Mark Steel

Mark Steel is a gifted comedian (and also apparently a socialist).  He has a series of talks on youtube on such diverse subjects as the French Revolution, Che Guevara, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin and Karl Marx.  He does a great job of humanizing these seeming larger-than-life figures and events (regardless of how you may feel about them).  I highly recommend checking them out at your leisure if you still can.

I most enjoyed the one on Karl Mark, although other links are below.

parts (2,3,4,5)

Albert Einstein: parts 1,2,3,4,5,6

Darwin (Evolution of Man): parts 1,2,3

Che Guevara: parts 1,2,3

Vive La Revolution (French Revolution): 1, 2, 3

See if you can catch him using the same jokes.  Although, I am surprised how many of the men ended up marrying their cousins.

Thanks to Paulitics: Paul’s Socialist Investigations for the good find.

Cheney on Iraq Invasion/Quagmire (1994)

This video on YouTube gives Cheney’s impression of what invading Iraq would have meant in 1994.

I know I’m posting it late, however, much of the analysis that I’ve seen misses the point, or what I think is important about it.  So, I am providing my thoughts on the matter.

There are two central themes to the video

1. Iraq Quagmire
2. Additional U.S. Causalities

I’ll deal with U.S. causalities to begin with.  Given the current policy stance of the administration to stay the course, which de facto means more U.S. causalities; I don’t think the calculus of thousands of U.S. dead and many more wounded is a profound weight on carrying forward the current U.S. Administration’s policy in the region.  I think it would be safe to say that if the number breached 4,000 or 5,000 for the invasion, the administration would still carry forward its policy.  I think the causalities only offer public resistance to the policy, not a dampening of the underlying desire to pursue it.  I don’t want to get into macabre statistics of body counting, but to the fundamental question of how many dead Americans is Iraq worth?  My answer would still be: not very many; Cheney’s is: much higher, and greater than 3,000. I don’t think September 11th fundamentally changed his view on the matter.  I think he wanted to invade Iraq and September 11th is merely a pretext for doing so.  In 1994, he was merely trying to defend the decision of not going into Iraq.

As for the quagmire scenario, I think that the administration was fully aware of the post-war realities of Iraq?  So the question is, why were they so poorly prepared for it?  I am going to reject the cynicism that would have us believe that they wanted us to be plunged into a state of perpetual war.  Legacy is very important to Bush.  So, I don’t think he would purposely dive into a situation that he thought that he couldn’t handle, even though that is exactly what happened.  So why did that happen?

I think the underlying reason is that the Bush administration fundamentally believed that they could privatize this war and that by privatizing it would magically turn out better.  Certainly, if the government Army can provide security, then Blackwater mercenaries can to do a better job.  The fundamental problem is that the sector of elites, corporations and organizations that this government outsourced to are incredibly incompetent.  They are of a similar breed as Bush, who as a war president will take more vacation days than any other president in American history.  They are the type of people that believe that they’ve made $500 while they were on the toilet.  Or when told that a situation is “past critical” would respond: “Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or tweak?”  In America, that type of crony capitalism works fine.  No one really knows if all the money was spent efficiently.  However, in Iraq, when the stability of the country depends desperately on progress in adverse and tough conditions, these corporations and would be Napoleons weren’t up to the task.  Although, they were happy to take the exorbitant sums they were paid.

Wikipedia Source Controversy

In the wake of the wikiscanner it turns out that some one with access to a computer on Fox News edited Wikipedia entries concerning Keith Olbermann, Al Franken. Here is a comprehensive list of changes. Wikipedia is routinely criticized as untrustworthy. Although, I remember spending long afternoons reading about the life and times of Anton LaVey founder of the Church of Satan or the obsessive compulsive hoarding of the Collyer Brothers.

Some people criticize it because they can’t get their heads around the idea that the “truth” is subject to change. It isn’t so much “truth” but our knowledge about it is subject to change. For example, Johannes Kepler believed that the Sun was the center of the solar system as opposed to the Earth. His argument was so convincing that it has become the dominant view. Even in our own lives, there may have been a time where we believed in Santa Claus and later came to reject it.

The underlying question is: why do people stop believing Santa Claus, if they believed in him in the first place? Was it because they were told by an older sibling? Or was it because, they didn’t understand how he could visit so many people in one night? Or how he could be at two shopping malls at the same time? Or how did he know that they were naughty or nice?

I think the basis of the rejection is important. If a person believes in Santa Claus because at one point they are told that he exists and stops believing when they are told that he doesn’t exist; they’ve missed the point. I do not believe truth exists from revelation or special sanction. Truth is available to us all, equally, based on observation and logic. Honest and open forums of debate vet available knowledge and help us achieve a more certain truth.

Wikipedia is not the most authoritative reference for any subject on the Internet, in spite of its ranking on Google. It never claimed to be, and there are frequently all sorts of warnings on a page about disputes or citing problems. But, the appeal is that when you find something wrong, you can fix it. Outright rejection of Wikipedia and its underlying ideas is a rejection of egalitarianism. It is a rejection of debate and observable truth in favor of the view that knowledge and truth require special sanction. Yes, people will abuse it. However, how quickly those edits were reverted is also instructive.

Wikipedia is still nascent, and it may take decades to reach its full potential. But, rejecting it now because it is erroneous is short-sighted. The beauty of the system is that one is not just a passive consumer of knowledge, but can also be an active contributor, and that transition has historically been proven to be key to progress.

The Liquidity Crisis and Moral Hazard

As one may have heard, the Federal Reserve approved the cut in the discount loan rate which caused a rally in the stock market. A detailed analysis of what is going on is given here. Basically, the Fed bought some time for hedge funds to silently or not so silently reposition their investments. This “bail out” is being paid for by future inflation by everyone. It doesn’t change the inevitable conclusion that the market will go bear. This is because value in the market takes into account expected values of future gains, and simply put, the future value doesn’t exist. That future value is based on the amount of debt people owe. The value of these sub-prime mortgages was the expectation of payments when rates go up, however given people’s meager ability to make ends-meet now, stagnant wages in conjunction with health-care, oil, energy and food cost increases makes the overall situation for people to meet all their liabilities worse.

The U.S. economy does face a moral hazard. I don’t believe that moral hazard exists in health care, however I do believe it exists in financials like this “liquidity crisis” and like the Enron implosion. Corporations and the wealthy are driven by an irrational exuberance to make more money. They fuel the booms and busts that the economy has experienced, with what can be called “the greater sucker theory.” The moral hazard comes from the fact when “a greater sucker” doesn’t come along, or when the “sucker” that you found is not able to meets his/her obligations the whole thing crashes. The fact that the elites go whining to the government every time they get caught holding the bag won’t ensure it doesn’t happen again. I’m sick of the government’s “deregulate and bail out” strategy. Either regulate the market to ensure the irrational exuberance doesn’t occur, so we don’t have to spend a lot of money bailing them out later, or deregulate and let the market boom and bust. The “deregulate and bail out” strategy effectively steals from the poor and gives to the rich.

The more frustrating aspect is the blatant hypocrisy of it all. Welfare and social safety nets are all frowned upon, but when the rich need help it is a dire problem that immediately needs to be addressed. I don’t want the economy to dive, but I also realize that bailing out a few well-off people at the expense of everyone else is absurd and especially unfair to people who are struggling. We have a perverse form of socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor. However, it is hardly a new phenomenon. To give some perspective, consider the following from “A People’s History of the United States of America: 1492-Present” by Howard Zinn (pg. 259).

In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: “Federal aid in such cases … encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.” But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond — a gift of $45 million.

Is this the result of a functioning democracy?

Norman Finkelstein: Is Jimmy Carter Anti-Semitic?

Norman Finkelstein was (possibly still is) a DePaul Political Science professor who was recently denied tenure under somewhat suspicious circumstances.

Other parts are here (2, 3, 4, 5). Unfortunately, the conclusion is cut off.

Knowledge Versus Debate

One thing that I’m mildly surprised at is the comparison between the state of knowledge versus the debate that exists either online or via the main-stream media. For example, if you look at “A People’s History of the United States” or “American Theocracy,” one a national bestseller and the other a New York Times bestseller respectively (I don’t know if there is a significant difference), they present views that would lead most people to be relatively distrustful of what the government tells its people about war. I understand Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Sean Hannity have bestsellers also. But, Fox News has a whole network to parade out those pundits and those views are apparent in almost any discussion I come across. Why isn’t there a strong response that moves the debate in the other direction based on the opposite view?

I guess what is particularly mystifying to me, is there must be many people who know a lot about particular issues, assuming people read the books that they buy. And if they didn’t put the book down after the first ten pages, it would be hard for me to believe that they wouldn’t inject some of those views into the debate that is presented in the main stream media.

For a concrete example, who won the Chomsky/Dershowitz debate? I would have to go with Chomsky. I understand if Dershowitz came off as more polished, but did anyone walk away, do what Dershowitz challenged them to do and conclude Dershowitz was right? If you examine content and verifiable statements, Chomsky was correct on a number of points. For example, on U.S. Israeli rejectionism claim, look at the text and vote for U.N. Resolution 44/42 December 6, 1989. As for human rights abuses and Benny Morris, most of the facts check out although, I doubt that Chomsky completely fabricated the paragraph in “Failed States” but more importantly it verifies a larger world view supported by examples of the My Lai Massacre and other examples that are found in almost every war. Go to Amnesty International’s website, look at articles like this one. Who’s espoused views does the evidence support more?

However, the fundamental reason to believe Chomsky more than Dershowitz is bias. What motivations does Chomsky have to distort? What motivations does Dershowitz have to do the same? What is clear is the U.S. and Israel are on the other side of a vast international consensus on the Palestinian question. Prof. Chomsky does not appear to be living on his own planet as Dershowitz implied with his repeated “Planet Chomsky” remarks, it is more likely that Dershowitz is in an area of the political spectrum that exists strongly in Israel and the United States. The fact that Carter came to similar conclusions only bolsters Chomsky’s case. Another analysis of the debate is here.

So, is the reason that the debate doesn’t move forward because one side is stubborn and repeatedly able to gain access to the forum? Or is it because of the aftermath, people don’t get together and communicate their findings about the topics discussed so the debate was meaningless to begin with. The debate was merely a spectacle, an intellectual boxing match instead of an endeavor to find truth.

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

I just finished up “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” by Jimmy Carter. Apparently, some people didn’t like the apartheid part of the title calling it “anti-semitic.” Carter does a good job of providing a narrative account of the modern history of the region although there are a few idiosyncrasies. One is his emphasis on “Christian” issues. I understand he is deeply religious and the backdrop of the region so central to Christian history was important to him, although it causes downright embarrassing exchanges such as this one that he relates on pg 31-32.

Later, in her [Prime Minister Golda Meir] office, I thanked the prime minister for making possible our wonderful visit, and she asked if I had any observations I would like to share. With some hesitation, I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government. She seemed surprised at my temerity and dismissed my comments with a shrug and a laugh.

It is a question like that which makes me wonder if religion causes brain damage. Carter is talking to the leader of a nation that was founded in response to one of, if not, the worst episode of genocide in history. A people who believed that they were “God’s chosen,” and they were singled out and massacred on an industrial scale. Carter has the audacity to ask a leader of a country which is surrounded by hostile Arab nations on every front except the sea whether she thinks God will punish her and her people for not worshiping enough. I’d laugh too. Did praying help Jews survive the holocaust? If I were a Jew, I wouldn’t put down prayer, but I think this time I would rather have some gunships than God’s supposed favor.

When Carter isn’t unknowingly embarrassing himself, he takes some pages to address his deep concerns over apparent Christian persecution. However, any persecution Christians face is due more to being Palestinian than Christian, and he gives no depth to Islamic concerns. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for universal religious access to Jerusalem too, although it is a lower priority than establishing basic humanitarian needs to the vast majority of the Palestinian people. The other half of the idiosyncrasy of the book is how Carter actually bends over backwards to defend Israel. Even when it is routinely demonstrated, especially more recently, that Israel would rather rule with military might that by rule of international law. As Chomsky puts it, Israel has routinely sacrificed security for expansion.

The basic takeaway from the book is that it confirms Chomsky’s account that can be read in “Failed States.” Peace is possible, but it will require more concessions from Israel than it is currently likely to give. Any lasting peace will have to respect the 1967 borders with some tactical land-swaps. However, the current separation wall, abuses and devastating reprisals will only lead to further conflict in the region.

After Carter, peace in Israel has really been a back burner issue for Republican presidents. Clinton did make some strides, but ultimately they fell short. However, completely laying that at the feet of Palestinians is unfair. And it is clear that the situation has significantly regressed under Bush, although much of it is due to similar political shift in Israel as well.

Interestingly enough, there is a debate between Prof. Alan Dershowitz and Prof. Noam Chomsky on the relevant issues. One thing that I noticed about Dershowitz is his use of incredulity. Why aren’t the Palestinian causalities reported in the mainstream media? The answer is obvious to anyone that observes the media, but to flip it around, why aren’t Iraqi civilian causalities reported in U.S. media? The fact of the matter is, the U.S. media paints a much different picture than what you would get in the rest of the world. For example, if we look at the 2006 Lebanon War. The causalties work out to be around 500 Hezbollah fighters and around 1,200 Lebanese civilians. For Israel, around 120 from the Israel defense force and 43 Israeli civilians. U.S. media tended to emphasize the rocket attacks, world media leaned more towards the Lebanese civilians, which is why there was a huge difference in perception between what the U.S. ended up believing about the Israeli response versus the rest of the world. People in the U.S. tended to think Israel’s response was justified, whereas in the rest of the world people acknowledged Hezbollah’s wrong-doing but thought the Israeli response was so severe it was not justified.

Karl Rove Resigns

Can’t say I saw this one coming. Here is the press conference.

Keith Olbermann gives his insights into the matter (via Crooks and Liars). The I-want-to-spend-more-time-with-my-family line is as old as the hills and not the primary reason he is leaving. Yes, he is going to write a book lauding the Bush administration. I wonder if he’ll be on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart when he promotes it. I can only wish.

However, the best honest explanations for his departure are

1. It is a good time, Congress is out of town
2. With the current Congress, most of Rove’s domestic agendas are still-born anyway
3. There is going to be some legalese to the effect that Rove doesn’t have to testify before Congress

The other aspect is the upcoming presidential campaign. I don’t think Rove will explicitly join any of the other campaigns, although I think he is going to be a key behind the scenes player leading the attack against the Democratic candidate. The one they have their sights on is Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton has been vilified by the far-right for over a decade. You can witness some of the latest work titled: Hillary Dillary Dumb: A Lying Bag of Scum. This is merely portending some of the attacks that will come if she becomes the Democratic nominee, although I doubt Obama or Edwards would fair much better. It is fair to say, this Presidential race is going to get very nasty, especially with a wedge candidate like Hillary and whatever fear monger (Romney, Fred Thompson, or Giuliani) the Republicans will probably choose to nominate. Although, Ron Paul would be awesome, since there would be actual substance in an American presidential run instead of pure marketing.

“Loose Cannon” Diplomacy

There is a meme in foreign relation policies that it is good to be seen as a “loose cannon.” The reasoning is as follows: if a state leader and therefore the state he/she represents is seen as an irrational, unreasoning, punitive and powerful, the rational response from other states that don’t want to fight is to give such states wide breadth. It moves discussions from international law, principles of justice, etc. to simply what does the “loose cannon” state want, and what can we have to give them so they don’t attack us.

Foreign policies are extensions of domestic politics. The United States would not be occupying Iraq right now if it were not for the grim realities of American oil dependence. A dependence that has not seriously been addressed since the Carter administration, which was later abandoned under Reagan. The ultimate goal of Iraq invasion is to leave Iraq’s oil in the hands American corporations. The extent that oilmen like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney overlap with high-levels of the government is not coincidental.

The most concerning aspect of “loose cannon” diplomacy is its domestic equivalent. The notion that the executive needs to be unchecked and unquestioned in order to “protect” America. This is evident in the mental gymnastics George W. Bush has to perform to endorse and later deny U.S. torture. Or his declarations that the U.S. is on the side of righteous against the evil-doers in the world in the context of a blatant oil grab. It is only surprising in the degree that other members of government, particularly the legislative, go along with it. The wide breadth Democrats give the president has consistently proven to be a mistake, yet confoundedly, when the next opportunity presents itself they play along.

This consistent cave-in presents the Democrats as a party of partisanship instead of principle. It took me by surprise when George W. Bush was elected for a second term. The reason was more surprising, voters who voted for Bush were more concerned about “values” than the Iraq war. In the eyes of Kerry supporters, the Iraq war was at the forefront of issues and same-sex marriages was just noise. To the Bush voters, same-sex marriage was the foremost issue, the Iraq war was something the U.S. had already won. The same schism exists today, I feel that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis that Democrats have done a poor job of addressing, but most intellectually honest people who study the issue acknowledge. The other side just sees it as politics as usual.

The Democratic party paints itself as hypocrites and partisans because when push comes to shove Democrats and Republicans are two faces to the same party: the corporate party. Democrats are the liberal variety and Republicans are the conservative variety, but what they are truly vying for is money from corporations and wealthy individuals to finance the marketing campaigns to win elected office. The centrist policies and liberal gestures are the part of the complex balance that it takes to win elected office as a Democrat, and principles rarely survive unscathed. To be fair, there are exceptions like Dennis Kucinich, Patrick Leahy, and John Conyers. However, when Hillary Clinton states lobbies are people too and she doesn’t think the money affects her, it is a warning. U.S. democracy is weak right now because it is one dollar one vote, not one person one vote. If candidates don’t understand that, they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Bill Moyers Journal: Impeachment Panel

Bill Moyers ran an interesting panel discussion on impeachment between himself, Bruce Fein and John Nichols.

More of the discussion can be found in the following parts (2,3,4 and 5).  It gives me some hope to see people from what would generally be considered opposite sides of the aisle come to an agreement on basic principles instead of sniping at each other.