Pure Twaddle

But seriously, good luck to everyone in Egypt, police and civilian alike.

Popularity: 6% [?]

I live a monkish lifestyle. I sleep on a futon mattress in a room smaller than my dorm room back in twenty-aught-three. I have a desk but no chair. I have a window but no air. I like to pretend I’ve taken a vow of poverty to cleanse my spirit; but really my penury stems from external causes (mainly my liberal arts degree).

There is one thing I have not missed from the affluent life: television;  more specifically, cable news. Here are two examples:

CNN’s coverage of Barney Frank’s town hall meeting:

and Fox’s coverage:

Who to trust? Neither. Turn off the TV and pick up a newspaper. Then give it to me so I can use it as insulation when the winter comes.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Here’s his writeup from Fark member Tatsuma about what’s been going on in Iran with a great description of the “players”:

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsumairanupdate/

Great photos (though dated) here:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/irans_disputed_election.html
and here:
http://tehranlive.org/

Plus the BBC’s live Farsi feed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/tv/2009/01/000000_ptv_live_s.shtml

Crazy times…

Popularity: 7% [?]

The current election protests in Iran are exceptional in their own right; but what is even more exceptional is the role Twitter is playing in generating support for the opposition. Right now, thousands of Twits (people on Twitter) are showing their support of the “Green Revolution” by adding a green tinge to their digital avatars and forwarding news and following the flow of contraband Tweets from inside Iran. In a situation where most journalists have been ousted or silenced, the vacuum has been filled with thousands of defiant voices from Iran. And their chorus has been echoed ten-fold by followers on the ‘net.

But what the internet has proven that even its largest fads can burn out within a few weeks. Remember that British woman with the great voice? Remember BananaPhone? Remember Mumbai? All these were high-powered internet obsessions that ebbed back into the undulating waves of the WWW. Supporting Iran is easy when all you have to do is Tweet and follow; but I wonder if even 10% of those Tweeting would be marching in that protest (or if they will even remember the cause three weeks from now).

I would love to expound on this, but I still don’t have reliable access to the ‘net. And I’m not even in Iran…

Popularity: 9% [?]

Good enough for government work.

“Freedom is not free.” All too frequently during the Iraq war we heard this phrase used by hawks to justify the invasion. There is truth to this statement, the real reasons for the Iraq war not-withstanding. Freedom does require vigilance, but often in ways we do not want to consider.

There has been much controversy over the recent release of memos revealing that the US policy of water-boarding was not only used on many occasions by numerous individuals, but that it was also institutionally encouraged by the chain of command. Water boarding has been in the public eye for some time, but now we know it was more than the result of an over-zealous interrogator. This disturbing reality has raised hard questions: Should we prosecute? Do we pardon the offenders? Do we do nothing?

Our nation has long held the belief that torture is wrong and that any one who practices it is contemptible and despicable. But we face a moral dilemma: here we have men who we think may hold information that will vital to public safety. Does that justify pouring water into their lungs to make them talk? If so, why stop there? Why not shove bamboo shoots under their fingernails or hook car batteries up to their genitals if it reveals nefarious plans? Do not the ends justify the means if it saves even one American life?

Here the supporters of water-boarding blanch. If we approve of water-boarding, the logical progression to more violent means is unavoidable. To justify the practice, they re-classify water-boarding. Now no longer “torture,” it is euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation,” which sounds like a feature on a new car. (See how marketing-speak leaks into our national vocabulary?) With this linguistic firewall between what we want to do and what we shouldn’t do, we can water-board as many people as we want.

But that solid barrier merely semantics,  a construct that can be built and un-built in the span of an official press conference. Once we allow one form of cruel and unusual interrogation, we can push ahead to even more brutal methods unhampered by ethical standards. And once we allow the government to torture one person in the name of national security, we implicitly allow them to torture anyone, including you and me.

“But what if it’s your child who dies in a preventable terrorist attack?!” you might hear shouted by cable pundits. This argument is unassailable. Even if one ethically opposed to torture wouldn’t dare wish death upon his own child. Ah, but here is the rub.

For most of our nation’s short history, the cost of protecting our freedoms was borne mainly by our soldiers. Those on the home front may have made many sacrifices for the war effort, but rarely were their own lives directly at risk. With the advent of modern terror, this has all changed. As former President Bush intoned repeatedly, we are no longer fighting a traditional war. Everyone is now an enemy combatant – including us.

This new type of war does not justify torture on any level. To the contrary, we must be more vigilant to stop it from ever being done. To allow torture brings our government one step closer to tyranny. I do not wish to die in a terror attack because the US refuses to torture somebody. But to quickly resort to such inhumanity just to save my own ass is pure cowardice. I would be willing to pay the ultimate price to ensure we remain true to our ideals and our society remains free.

No one said being American was going to be easy.

Popularity: 35% [?]

Since when did David Broder, columnist and University of Maryland journalism professor, get a job with the Obama administration? Here are some quotes from his Washington Post opinion piece summing up Obama’s First 100 Days and their translations into normal speech:

What he has shown — and it is an important accomplishment in itself — is a mastery of the art of managing the presidency.

Trans: Obama hasn’t screwed up yet. Yes, this is a major feat.

And it is surprising, because there was no reason to assume that he had the skills to direct such a large enterprise.

Trans: We were expecting a shite-show considering his complete lack of executive experience.

Obama had a few stumbles in assembling his Cabinet and, as a result, lost the services of one potential major asset, Tom Daschle, his original choice to manage his health-care initiative.

Trans: Sure, six known tax cheaters seem like a lot, but isn’t it better to keep people above the law if they follow your political agenda?

Hardly a day has gone by in the first three months that Americans have not seen Obama on their TV screens in a variety of roles — chiefly as economic salvage director for seriously shattered housing, credit and employment systems.

Trans: Nope, we’re not sick of showing him on the TV yet.

But they’ve also seen him as commander in chief of armed forces fighting two wars, diplomatic traveler engaged with world leaders, and agenda-setter for Congress — to say nothing of first father, first fan, first consort of Michelle and first master of Bo.

Trans: “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.”

But the overture has gone well, and so far, the cast seems to know its parts.

Trans: I’ve memorized my lines, now where’s my appointment?

Popularity: 34% [?]

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has raised the hackles of many lawmakers for daring to suggest that we cut our defense budget. Specifically, he wants to reduce spending on our amorphous missile defense systems, the president’s new helicopter, and the F-22 Raptor, inter alia.

Naturally, the immediate reaction from the (ostensibly) small-government conservatives is to point out how Obama is leaving us completely defenseless. Before your mind can register the inanity of this idea, they go on to point out the disparity between the reduction in defense spending to the monstrous domestic spending that the Obama administration is trying to push through for next year. I agree that Obama is spending way to much money as it is; but, they are implying that it’s not fair that he gets to spend all this money on what he wants. Their goal is not to reduce spending overall, it is to limit increases to only what they want.

There is a big brouhaha over the Raptor cuts. Gates doesn’t want any more because he says it “has not performed a single mission in either [Afghanistan and Iraq].” Makes sense, right? We’re not using the 190 or so we have now, why buy more? Well, the warplane is made primarily in Georgia and cutting the order will most likely lead to job losses in the Peach State factories. It’s ridiculous, so the argument goes, to allow these jobs to disappear when the nation’s overall unemployment rate is climbing.

But this logic does not justify buying a whole new set of F-22s. At $65 billion a pop, this is simply corporate welfare. There is a direct correlation between buying jets we do not need and handing cash to GM and Chrysler. Just because the dollars are marked in the Defense column doesn’t make it legitimate. If the only way your business can survive is if the Federal government pumps money into it, you probably should not be playing in the open market.

I was agog when our defense budget hit $601 billion (that’s $601,000 million). Last year it was up nearly 27% to $762 billion. We spend more on defense than every other nation combined. We have had only one attack on our soil since World War II and all the military spending in the world could not and did not stop it. But one suggestion (from the guy Bush hired to fix Iraq, no less) that we stop spending billions of dollars on essentially useless war toys and suddenly we’re naked to the world. Let me tell you, we’ve been naked for a long time; no size budget will fix that.

Popularity: 16% [?]

So, Michael Phelps is in hot water for allegedly smoking pot in North Carolina and now some of his friends have been arrested because of the infamous photo. What’s worse is that he’s even lost sponsorships because of this “despicable” behavior. What truly saddens me is that he didn’t lose any sponsorships when he was busted for DUI at age 19. So very telling about our government and society’s current attitudes on drugs.

Now if only Michael Phelps had the cojones to stand up and say “I smoke. So what?” As annoying as Bill Maher is, he spoke the truth last night on Larry King. Take a look.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Writing letters to your elected representatives is a uniquely American pastime. When all else fails, we hold on to the belief that a well-crafted plea will influence decisions at the highest level of government. Perhaps you may have read about a recent bill that strikes a chord with your sensibilities. If only you could just lay out the reasons why you believe in it, you could convince your congressperson that it’s a worthwhile measure. Perhaps a syndicated talk show host has roused righteous indignation in your heart and, by God, you’ll let Madame Senator know your staunch opposition to some affront on our social mores.

This quaint idea that contacting a senator means being heard somehow persists in our age. True governmental change is purchased and promoted through think tanks, influential insiders, and lobbyists with bottomless pockets. But to all the hopeful romantics out there who think a letter-writing campaign can bring some change, I offer a guide compiled from my limited experience in the halls of state government. Here are ten things that will ensure your letter goes from the clammy hands of some bored, clock-watching bureaucrat to the lofty desk of your chosen leader.

1. Send a form letter. Nothing shows deep support for an issue like the 45th copy of a personal plea with a different name and address at the bottom.
2. Do not reference specific legislation; simply state general policy ideas. Be sure to suggest possible bills to be introduced. The representative will certainly appreciate your attempt at writing law.
3. If you do have to reference a specific bill, do not give any reasons why you support or oppose it. One- to two-sentence e-mails saying you do or do not like the legislation are best.
4. In fact, don’t use complete sentences, proper punctuation, or grammar. Representatives love the game of decoding what the common man is trying to say.
5. Do not register to vote. Representatives want to hear everybody’s viewpoint no matter what. In fact, they even eschew voting roster databases just so they won’t be tempted to ignore non-voters.
6. Address the wrong representative. A naturally curious breed, senators love reading other people’s mail.
7. Address the wrong chamber. Senators want to hear your views on House bills and vice versa.
8. Address the wrong level of government. No, your state senator may not be able to vote on the current federal stimulus package, but he will happily do all in his power to forward your concerns to the right senator in Washington.
9. Call incessantly 24 hours after mailing your letter to confirm that it was received. Most representatives do not believe constituents are really serious until they call. They usually have a big box labeled “Not Called” which is emptied at the end of every week unless you call.
10. Call again just in case someone missed your letter and first three calls. Yelling and insulting the office receptionist will get your point across.

Happy writing!

Popularity: 15% [?]

The Senate has just announced they have come up with a bipartisan deal for a staggeringly gigantic stimulus package that they hope to vote on by Tuesday. Naturally, they released this news about two hours after most respectable journalists have packed up for the weekend and gotten themselves nicely plastered at Applebee’s happy hour.

This whole charade of discussion is disgusting and has brought out the worst of both sides; mainly from the Republicans, who have shown extreme weakness and disorganization in making a stand. After a few whiney calls to fairness, they have tentatively agreed to a slightly-less-than-$800 billion spending bill. They have shown the requisite opposition to it and are trying to wash their hands of the deal, but not too much in case it actually works. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in a statement right after the announcement on Friday, “ultimately this bill should be judged on whether it works, and 90 percent of a bad idea is still a bad idea.”

So he thinks 90% of it is wasteful spending and pork, but he is willing to try a wait-and-see approach to it? Is this really the kind of leadership we’re going to get out of the opposition in the next four to eight years?

What is most disturbing is that none of the major networks or major pundits have clearly broken down and laid out the components of this bill. Conservative critics scream it’s mostly waste which won’t help anybody, while Liberal cheerleaders degrade the Republicans as Neros who would rather play fiddle than put out the fire. The less-biased reporters ignore the thoughtful approach, instead calling the blows to each side as if they were ringside at a Holyfield fight. Whatever happened to “we report, you decide?”

Of course the Democrats are going to produce a bill chock full of government-expanding programs. Since most of America voted for them that’s what we are going to get. And who is blames them? That’s their platform and they’re sticking to it. But arguing over what money goes where is wasted breath.

There is a more insidious problem here that is overlooked by nearly every media organization (except the Wall Street Journal). Whether the bill is filled with pork or not is a moot point. No matter what form a giant stimulus package takes, be it infrastructure overhaul, massive education spending, or stimulus checks, we are going to severely increase inflation.

When you dump trillions of fabricated dollars in the economy, inflation will rise. There is no escaping it. With the ridiculously poor returns on investments and bank accounts, the last thing we need is our current cash supply to decrease in value. What good is “saving or creating” 2.5 million jobs when their salaries are paid in a worthless currency?

And yes, “borrowing from our grandchildren” is a euphemism for printing money. And we all know how that worked for the Weimar Republic. From Wikipedia:

Since striking workers were paid benefits by the state, much additional currency was printed, fueling a period of hyperinflation. The 1920s German inflation started when Germany had no goods with which to trade. The government printed money to deal with the crisis; this allowed Germany to pay war loans and reparations with worthless marks and helped formerly great industrialists to pay back their own loans. This also led to pay raises for workers and for businessmen who wanted to profit from it. Circulation of money rocketed, and soon the Germans discovered their money was worthless.

Sound familiar?

So the next time you listen to your favorite commentator, see if he mentions inflation. He will not. While everyone is ogling the familiar kabuki play on the floors of the House and the Senate, we are implicitly agreeing that the only way to get ourselves out of this self-made debt hole is to borrow and spend more. Pure lunacy.

Popularity: 24% [?]