew Yglesias notes here -
This article on revised Congressional Research Service estimates of spending on the Iraq War is pretty dull until the end, but then it starts to get interesting. The report apparently contains such phrases as "These factors, however, are not enough to explain a 50-percent increase of over $20 billion in operating costs" and "These reasons are not sufficient, however, to explain the level of increases." Relatedly, the Post reports that "Of the total war spending, the CRS analysis found $4 billion that could not be tracked. It did identify $2.5 billion diverted from other spending authorizations in 2001 and 2002 to prepare for the invasion." I'm fairly sure you're not allowed to "divert" money from other spending authorizations, and you're certainly not supposed to lose $4 billion in untrackable spending. Nor does it sound entirely appropriate for the Pentagon to be running its operation in such a way that the CRS can't discern the causes of 50 percent spending increases. All the sort of thing a real congress would hold some hearings on, and, once again, I won't be holding my breath.
I'm fairly sure you're not allowed to "divert" money from other spending authorizations? That doesn't take much research. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.

There's some secret stuff going on, or some good parties. Yglesias says "back in olden times when we still cared what the Constitution said, Bush could clearly be impeached for this." Those would be the Neil Young days. He's back, but maybe times have moved on. We'll see how the album does, and the single.

Things are different now, as in this from Texas -
Prosecutors won't immediately seek hate-crime charges against two white teens accused of brutally beating and sodomizing a 16-year-old Hispanic boy, who was clinging to life after being left for dead, authorities said.

The two attacked the boy after he tried to kiss a 12-year-old girl at an unsupervised house party Saturday night in suburban Spring, authorities said.

The attackers apparently were offended at the age difference between the victim and the girl, who is also Hispanic, and shouted racial slurs at him during the 10- to 15-minute attack, investigators said.

Authorities said the two dragged the boy from the party and into the yard, where they sodomized him with a plastic pipe from a patio table umbrella and poured bleach on him.

"After they got him down on the ground, they stomped his head with (steel-toed) boots," Harris County Sheriff's Lt. John Denholm said. "They actually kicked the pipe further into him with the boots."

County prosecutor Mike Trent described the pipe as being sharpened at one end. At one point, the teens tried to carve something on the boy's chest with a knife, he told CNN Friday.

"I don't know that the very beginning of the attack was racial," Trent said, "but there's no question that they were venting quite a bit of hatred in their hearts."
That'd be a good guess. On the other hand, maybe they were just "blowing off steam" and this is no big deal, as that's what the man with the drug issues, Rush Limbaugh, said here about what happened at Abu Ghraib - just having a little fun.

The banana republic thing may be a bit of stretch, but things sure have changed.

Posted by Alan at 23:18 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 28 April 2006 23:34 PDT home

Thursday, 27 April 2006
Truth and Authenticity: More on the Power of Narrative
Topic: Reality-Based Woes

Truth and Authenticity: More on the Power of Narrative

As mentioned elsewhere in passing, will people, angry over the high price of gasoline these days, put two and two together and figure out that if you go to war with a major oil producing country you take maybe thirty percent of the world's oil out of production for a time, and in this case the time has stretched to over three years. That might make for tight supplies and, as a result, high prices. World demand is high and the insurgents keep blowing up the pipelines in Iraq, and making the rebuilding of the refineries and ports damned hard - and the contactor doing that work, the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg-Brown-Root, is charging the government a fortune and not much is getting done, given the security problems.

The Iraqis were supposed to greet us as liberators and we'd be out in six months, as Rumsfeld said, with Ahmed Chalabi running the place for us, as Cheney had arranged, with Chalabi's old University of Chicago buddies Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. But what should have happened just didn't happen.

So, if people start to think about the crude removed from the market, as the result of "the long war," as they're now calling it, and see the enormous profits from Exxon-Mobile and the rest, and think about the president and vice president coming from the oil industry... this could be trouble. Who to blame for paying a hundred dollars to fill up the SUV? The guys who started the war, or at least these same guys who gambled it would be six months and out, with our Chalabi in charge there.

Blame the war?

Well, the administration has another view. It's not the war. It's Bill Clinton's fault, or at the fault of the environmentalists he seemed to like, and Clinton's vice president, Gore, writing books on global warming, and now with that new film (see this discussion). These were the folks, Democrats and global warming chicken-little types, who opposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling a decade ago. That's what the president say here, without naming Clinton or Gore directly. But the implication is there.

It's another "it's not my fault" argument, of course. And the Clinton-Gore administration is still wonderfully useful - "How can you blame us when they did that?" That actually does seem to almost always work. It must be that Clinton fellow, or his oh-so-earnest sidekick, Al Gore. After Clinton got caught with his pants actually down, and fudged his response to the nation and the courts, it only seems fair to most people to think there may be something to what the Bush-Cheney administration claims. Clinton must be at the root of the problem, whatever the problem is. It's sort of ingrained in the national myth that explains everything.

Do you question conventional wisdom, what everyone understands to be so? As Josh Marshall finds here, someone was dumb enough to do that. It seems a reporter cornered Al Hubbard, the director of the president's National Economic Council, and Keith Hennessey, deputy assistant to the president for economic policy, and asked about the oil thing. What about it? Would the oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) have offset the oil we cannot seem to get from Iraq at the moment?

The transcript is here -
Reporter: The president made the point that had ANWR been approved ten years ago, you'd get about a million barrels a day. Had the Iraq production resumed to the level that had been projected before the war, how much would that contribute today?

Hubbard: I actually don't know the precise answer to that. What's really most important, though, is that we've become less reliable on overseas sources of crude oil and other sources of energy, and more reliant on energy from within our 50 states ...

Reporter: You have no estimate, though, about what Iraqi production could be?

Hubbard: I do not have it.

Hennessey: We can get back to you.

Hubbard: Yes, we can get back to you with that.

Reporter: That would be useful. I mean, just - obviously, since the president has chosen one interesting example in ANWR, the Iraq one would be an interesting one to compare it to, whether that would be more or less than a billion - a million a day.

Hubbard: Yes, we will have to get back to you on that.
They never expected anyone would put two and two together and ask. They just didn't expect the question.

Tim Grieve here helps out, but not in a nice way -
Iraq's prewar oil production has been estimated at somewhere between 2.6 million and 3 million barrels per day. In July 2003 - which is to say, two months after Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq - the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Iraqi Oil Ministry together set goals of getting production back up to 2.5 million barrels per day by the end of March 2004 and up to 3 million barrels per day by December 2004. But Iraq's oil production averaged just 2 million barrels a day in 2004, USA Today says, and by August 2005, it had dropped to 1.86 million barrels per day. By this February, the Times of London says, production had dropped further, to just 1.5 million barrels a day.

So to answer the question: If you assume that Iraq was producing 2.6 million barrels of oil per day before the war started, then it appears that production has dropped by 1.1 million barrels per day since then. If you assume that Iraq was producing 3 million barrels per day before the war, then it appears production has dropped by 1.5 million barrels per day. In either case, the daily oil production lost to the war exceeds that which the president says would have been gained from drilling in the ANWR.
Oh. Facts. They're awful things.

Luckily for the administration, the American public doesn't much like facts. We like a good narrative and what feels right - that "gut feeling," our instincts. That's why we elected a "I go with my gut" president who doesn't much care for detail. He's one of us.

So the facts don't matter much. Of course Grieve lays out some others. Our death toll in Iraq is approaching two thousand four hundred, and a new report from the Congressional Research Service estimates that if Congress approves the supplemental spending bill now before it, a total of three hundred twenty billion dollars will have been appropriated for the war, so far. And the Congressional Research Service looks at the Pentagon's "burn rate" of about six and half billion a month, so you see where this is going. And of there's the other study suggesting that the total cost of the war, including the long-term care that will be required for its veterans, could reach around two trillion dollars.

But that's beside the point. People don't think about such things when you're talking about the grand narrative of the noble good guys (us) fighting pure evil (them). They're just facts.

But some facts do intrude. And that messes things up. Thursday, April 27, filling the twenty-gallon of your Ford here in Los Angeles would cost you about sixty-five dollars, and next week will be higher, and every week after that. When you have to drive a lot of miles a week, as you do in Los Angeles and so many other places, sixty-five dollars means a lot more to you than this two trillion dollars, or the forty grand every man woman and child will carry as their share of the national debt for the next three or four generations. The sixty-five dollars is kind of immediate. The other figures are for policy wonks and eggheads.

But the senate Republicans have the answer, with this - "Most American taxpayers would get $100 rebate checks to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday... 'Our plan would give taxpayers a hundred dollar gas tax holiday rebate check to help ease the pain that they're feeling at the pump,' Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist announced Thursday."

Right. In another two weeks that's about one tank of gas.

Note this from Kevin Drum in the Washington Monthly -
It's bad economics, bad policy, bad optics, and the palpable stink of election-year desperation all rolled into one fetid package. But at least it's means tested!

Frist said the rebates would go to single taxpayers making less than $125,000 per year, and couples making less than $150,000.

Whew. For a minute there I thought they were just being frivolous about this. But as long as Bill Gates doesn't get a rebate check, sign me up.
Yeah, right. Drum can be sarcastic if he wishes, but it is an attempt to recapture the narrative, and a pretty good one. A check in the mail is something you can cash, It's real, not this two trillion dollars for the war, or the forty grand every man woman and child will carry as their share of the national debt for the next three or four generations. You can take it to the bank. It's not abstract. And it "feels" good.

Just don't think about the more than three years of war taking all that Iraqi crude off the market, creating scarcity in a time of high demand here and new demand from China and India, driving prices up. Economists think about those kinds of things, as do Democrats. Ordinary folks think of the check in the mail buying one more tank of gas.

And Thursday, April 27, brought another tussle for control of the national narrative with this -
Hurricane Katrina turned FEMA into a "symbol of a bumbling bureaucracy" so far beyond repair that it should be scrapped, senators said Thursday. They called for creation of a new disaster relief agency as the next storm season looms on the horizon.

The push to replace the beleaguered agency was the top recommendation of a hefty Senate inquiry that concluded that top officials from New Orleans to Washington failed to adequately prepare for and respond to the deadly storm, despite weather forecasts predicting its path through the Gulf Coast.
Well, symbols matter, and no one likes a "symbol of a bumbling bureaucracy."

Drum again here - "This is truly remarkable. FEMA was a fine organization for eight years under Bill Clinton, widely recognized as one of the best run agencies in the federal government. But after a mere five years of George Bush's stewardship there's now a bipartisan consensus that it's so rundown that the only choice is to get rid of it and build a completely new agency in its place. Astonishing."

Well, maybe so, but it fits the narrative as Avedon Carol notes here - "So first you wreck the program, then you claim its failures are the result of the fact that 'government programs don't work' - relying on amnesia about the fact that it worked just fine before they started 'fixing' it - and then they decide we need to abolish it rather than putting it back the way it was when it used to work."

It is part of the Reagan narrative - government is bad, and there should be less of it, and private for-profit enterprise is good, and there should be more of that. Carol's long rant, from which that one snippet is quoted, notes the same thing happened with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and so many other government functions. Wreck them and then point to the wreckage as proof that government is not the answer to anything. It's a pretty neat trick. And it advances the Reagan narrative. Very clever.

And there's the other narrative that's getting a lot of play these days. That would be the "man of the people" narrative - some public figures are just "straight shooters" and flat-out authentic.

This had been built up around George Bush, the plain-spoken uncomplicated cowboy-type who likes to clear brush on his Texas ranch, even if he was born in Connecticut, went to Yale, got his Harvard MBA, and the ranch dates from 1999 when he bought the spread from a pig farmer just before the first election. Yeah, he did spend lots of years in Texas in his twenties and thirties, so he must really be an authentic Texan.

John McCain is another riding the same wave, the narrative that has him as a "straight shooter" war hero, even if what he shoots is often inconsistent and muddled. He was a hero, no question about that, given all those years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, so when he says something pandering or befuddling, it must be us. It's the power of the narrative. The narrative trumps logic and facts.

The third example of a rider on the same wave came up in the New Republic profile of Senator George Allen of Virginia, who may very well be the Republican candidate for president in the 2008 elections. This profile, released Thursday, April 27, but from the May 8 issue of the magazine, by Ryan Lizza, is here, but you have to be a paying subscriber to read beyond the first paragraph that opens with this - "Senator George Allen is the only person in Virginia who wears cowboy boots."

Ah, another Texan, except he grew up out here in Palos Verdes Estates while his father was with the Los Angeles Rams, and his mother is French -
In Palos Verdes, an exclusive cliffside community, he lived in a palatial home with sweeping views of downtown Los Angeles and the Santa Monica basin. It had handmade Italian tiles and staircases that his eccentric mother, Etty, designed to match those in the Louvre. "It looks like a French château," says Linda Hurt Germany, a high school classmate.

... While there, [Allen] became obsessed with the supposed authenticity of rural life - or at least what he imagined it to be from episodes of "Hee Haw," his favorite TV show, or family vacations in Mexico, where he rode horses. Perhaps because of his peripatetic childhood, the South's deeply rooted culture attracted him.

... Whatever it was, Allen got his first pair of those now-iconic cowboy boots from one of his father's players on the Rams who received them as a promotional freebie. He also learned to dip from his dad's players. At school, he started to wear an Australian bush hat, complete with a dangling chin strap and the left brim snapped up. He wore the hat for a yearbook photo of the falconry club. His favorite record was Johnny Cash's At Folsom Prison.
And we learn about lots of things - his red mustang he drove to the local high school with its confederate license plate on the front, the white-supremacist racial pranks, the senior photo where he wear a confederate flag pin, the confederate flags in his office now, and the little noose hanging in a potted plant there, reminding everyone he was one of the ones who voted against the senate statement apologizing for all the blacks who had been lynched in the south form the end of the Civil War to the late forties. Charming. He's a good ol' boy, from Palos Verdes. His friends and classmates found him creepy, and not very bright.

And now, in Virginia? Try this, from a recent political rally -
As the scrum breaks up, Allen turns away and spits a long brown streak of saliva into the dirt, just missing one of his constituents, a carefully put-together, blonde, ponytailed woman approaching the senator for an autograph. She stops in her tracks and stares with disgust at the bubbly tobacco juice that almost landed on her feet. Without missing a beat, Allen's communications director, John Reid, reassures her: "That's just authenticity!" It's a word they use a lot it the Allen world - "authenticity."
And there you have it. The rich red-neck wannabe from one of the most exclusive communities in La-La Land struts his stuff.

What does an actual Southerner say? Ed Kilgore here -
As a native southerner, I find this weird and a bit troubling. Personally, I have all sorts of issues with the Confederate Flag and the whole self-destructive cult of the Lost Cause. But I do understand its appeal to people who have grown up saturated in southern culture; I may sometimes consider them SOBs, but they are my SOBs. The idea of young, incredibly privileged, golden-boy-quarterback George Allen of California choosing to embrace southern shibboleths at the precise moment, in the late 1960s, when they were most associated with atavistic racial attitudes, bothers me a lot.
No Texans say that of Bush.

Other views? Ezra Klein here -
Potentially worse, Allen comes off as a garden variety of sadist, a high school bully and vandal who hurled his brother through a glass door when he wanted to stay up past his bedtime, cracked another brother's collarbone for the same offense, and so tormented his youngest sister that she wrote a memoir packed with instances of his cruelty and thuggishness. It's grotesque stuff, and considering the perpetrator is being seriously considered as the chief executive and primary symbol of our country, Lizza's article is a definite must-read.
But to read it you need a subscription, until May when you can read the hard copy. On the other hand there are big chucks of excerpts here, where Digby at Hullabaloo fills in the details.

And he adds this -
George W. Bush has proven that being a phony southerner is better than not being a southerner at all. Indeed, a phony southerner can be better than a real one as long as they put their whole heart and soul into it as George W. Bush and George Allen do. It shows respect.

Presumably a guy like Allen (who during his teen-age years in Southern California had a confederate flag on his mustang and wore a rebel flag pin in his graduation picture) is a man who has lived his bona fides even better than the Yale fratboy, Junior Bush. Nobody can assail his good ole boy pretensions. Allen truly loves southern culture even if he has no blood ties to the south and his mother is (gasp!) French.

If winning the presidency in the country really rests on relative good ol' boy-ness, then it's hard to see how anyone can beat Allen. Aside from his total immersion in southern culture, the article is full of examples of his youthful (and not so youthful) racism and I can only assume that this will help him when he goes up against John McCain in the south. The racist voters of the GOP will catch all his winks and nods with no problem.

The only question is whether the big money boys will get behind him. He is, after all, even dumber than George W. Bush and they may be having some second thoughts about running another empty suit:

... although Allen is undoubtedly the hot new thing within the Beltway's conservative establishment, some denizens of K Street and right-wing newsrooms have begun doubting whether he represents their best hope to snuff out the burgeoning campaign of their enemy, McCain. "If my choice is, 'Who do I want to go out with to a fun dinner to drink our brains out,'" says one of the party's top fund-raisers who has met with Allen many times, "there's no question, it'd be Allen. He's a guy's guy, but he didn't blow me away in terms of substance."

It's hard to believe that they can't find a southern Republican who isn't a sadistic idiot to run for president, but I'm beginning to think that's the real problem. Guys like Bush and Allen are the best they can do. Clearly, all the smart southerners are Democrats.
Well, actually, the problem may be the press, as Kevin Drum notes here -
The press corps is a sucker for "authenticity," and it's something that both George Bush and John McCain have cleverly exploited - because for most reporters, speaking in complete sentences or having smart ideas about policy are way less important than being a "straight talker" or "comfortable in your own skin." But just as McCain's embrace of Jerry Falwell has shown him to be a wee bit less of a straight talker than his handlers claim, Allen's "authenticity" also turns out to be barely skin-deep.

... Allen may reasonably claim that what he did as a teenager four decades ago shouldn't be held against him now. But the consistent evidence in Lizza's piece that his red state good 'ol boy shtick is little more than a personal invention, carefully cultivated and maintained through the years, should at least give the press corps pause as they cover his campaign. They've gotten suckered by this act before, and both McCain and Allen are currently gearing up to sucker them again with the same song in a different key. Caveat emptor should be their watch phrase this time around.
But it won't be. It's the power of the narrative. The narrative trumps logic and facts, and boosts circulation and market share, and that's your advertising revenue.

The Democrats who wish to stop this madness really don't need any more facts. They don't need them. No one cares. They need a counter-narrative.

Posted by Alan at 22:18 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 28 April 2006 07:07 PDT home

Wednesday, 26 April 2006
The conceptual flaw in the
Topic: Political Theory

The conceptual flaw in the 'intimidation model' for getting what you want...

In these pages last November, around the time the president gave his Veterans Day speech and John Murtha, the previously hawkish congressman from Pennsylvania, caused a firestorm by suggesting we ought to get at least our troops out of Iraq and do this Iraq thing a different way, in Things Coming to a Head there was a reference to the third volume of the C. S. Lewis "Perelandra" trilogy, That Hideous Strength (1945), where one of the characters says this -
If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family - anything you like - at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren't quite so sharp; and that there's going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.
Back then, Thursday, November 17, 2005, seemed like a day full of "the possibilities of even apparent neutrality" diminishing really fast. (Oh yes, as before, you can learn about the CS Lewis book here, if you're into theological science fiction.)

But Lewis was right - elbow room disappearing is a continuous process as things get "sharper and harder" day by day, month after month, and in America today too, as if the current administration wants it to be so, in some kind of "final showdown" way. Call it governing by confrontation, and in foreign policy, replacing diplomacy with carefully stage-managed public conflict.

Maybe it's a Texas thing. You get done what you need to get done with your squinty-eyed look and threats, and sometimes you shoot.

The problem is, as we see with Iran - Iran Threatens To Strike At US Targets If Attacked. If you want to bring something to a head the other side sometimes doesn't back down like they're supposed to.

And now we have a domestic example. The president's opponents have a large bill of particulars, from telling us we had to war because of the nuclear and chemical and biological weapons we could prove Iraq had in stock, which turned out not to exist, and now we know all the warnings that they didn't exist were dismissed, to the various scandals, almost too many to mention, to the claims the president has the right to ignore this law or that, to the far less than half-hearted response to Hurricane Katrina, to the Dubai ports deal, and so on and so forth. The president's opponents - rather than caving in to all the claims that being bothered by any of this means that they just "hate America" and are, in effect, "on the side of the terrorists" - are not rolling over and seem to be willing to say "not so fast." Two can play that game.

There seems to be a basic, conceptual flaw in the "intimidation model" for getting what you want. Projecting power and refusing to compromise were, we were told, what would win the day in Iraq and cow North Korea into dropping their push to build nuclear weapons, and what, we are being told now, will force Iran to back down from their efforts to do that too. It doesn't work, and there's no evidence it ever has. But we are told it always works, and that it's the only solution to get what we want.

Anyone can see it has the opposite effect, but we are told that's just because we just haven't been intimidating enough, so far, and the bad guys sense some of us want to compromise, so that dilutes the effect. So we must show more resolve, and the thoughtful and questioning should just shut up, as they're ruining everything. Well, maybe so. There's always a first time for everything. In the history of the world this "intimidation model" has never worked even once. But it sounds good, if you're from Texas.

As a grand experiment in redefining who we are and how the world works, it is interesting in a theoretical way. It's something new, and captured in the core doctrine of "preemptive war" - we reserve the right to wage war on any nation on earth that sometime in the future might act in a way that threatens us, and we'll use our own secret evidence of what they might do one day and no one else's. The neoconservatives and their easily manipulated and somewhat clueless president really do have bold ideas. Confusing "bold" with "sound" seems to be at issue, of course. It's an easy mistake to make.

As for the purely domestic example of "push-back" that really isn't supposed to happen, there's new talk of impeachment. It seems someone looked in the user manual, the constitution, and found that the framers, in assigning rights to the states to balance the powers of the federal government, added a curious provision - if both houses of any state legislature vote that the president should be impeached, congress must take it up and hold hearings. And there's a move in both Illinois and Vermont to do just that, as noted here in the Boston Globe. The modern conservative movement made its bones on "states rights" - fighting integration and fluoridation and nationally-mandated Daylight Savings Time and all the rest - and the irony here is delicious. Not that anything will come of it. Vermont may be able to pull it off, maybe, but in Washington the Republican-controlled House will schedule the required hearings for sometime in 2025, or later. Still, it's push-back, Texas-style, from Vermont.

And then there's this, a discussion of a short speech that Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia gave on the floor when everyone came back from their two-week Easter break -
"Despite more than two centuries of pressures to change and 'modernize,' the Senate, as an institution, remains remarkably similar to the body created at the Constitutional Convention in 1787," Byrd said. "It retains all of its original powers, including providing advice and consent - yes. You said it. You better read that again in the Constitution. It retains all of its original powers, including providing advice and consent to presidents on nominations and on treaties, serving as a court of impeachment. You better believe it, Mr. President. The Senate can send you home. You better believe that. If the House impeaches you, the Senate will try you."
So the old coot from West Virginia talks Texan too. The president a few years back, when asked what he thought about all the folks fighting us in Iraq long after we had "won" and whether we could handle that without increasing the number of troops we had there, famously said there was no problem - "Bring it on." Two can play that game.

But the other side is supposed to back down, isn't it? You can almost hear the befuddled anger at the White House. What's wrong with these people? Don't they know how things work?

What could this mean?

It could mean that the days of "shock and awe" as both a military tactic, and a political one, seem to be passing. Yeah, we captured Baghdad brilliantly and the regime of Saddam Hussein fell quite nicely, but "shock and awe" are not very effective long-term tools. There's resentment, and blow-back. The neoconservative might claim it's just not fair, as the tactic is so impressive. Maybe we should do more of it and see if it still works. But it just doesn't. That's life. And on the political side, the bold and audacious radical remake of who we are and how things work, with its own "shock and awe," turns out to be only useful in the short term. Either way you create insurgents - a nasty army of the resentful. And they fight back.

So C. S. Lewis was onto something - things come to a point, "getting sharper and harder." The process continues.

How does the president respond now?

For that you might go read Sidney Blumenthal on how he sees the White House.

The passion of George W. Bush
"The president doesn't care that he is reviled. He is a martyr, and someday all will see his glory. Meanwhile, he's got Karl doing his dirty work."
April 27, 2006, SALON.COM

That opens with this -
The urgent dispatch of Karl Rove to the business of maintaining one-party rule in the midterm elections is the Bush White House's belated startle reflex to its endangerment. Besieged by crises of his own making, plummeting to ever lower depths in the polls week after week, Bush has assigned his political general to muster dwindling forces for a heroic offensive to break out of the closing ring. If the Democrats gain control of the House or Senate they will launch a thousand subpoenas to establish the oversight that has been abdicated by the Republican Congress.

In his acceptance speech before the Republican National Convention in 2004, the "war president" spoke of "greatness" and "resolve" and repeatedly promised "a safer world" and "security," and compared himself "to a resolute president named Truman." Afterward, Bush declared he had had his "accountability moment"; further debate was unnecessary; the future was settled.

But Rove's elaborate design for Republican rule during the second term has collapsed under the strain of his grandiosity. In 2004, Rove galvanized "the base" (ironically, "al-Qaida" in Arabic) through ruthless divide-and-conquer and slash-and-burn tactics.
This is followed by a great deal of discussion of Rove, but gets interesting when it gets beyond that one man -
For Rumsfeld and Cheney the final days of the Bush administration are the endgame. They cannot expect positions in any future White House. Since the Nixon White House, when counselor Rumsfeld and his deputy Cheney watched the self-destruction of the president, they have plotted to reach the point where they would impose the imperial presidency that Nixon was thwarted from doing. Both men held ambitions to become president themselves. The Bush years have been their opportunity, their last one, to run a presidency. Through the agency of the son of one of their colleagues from the Ford White House, George H.W. Bush (whom President Ford considered but passed over for his vice president and chief of staff, giving the latter job to Cheney), they have enabled their notion of executive power. But the fulfillment of their idea of presidential power is steadily draining the president of strength. Their 30-year-long project on behalf of autocracy has merely produced monumental incompetence.

Yet Rumsfeld and Cheney do not really care. Bad public opinion polls do not concern them. Their ambition is near its end. They want to use their remaining time accumulating as much power in an unaccountable executive as possible.
And as for the president -
The more beleaguered Bush becomes, the more he is flattered by his advisors with comparisons to great men of history whose foresight and courage were not always appreciated in their own times. Abraham Lincoln is one favorite. Another is Harry Truman, who established the framework of Cold War policy but left office during the Korean War deeply unpopular with poll ratings sunk in the 20s. Lately, Bush sees himself in the reflected light of Winston Churchill, bravely standing against appeasers. "Never give in - never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in," Churchill said in 1941 as Britain stood alone against the Nazis. "Bush tells his out-of-town visitors to think of how history will judge his administration twenty years hence and not to worry about setbacks in Iraq," conservative columnist Arnaud de Borchgrave writes.

... The greater the stress the more Bush denies its cause. In his end time he has risen above his policy and is transcending politics. In his life as president he has decided his scourging is his sanctification. Bush will be a martyr resurrected. The future will unfold properly for all the wisdom of his decisions, based on fervent faith, upheld by his holy devotion. Criticism and unpopularity only confirm to him his bravery and his critics' weakness. Being reviled is proof of his righteousness. Inevitably, decades hence, people will grasp his radiant truth and glory. Such is the passion of George W. Bush.
Could this be so? Is this where ruthless divide-and-conquer and slash-and-burn tactics end up, with an apparent failure muttering to himself that nothing in the polls matter, that most of the world's nations now at best don't trust America but more generally see America as both foolish and dangerous doesn't matter, that the enormous federal deficit and massive trade deficits don't matter, that the scandals don't matter - history will prove him right? "The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder." Cold comfort. One wonders if uses the "history will prove me right" line on his father, the president who decided against taking Baghdad.

And the hits just keep coming.

Wednesday, April 26, was the surprise testimony of Karl Rove, this for the for the fifth time before the grand jury investigating the Valerie Plame case. It seems the "intimidation model" may not have worked so well there, having the team go after her husband, who revealed embarrassing things, by leaking to the press that his wife was a CIA agent and set the whole thing up to get him out of the house. Now that gets sticky.

The Washington Post has details of what it was all about here, but it's very complicated. Kevin Drum untangles it all nicely here, or you might go to a famous defense attorney here. It comes down to Rove probably bargaining for lesser charges, but being charged none the less, and Fitzgerald works his way up through Stephen Hadley to Vice President Cheney. This wasn't supposed to happen. When you're indicted for a crime you sort of have to leave office. Who will be left?

Then there's this - "Investigators for the European Parliament said Wednesday that data gathered from air safety regulators showed that the CIA had flown 1,000 undeclared flights over Europe since 2001, sometimes stopping on the Continent to transport terrorism suspects kidnapped inside the European Union to countries using torture."

From Reuters, this -
A senior EU lawmaker on Wednesday backed accusations the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had kidnapped and illegally detained terrorism suspects on EU territory and flown them to countries that used torture.

"The CIA has, on several occasions, clearly been responsible for kidnapping and illegally detaining alleged terrorists on the territory of (EU) member states, as well as for extraordinary renditions," Claudio Fava said in his first interim report of the European Parliament's probe into the suspected CIA abuses.
No one was supposed to know, and the cooperating people within certain governments were supposed to keep quiet. Too many things are coming out.

Luckily a good number of Americans think kidnapping and torture are just fine, as these people aren't like us but merely depraved evil devils. We are the people who did the Salem witch trails in the seventeenth century. We get it. Who cares what the Europeans think? And whatever it was we did it was only to keep us safe, and that's our right, and we're the good guys. Right.

But there are other things.

Will people, angry over the high price of gasoline these days, put two and two together and figure out that if you go to war with a major oil producing country you take maybe thirty percent of the world's oil out of production for a time, and in this case the time has stretched to over three years. That might make for tight supplies and, as a result, high prices. World demand is high and the insurgents keep blowing up the pipelines in Iraq, and making the rebuilding of the refineries and ports damned hard. They were supposed to greet us as liberators and we'd be out in six months, as Rumsfeld said, with Ahmed Chalabi running the place for us. Should have happened, but didn't. If people think about the crude removed from the market, as the result of the long war, as they're now calling it, and see the enormous profits from Exxon-Mobile and the rest, and think about the president and vice president coming from the oil industry... this could be trouble.

Well, at least there's a new White House press spokesman, that fellow from Fox News, Tony Snow. A well-spoken and well-liked new press secretary, energetic and photogenic, can explain it all.

What's to say about that? He has a hard job, of course. Yes, he comes straight from pro-Bush Fox News, which is more of a political movement than a news network, but that hardly matters. The White House would hardly pick Dan Rather or Bill Moyers, and Snow has been blunt at times in the past. He'll do. He's rather pleasant. He has a nice smile and a good sense of humor. And he will tell us what?

Walter Shapiro imagines that here -
Question: Karl Rove is making his fifth appearance in front of the grand jury today. And I'm wondering how you would characterize its effect on the administration? Is it a disruption, a distraction?

Press Secretary: Actually, it's a great tension release mechanism around here. We all have a great laugh imagining Karl sharing a cell with Tom DeLay and Kenny Lay. Of course, we try not to make those jokes when Karl's around. But then we don't see much of him, since he's constantly with his lawyers or sitting in a darkened office muttering about running off to Tahiti to write a McKinley biography.

Question: What do you think the impact is going to be at the gas pump of relaxing environmental rules, and how soon do you think that will show up?

Press Secretary: Is the Twelfth of Never soon enough for you? If the inky-dinky spider fell down the water spout, we'd use that as an excuse to relax environmental rules. But seriously, no president - Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative - can do much about gas prices in the short run. It's like King Canute trying to command the tides.

Question: Has the president been briefed at all on the CIA's firing of Mary McCarthy for allegedly leaking classified information? Does he have any reaction to this?

Press Secretary: Look, it's not coincidental that the most leak-obsessed president in history has named the most leak-obsessed CIA director. It's also not coincidental that the first victim of this internal investigation happens to be somebody who donated $2,000 to John Kerry in 2004. As far as the president is concerned personally, he's totally in favor of finding out the truth. As long as it doesn't come too close to the Oval Office.

Question: How would the president assess his final 1,000 days in office?

Press Secretary: Like a prison sentence.

Question: Does the president support Senator Clinton's move to have the generals who are calling for Secretary Rumsfeld's ouster testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee?

Press Secretary: This administration rarely supports Hillary Clinton on anything, of course. But we would even let Laura and Barbara Bush testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee if it would convince Don Rumsfeld to quit. In case you haven't noticed, we are at an impasse here. One of President Bush's most admirable human qualities is his reluctance to fire anyone. One of Secretary Rumsfeld's least admirable qualities is his refusal to take a hint. I'll let all of you in the press room connect the dots.

Question: What does the president plan to do differently between now and November to get Republicans elected or reelected?

Press Secretary: Raise money in private for any Republican who asks and avoid appearing in public with any Republican who has serious opposition. If you've got another strategic idea for us, please call Karl. That is, if you can find him.

Question: The president made a phone call to Canadian Prime Minister Harper on the weekend? Can you tell us the contents of that call?

Press Secretary: About all I know is that the conversation was short. Very short. With all the problems facing President Bush, do you think he cares about the mood of Moose Jaw?

Question: Just a personal question, just wondering how you're feeling today with this transition, what your plans are for the future? What do you want to do when you grow up?

Press Secretary: I feel envious of my predecessor Ari Fleischer for so wisely getting out in time. I feel pity for my successor who doesn't fully understand how hard it is in this White House to be allowed to say anything publicly. I feel a trifle bitter that the president I have so loyally served set me up to fail in this job. I feel hopeful that I will be rewarded in the private sector for all the abuse I have taken in this room. And, most of all, I feel sorry for all of you in the press corps who somehow cling to the illusion that asking a White House press secretary - any press secretary - a snarky question at a televised briefing is an exercise in uncovering the truth.
Well, it will be an interesting charade.

But the fact remains, there was a time "when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren't quite so sharp" and "there's going to be a time after that point when there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous." Of course "the whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder."

That may be the grand experiment in governing by intimidation. And it's too bad it just doesn't work.

Posted by Alan at 22:29 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Thursday, 27 April 2006 07:43 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older