Election Wrap

The voters have spoken…the verdict is in. The President is toast. Well, maybe---maybe not.

Turnover in the House is the largest in over 60 years… But, this election was the third in a row that has swung that body by twenty or more. Polling of voters has indicated that dissatisfaction is widespread for both parties. Voters want action---change. But will voters support a candidate who says he’ll start with a 50 cent per gallon levy on gas along with other tax increases, import duties on cheap consumer goods, significant cuts in defense spending, plus an end to farm subsidies and tax deduction for mortgage interest? Such a program would eliminate the deficit, ease our balance of payment woes and start us on the road to energy independence. This is the kind of program that our government advocates for other countries in economic and financial distress. It’s also the program that we voters condescendingly prescribe for them! Oh, but now we run back to “American Exceptionalism”. We are special; we don’t have to be responsible.

Republicans berate the healthcare bill, as they would, but it covers 32 million additional Americans, while decreasing the deficit, creating competitive insurance markets, restricting insurance companies’ prerogative to drop customers or increase their premiums, beginning to pay doctors for quality care instead of quantity, and ratcheting back private-plan abuses.

The 111^th Congress has been one of the most productive in recent history. Beyond healthcare, in less than two years we’ve seen significant work on stimulus packages, congressional ethics reform, significant financial service industry regulation, 75,000 infrastructure projects, massive investments in renewable energy sources, “race to the top” (to replace “No Child…,”) “national service” legislation, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover 4 million more kids, new regulations on tobacco, 2 million acres of wilderness lands restored to federal protection, expanded benefits for veterans, minimum wage increase, environmental issues and much more, all in the face of recalcitrant, Republican obstructionism. There are currently over 400 bills passed by the house, awaiting Senate review.

This is not to say that all of these measures are good for the nation; but more than any Congress in decades, this has been an action Congress.

So what’s to complain about? Well the Republicans are crying because they’re not in control. The hushed truth is that many Americans could never be content with a black president. Being a Democrat seals Obama’s fate. The GOP’s only real agenda is to prevent the country from moving toward prosperity while Democrats are in control.

Liberals are unsettled because of lack of resolution on big-ticket items: the wars are still raging, even expanding into Pakistan; Gitmo is still operating, no formal censure of the Bush Administration---or even repudiation of torture, for that matter. The Healthcare bill did not contain a “public option.” Financial service reform was late and seriously diluted. Military budgets continue to grow, along with the deficit.

And all are disturbed over persistence of the recession. Well, there have been no significant, structural changes to promote the kind of changes that will eventually put the country onto a strong economic footing.

A significant part of the problem is polarization of the electorate. We are the farthest apart, politically, in modern times. Everyone is drained and fed up with partisan bickering. But as we demand compromise, we all see ourselves as “the center”. Compromise means coming my way!

It’s impossible to deflect blame from Obama. He may be working hard, but he’s definitely not connecting with the people. Our “ship” of state is foundering after hitting an iceberg. Fortunately [and unlike the Titanic,] since hitting the last iceberg (the great depression) we have institutional mechanisms that keep us afloat While the ship is listing and taking on water, the captain is working extremely hard with the 750-man crew.

But the crew is below decks. No one is addressing the 2500 passengers, running in a panic all over the ship. These frightened people want to SEE the captain, working, leading, fighting! They want re-assurance, visible leadership. To us, what’s going on below decks is irrelevant. All we know is the economy is still sluggish, our jobs are still gone or threatened. The “change” promised by candidate Obama has not come to pass.

When the Republicans promise to dismantle the progress made in the last two years and destroy the president, citizens don’t want a “cool” response, a promise to work together with “our opponents” toward a resolution of the crisis. Americans expect dynamic, aggressive leadership. They believe that if the man won’t fight to defend himself and his office, he won’t fight to defend them. It appears that Obama, a black man running for national office, trained himself never to appear angry. This extends to public displays of frustration. This doesn’t resonate with the American people. We expect passion, verve, heart! One needs only watch television for about 20 minutes on any evening to experience what the public expects! Our heroes deliver action---violence!

So what do incoming Republicans offer? Anti-government rhetoric works well as an electoral strategy---it stokes contingency frustration and validates fears. But as a governing strategy, it has no traction. Ronald Reagan, that icon of Republican conservatism, used “conservative” rhetoric to salve the base while heaping massive increases onto government spending. “W” did the same.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich made the mistake of trying to implement Republican rhetoric with the “Contract with America.” He ran into the Clinton Administration and the will of the American people. Clinton balanced the budget, riding the “tech” wave with a small tax increase and a significant reduction in defense spending. Meanwhile “Contract” went on the rocks and Newt was soon thrown out of government.

In broad terms, Americans prefer Republican appeals on behalf of liberty and small business over Democratic appeals to fairness and compassion. But in practice, the preferences get reversed. Democratic social programs retain widespread popular support while conservative cuts in these programs provoke antagonism. Hence, while conservatives love to talk philosophy, you can’t get them to discuss programs; and while it’s difficult for the Dems to connect their policies to their beliefs, it’s near impossible for Republicans to follow through on their ideas.

For a generation the Rep’s have tapped voter selfishness by using the clarion call of “lower taxes.” But complicating matters now is the new contingent of Tea Party rabble that seems intent on Republican ideology enough to hold their feet to the fire of rhetoric that politicians know is only a bunch of hot air. The new congressional delegation insists that there will be no compromise with their ideals. Things could get interesting! Stay tuned.

THE POLITICS OF ANGER

Election season is upon us---it’s all over us. Voters are angry; candidates are angry. Voters are angry at politicians; they’re particularly angry at politicians who are not angry. All over the country we’ve seen politicos move up in the polls after expressing rage, such as New York GOP Gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino, who threatened to “take a baseball bat to Albany.” OK! Will there be any cool heads left standing to run the country, or will we be in the hands of clueless hot-heads on a highway full of impassioned, road-raging motorists brandishing their 2^nd Amendment rights?

It appears that the president will survive, although signs have been dropped of impending impeachment hearings! The president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors?” This is irrelevant, of course: the Republican strategy is to distract the government so that no constructive work can be accomplished---work that might be credited to the Democratic Party. Who cares about the country? This is about getting elected. Groundless impeachment proceedings fit the bill---it worked to distract Bill Clinton, and it actually succeeded with Grey Davis!

Who are these angry people, and what are they worked up about?

The obvious answer is that they are frustrated people, impacted by the economic downturn, and lashing out at supposed villains, perpetrators. These are people who have bought into “The American Dream,” and see that their birthright is destabilized, violated. These are people who have spent a lifetime believing that our lots will forever ascend…at least through their lifetimes. This is what the people of China, Greece, Rome, Netherlands, Spain, Britain, “The Third Reich”, Japan, in their time, also assumed.

Anxiety can easily turn to rage when our “leaders” stoke the fire by telling us we’re victims. This most insidious tool of the demagogue tells us that we are being victimized, and to focus on a scapegoat. It’s fascinating that the groups using these techniques also demonize the president by comparing him with Hitler!

These tools of manipulation are always available to those vile enough to use them. But the problem, Dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but within us. We are political children, unsophisticated---ignorant.

Those now screaming the loudest have stood back while the economic booms of the ‘90s and ‘00s funneled the spoils of prosperity to a small group. They voted for the politicians who perpetrated the policies that caused this, and they are now supporting candidates whose response to our predictable crisis is to continue with those same policies. While most anxious voters look for reasonable sources of information, the “angry” ones wish only to rally ‘round their convictions. In these times of economic pain, they seek validation! Their struggle is bad enough without having someone tell them they are wrong or worse: responsible!

Democrats, or the president, can bombard the airways, op-ed pages and blogs with studies, but this deflects to oblivion. According to Hank Jenkins-Smith, political scientist at University of Oklahoma, “If you have a strongly held belief with an emotional component, the brain defends information that reinforces those ‘priors’ and is skeptical of information that challenges them.” When our emotions are engaged in the conversation, logic is disabled, and the fact that “experts” contradict our beliefs only stiffens our defensive conviction.

The only true resolution for this mess MUST come from us! Among scattered, disenfranchised, under-educated, misinformed, apathetic, easily-manipulated voters, this is a tall order.

Picture a family of four. Doctors have told the parents their two over-weight pre-teens are “pre-diabetic.” The parents know well enough that their children require decent food, with balanced diet and exercise, but with marital turmoil they cravenly use their children as a battlefield. They curry favor from the kids, each playing off the other. Mealtimes are at the mall, where the father insists that the kids have their choice at the food court of which pavilion to attend. The kids go for ice cream and cookies! The father assures them that their mother is a stern, unloving tyrant if she dares to suggest the salad bar. The kids know nothing else, because they’ve grown up with no knowledge of nutrition---but they know what they like!

As their health is on the verge of collapse and nutritional warnings become more strident, the kids cling to their father’s assurances that ice cream and cookies are just fine. Any threat to bring them to the vegetable stand causes them to scream and throw a tantrum. Instead of acting 9 and 11, now seem to be 4 and 5.

We have grown up since the 50s believing in the strength, the invincibility of our country, our system of government. We believe those political leaders, who since 1981 have told us we don’t have to pay the price of government services. In fact, we haven’t been paying the bills since the forties; but emerging from the war, our prosperity and industrial strength were so great that this drain was masked. By the 70s the picture was becoming clear. Jimmy Carter was the first politician with the political courage to line out our limitations and chart a course for future prosperity. We rejected that!

When Howard Jarvis (Proposition 13, 1978) showed us the blueprint for anti-tax populism, and no politician (except Jerry Brown, who half-heartedly opposed the measure) stood up for responsible, public policy, the die was cast. In 1981 Ronald Reagan backed up wholesale tax-cuts with dramatic increases in government spending. If we were taxed to pay for the excesses of government (like waging immoral wars), we wouldn’t stand for this! But divorced from the responsibility of paying, we have lost interest in how much government costs. The Reagan formula has been the paradigm for Republican populism ever since. We pay lip service to fiscal responsibility, but when pressed for real reform, we defer to the mantra of waste, corruption, oh, and blame the poor (who have no political clout.)

The sad parallels in the allegory of our dysfunctional family are all too familiar. The father doesn’t care about his children; he uses them as leverage in the personal struggle with his wife. The mother may care for the children, but feels powerless in the face of the father’s manipulation. She has colluded too long to have a serious voice of authority over their life-style.

We are not 9-year-olds, but we are the politically and culturally equivalent. We’re unwilling to face the stark reality that our national spending binge can no longer be sustained in the face of collapsing economic power, financial chicanery and a planet that can no longer sustain our wasteful gluttony. [We’re uninterested in the truth about nutrition.] Clearly those politicians who go on telling us that we don’t have to pay the bills (taxes) don’t care about the welfare of this country; their only objective is to attract voters.

Curiously, the angry tea-partiers are righteous in their rebellion against the treatment that we’ve been subjected to our whole lives, but they’re unwilling to face the reality of what needs to be done. Anti-tax platitudes line the road to election. They still insist on dining at the dessert pavilion. Their strident voice comes off as a tantrum and attracts media attention.

What’s going to turn this around? We need to face the true costs of our national standard of living. It cannot be sustained without enormous investment in education and new technology. This requires serious enlightenment, which at this time our schools don’t provide. They’re too busy focusing on inane standards testing. We, disillusioned consumers, are the teachers!

It begins at the ballot box. Do we vote for candidates who champion ever decreasing tax burdens for all…even the richest of the rich?!! Or do we vote for candidates who at least try to present a valid picture of what needs to be done?

See the accompanying Robbinsense endorsements for the up-coming election.

Ballot Recommendations

Page 1, all Democrats except Republican, Steve Cooley, doing excellent work for under-privileged poor folks. Harris is also a good candidate.

All Judges: Yes.

Page 2 (overleaf)

All Judges: Yes.

School: Larry Aceves

School District: No endorsement

County: Steve Hintz

Page 3, Props:

19. You’re on your own with this. We favor legalizing all drugs (except methamphetamines) for a number of reasons, primarily because of the devastating consequences that our hypocritical “war on drugs” has on foreign countries that supply our demand (Mexico and many others.) See “The Politics of Drugs”:

http://robbinsense.blogspot.com/2009/06/politics-of-drugs-international aspects.html

The Mexican government is on the record opposing this initiative, but we consider that position to be politically motivated.

On the other hand, it’s a poorly constructed bill that MAY cause more legal problems than it’s supposed to solve.

20. Yes, for obvious reasons.

21. No, because part of our State’s budgeting morass is caused by this kind of “targeted” funding.

22. No, for the same reason above.

23. No for obvious reasons

24. No. This is clear bullshit.

25. Yes! 2/3, “super-majority” requirements are at the heart of our budget problems.

26. No. See 25.

27. No! See 20 and 24.

The "Ground-Zero Mosque"

by Jackson Dave

Our latest cultural flap may be one of our most puzzling: the “Ground-Zero Mosque.” Curiously, even among my circle of associates, polling produces shocking antipathy toward this project.

First, we must note that most of the principals involved in stirring up this pot were avid supporters of the Bush Administration while then President Bush made numerous overt gestures toward the moderate Moslem community.

Next, the proposed “Mosque” is not a Mosque; it’s a “cultural center”, complete with basketball court, auditorium, swimming pool, restaurants and a multitude of facilities. It would be located in a currently vacant building, in a distressed part of the city that desperately needs an influx of capital and life.

Then, it’s not “in the shadow of ground zero”, it’s two and a half blocks away---two densely-constructed blocks, completely out of sight-lines as well as shadow lines. As usual, the right-wing has inflated an issue with potential to offend whites, then distorted it with inflammatory rhetoric into a wedge issue for political distraction. This is only the latest in a string of such issues.

Before we look at this closely, let’s consider the bigger picture. The international community, generally more astute in consideration of our [own] politics than we are, still regards the United States of America as a “bastion of freedom” and source of stability in the world. But this heated debate is reverberation across the globe, with the potential of creating a worldwide black eye for the United States. Many Muslims abroad are miffed by the controversy, largely conducted by non-Muslims, that has grown so loud as to become a world-wide topic of discussion on talk shows and newspapers. “Rejecting this has become like rejecting Islam itself,” said Ahmad Moussalli, a professor of Islamic Studies at the American University of Beirut. “The United States has historically been distinguished by its tolerance, whereas Europe, France, Belgium and Holland have been among those who have rejected the symbolism of Islam. Embracing it will be positively viewed in the Islamic world.”

Since the Sept. 11 attacks and the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America has spent millions trying to improve its image among Muslims, especially in the Arab world. Now political shakers and movers are banding to undo this colossal effort with what is essentially fear-mongering silliness.

Denying permission for an Islamic center in New York City is not only an open manifestation of hostility towards Moslems world-wide, but it’s a direct assault upon our own constitution. The irony is that the agitators come short of advocating scrapping the 1^st amendment, while currently they do advocate scrapping the 14^th. It’s not clear just how “patriotic” a citizen can sound while calling for dismantlement of our most basic freedoms. But in reality, of course, no one is calling for any action on this matter. This issue is strictly one of “stirring the political pot” in an election year.

Political opportunity runs rampant with this issue. Newt Gingrich, in his unannounced and on-going presidential campaign, has said, “Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists… is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.” He went on to say the leader of the proposed Muslim community center, the Kuwaiti-born scholar Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, (currently touring the Persian Gulf states on a U.S. State Department-funded trip to promote goodwill for America), is connected to terrorists and radical Islamic groups. When pressed for reference, Gingrich sited National Review. Arrogance and hypocrisy? These are characters that Newt knows well.

Rauf, who worked with the Bush Administration in a project with the mission of spreading religious understanding and tolerance, is known as a moderate Moslem, and already has an Islamic center, open for 30 years, and 10 blocks to the north of the proposed site. But the present location is cramped, and the proposed site offers a better location on considerably less expensive real estate.

From the Muslim perspective, houses of worship are humdrum affairs, and Muslims in that neighborhood now have nowhere else to pray. Some appear baffled that anyone in their right mind would scoff at a $100-million private-sector investment at a time of global economic crisis.

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in the face of community opposition, has come out on behalf of the center: "The ability to practice your religion was one of the real reasons America was founded." Mayor Bloomberg, who grew up surrounded by anti-Semitism and knows what it feels like to be a target of religious discrimination, reports that all the families of 9/11 victims he has spoken with have been supportive of the building. Referring to the victims, Bloomberg says, "We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights - and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked."

Inexplicably, the Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center, saying, “…anguish (of the 9/11 families) entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.” Does Abraham Foxman (head of the ADL) believe that bigotry is OK for people who feel victimized? OK, then, does the victimization of Palestinians entitle them to anti-Semitism? Hypocrisy, of course, runs straight through this entire controversy. The ADL, committed to “fighting bigotry and extremism”, fights bigotry and extremism with bigotry and extremism.

Five years ago, The ADL honored NEWSWEEK journalist, Fareed Zakaria, with their “First Amendment Freedoms” prize, including a plaque and $10,000. In the wake of the ADL stance on this issue, Zakaria returned both.

In recent weeks in New York City, Islamic centers and mosques have been subjected to protests and harassment by right-wing groups across the country. Protesters have shouted: "Jesus hates Muslims" and called Muslim children entering day care centers "murderers." The Christian Dove World Outreach Center has renamed 9/11 “International Burn a Koran Day," and Bryan Fischer of the right-wing American Family Association says that we should not allow "even one more mosque in the United States of America." These people call themselves Christians?

Is it possible that a single issue could galvanize the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, The Taliban and U. S. right-wing Republicans? This is the issue. “By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah told NEWSWEEK magazine last month. “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.” United States’ enemies all over the world are delighted by public mobilization over this matter. The issue is a propaganda windfall; and it’s supported by public opinion. How can we be so stupid?

From one side of their mouths, Republicans accuse the president of being “soft on terror”; out of the other side of their mouths they routinely promote policies that enflame Islamic passion and provoke terrorists. In the end, of course we know that when the inevitable attacks occur, these same hypocrites will place all the blame on the president.

In the 1959 film, The Mouse that Roared, a comedy-spoof lampooning our “gun-boat diplomacy,” a small country “attacks” the United States hoping for foreign aid. Through a series of chance circumstances, the attacking force “wins” the war, holding us hostage to nuclear terror. The movie was a classic, but raised few eyebrows.

In 1996 Osama bin Laden declared war on The United States. Bin Laden prophesied that we would never be the same. The declaration made no headlines and raised about as many eyebrows as the attack by Grand Fenwick. The notion of defeating the United States of America militarily, on the sands of Iraq or the streets of New York, is silliness. Defeating the United States of America through terror? Are you kidding….”the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

But would we recognize a cultural attack if it were launched? We are so accustomed to bullying the world culturally, as well as militarily, that we can’t recognize a cultural attack while tripping over it. Is it conceivable that one [rag–head] could be more intelligent than the combined force of our mighty, political establishment?

The attack comes not from Moslems, or even bin Laden. True to his promise, our own politicians have led the attack since 9/11, surrogates in the bin Laden army. These politicians, with their throngs of brown-shirt, cultural street thugs, have championed the fear and discord that this “silly Rag-head” promised. They have undermined the strength upon which our country was founded.

We face a defining moment. This small controversy offers us the opportunity to turn back the tide of hatred and fear. We need to welcome all faiths into the very heart of our society, Islam in particular! By welcoming this Islamic center we stand true to our beliefs, our constitution, our heritage and to those who have died for our freedoms.

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer

Our Lying Times

by William Jellick

Commenting that ‘this was the first time that I’ve seen a senator denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks’ after Al Franken had enforced the senate speaking limit on his buddy Joe Lieberman during a recent health reform debate, John McCain then added ‘ I must say, I don’t know what’s happening to this body but I think it’s wrong’.

McCain, either unable to remember that he himself had actually done the same to a Democratic senator in 2003, or simply calculating that no one would notice his lie, was just doing business as usual and saying whatever it took to gain some advantage (in this case, publicly slamming a Democrat ) – truth, hypocrisy and embarrassment be damned. And compared to some of the whoppers that he’s coughed up, (‘We are all Georgians today’ and ‘I never said I was a maverick’ are two that come to mind), this one was microscopic. So who cares?

The calculation appears to be one that more people choose these days. One thing we can agree with McCain on though is that something is indeed wrong – wrong with the body politic that he’s helped shape. You’d think that so much immediate and pervasive reporting through internet news and YouTube would throttle these guys but instead the lies and exaggerations only seem to be coming at an ever faster rate.

The ‘get-ahead-at-all-costs’ culture has adopted and nearly perfected the ‘lie, mislead, obfuscate – whatever suits you at this moment is ok’ game plan. And unlike earlier times when the framing of the news, i.e. the delivery through trusted sources, was capable of forming the critical and relevant themes of our times, our current world is no longer able to rely upon this major filter to skim the propagandists out. Bogus, slanted and outright dishonest operations enabled by big money and the Internet assume the solemnity and gravitas of these bygone gatekeepers but not their integrity for truth. Our news has been 'Photoshopped' and it's become nearly impossible, unless you make it a full-time job, to know what the real photo looked like.

The modern world of charlatans and poseurs, who traffic not only in outright lies of commission but ‘omission', has a formidable ability to shape and steer not only those among us who are less aware (sometimes referred to as ‘clueless’) but also some who should be beyond their grasp. Reckless and suicidal financial scams go viral within the usually risk-adverse and conservative world of legitimate finance. Groups of ‘outraged citizens’ have their anger harnessed and misdirected against their own best interests by political demagogues - stoking the rising tide of ‘tea baggers’ and ‘patriots’ to scream against health care reform that would most surely help them more than the skillful puppeteers pulling their strings.

Fox News recently seized on the signing of the nuclear reduction pact by president Obama and Russian premier Medvedev to produce one particularly snarky sequence between Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity. This ‘discussion’ has Gingrich blatantly lying about whether Obama has ‘said’ that we will not retaliate with a nuclear response even if we are attacked by biological weapons. And Hannity, in his most Cronkite-esk tone, ‘confirmed’ that Obama did in fact ‘say’ this. Anyone having read this part of the agreement or who had seen the meeting or read the transcripts, which was not particularly long or complex, knew immediately that Gingrich and Hannity were lying. But in the upside-down world of Fox News, fact-checking never happens to stories they want to believe in so this absolutely blatant lie went into the minds of its viewers - adding to their ‘Obama-hatred’ index and giving them yet another ‘reason’ (out of the fire-hose spray Fox puts out daily) to get ‘armed and dangerous’ (Minnesota Republican congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s words) to stop our socialist/Marxist/Fascist/Nazi-ist/Kenyan-born/Muslim president from thoroughly dismantling our country.

Say anything, do anything, no matter how outrageous, for some fame, money, power or other such self-serving end. Retract it (maybe) or deal with it later – or worse, simply ignore it until it goes away, allowing it to settle into that vast pool of erroneous ‘conventional wisdom’ that informs so many of our beliefs.

The lying grows as the perpetrators of this ruse find their success lures them to ever more outrageous behavior as they continue to push the envelope like some bizarre game of ‘chicken’ that tests the limits of our tolerance. Wall Street, televangelists, politicians (usually of the Republican variety, but occasionally Democrats too), hate-talk radio, Fox News - these groups have taken ‘con artist’, propaganda and ‘free speech’ to a new and dangerous level.

But all public lies aren't equal. Simple lies committed by 'rogue' liars such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, pale to 'systemic' lies organized by well-funded interest groups. These are lies are part of larger strategies to discredit or reverse the truth and live within a program of patient, calculated deception - and whose gestation is often defined not in terms of months or even years, but in decades. Yes, the basic blocks of giant scams not expected to bear fruit for decades to come are being laid today. The Federalist society, an ultra conservative group, was conceived in the 1970's to provide reliably conservative candidates to the Federal judiciary. The selection of many of these candidates, predicated upon Republican administrations, would not take place for years as in the case of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. And what is the big lie behind the Federalist Society? That they are for truth rather than partisan advancement.

Lying seems to have become a valid and uncontested strategy in many areas of public ‘discourse’. David Brock wrote a book (The Republican Noise Machine) on how the Republican Party fabricates then advances lies into ‘fact’ through their media outlets. He’s one to know since he was part of the apparatus (specializing in the ‘Arkansas’ project to discredit Bill and Hillary Clinton) until abandoning it in the 90’s, even though he was well subsidized, as his conscience finally got the better of him. He was so filled with contrition that he started the website 'Media Matters' to act as watchdog for right-wing lies (let me know if anyone can find a similar site whose sole purpose is to point out only left-wing lies.)

Has our modern life with its awesome ability to collect and distribute information, turned us into creatures that even our least-educated ancestors would not recognize? Have we reached our limit to adequately digest what we see, read and hear to have become a generation of naive pawns in sophisticated propaganda ploys? Unlike the American army who laughed at Tokyo Rose, are we collectively taking her modern indigenous ilk seriously when they are cloaked in respected wrappers of ‘news’ or ‘religion’ and delivered not with an Asian accent but with the down-home sensibility of ‘heartland’ America? Are we becoming creatures who cannot tell truth from fiction? Are we now only capable of manufactured and misguided rather than honest outrage? The answers to these questions may not be as disturbing as our indifference to the effects they inflict on us in the first place.

There have always been swindlers and charlatans to bilk the gullible but it seems like rather than being repulsed by these people we are now more likely to be inspired by them. The modern big-lie con-artist no longer belongs just to the 'lumpenproletariat' underclass of swindlers, beggars and prostitutes who live in the shadows of society - they run the meetings of business, speak from the pulpit of religion and walk the halls of government proudly - confident in their righteousness and invincibility.

Not long ago the very core of the definition of 'conservative' meant 'following the rules' - particularly in matters of finance. How was it then that, in the supposedly highly 'conservative' area of banking and finance, a decision was made to stop checking employment on mortgage applicants – a decision that was adopted by a huge segment of the home mortgage industry? Why did the person who made that decision - and you know it really does come down to one person – like ‘person-x’ in a viral epidemic - decide that it was ok? Or did they not even think that far, succumbing to the new conventional wisdom that surely someone in that supposedly vast sea of people with ‘integrity’ would eventually put a stop to it if it got too far out of control?

Yes, forces beyond the local loan originator were dictating some of the new rules that acted like termites gnawing away at our economic foundations. But still, something so pervasive as to have a nickname in the popular lexicon - 'liar-loan' - must have reached someone somewhere where it set off sirens and alarms - someone who had the authority to put on the brakes. But yet, it was only when our entire economic system was on the verge of meltdown did it become important to understand its implications.

The reverend (sic) Pat Robertson, a Yale-educated man, said on his television show that Haiti, after the recent earthquake, is paying the price for ‘making a pact with Satan’ that helped them get out from under French colonial rule. He also said that 9-11 was the result of God’s wrath for all the homosexuality and paganism in the US. In the past a statement like this might have been accepted by those within earshot or a printed pamphlet. His success, if he had any, fell into the 'fooling some of the people some of the time' category but once exposed to the larger pool of people it would surely have been called out and neutralized by the larger 'reality-based' community.

These days nothing stays within the protective boundary of 'local' - everything is (or should be expected to be) put out there on the great information highway – so using yesterdays logic, certain and immediate censure should fall on the perpetrator of such terrible slurs as those uttered by Mr. Robertson. But for some reason we have lost that side of the equation. Now Robertson is not a clergyman in any church and is only a 'reverend' in the sense that Sarah Palin is a 'governor'. But he spews his hate speech while standing on the shoulders of Christianity so surely there could have been a unified response to him from the leaders of the major Christian denominations. But none came.

It seems that the big lie requires a big response to offset it otherwise it dissolves into that vast ocean of 'conventional wisdom' - taking its place alongside other distortions and valid, reasoned positions. But where are the big responses? In today’s world, nothing happens – except for some op-ed pieces. But there is no shortage of manufactured outrage fueled by ‘astroturf-roots’ groups created by demagogues funded by right-wing oligarchs.

Like drops of rain that flow into mighty rivers, every unchecked amoral/immoral decision adds to the numbing of our societal consciences and the dimming of our collective critical faculties. This river has flooded our souls to the point that even brazen, prima facie public lying, usually reserved only for ‘sociopaths’ and bare-knuckled politicians, barely raises an eyebrow today, as if we’ve all succumbed to mass hypnosis or mass fatigue. The advertising professional, who's business it is to shape opinion, knows the game. A discussion with one of its bright stars summed up what he’d seen over the years: ‘it’s not a fair fight anymore – my profession can make ‘up’ look like ‘down’ and ‘black’ look like ‘white’. All we need is enough money and we can move an opinion and therefore improve a company’s sales, or determine the outcome of an election’. He doesn't really understand why but he knows that the formulas and strategies have been vetted and they work.

Bill Jellick is a Robbinsense staff writer

State Races

With our state on the brink of financial collapse, we find a couple of the most compelling political contests in memory. As usual, to sort out the issues involved in these races, we’re presented a distorted mush of non-information.

One might expect that with the gravity of the issues we face statewide, as well as nationally, these candidates might offer up something for real consideration…but so far, nothing.

Nationally, the Republican Party is breaking away from the network of old, white guys. Aside from Sarah Palin, on a national level, the party proudly touts the arrival on the scene of young, attractive, successful women, such as Michele Bachmann (Minnesota), Michelle Malkin (highly-touted political blogger), Nikki Haley (Georgia), along with author-columnist, and FoxNews perennials Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. So in California, they’re showcasing two of the new breed.

Both women are well-spoken, independent businesswomen…both from the world of technology. Carly Fiorina, former head of Hewlett Packard, opposes the incumbent Barbara Boxer for Senate, while Meg Whitman is running for governor. Both, of course, tout their business experience and credentials as evidence of political acumen. We are not sure that this translates; but aside from that, both come with curious baggage.

Fiorina, know as “Chainsaw Carly” (for “outsourcing” thousands of jobs), after turning H/P into the largest computer manufacturer in the world, was forced out in 2005 by H/P board of directors, amid controversy that she stood “more for Carly than for HP.” It will be interesting to see how far she can get on the “jobs” issue in the face of her own record.

Whitman, on the other hand, is not only a political unknown, but she presents a record of disinterest in politics, not bothering to vote for some twenty-eight years. Her most note-worthy characteristic is a titanic temper. Beyond well-documented tantrums of screaming and throwing things, in 2007 she “woman-handled” a subordinate to the tune of a $200,000 “confidential” settlement. That’s some “push!”

It would be interesting to see how Ms. Whitman’s patience might hold up confronting the muddle of the California Constitution, as well as a disinterested electorate and do-nothing legislature. Politics is, after all, the art of making the impossible come to life. We have just seen what a truly dynamic “outsider” might accomplish in seven years with Governor Schwarzenegger.

The contrast between these two women and their Democratic opponents is striking. Barbara Boxer is probably known as thoroughly as anyone in the senate. Long a lightening rod for the right wing, she is a steadfast voice for the left. An outspoken critic of our current war posture, Boxer is not afraid to step forward behind her convictions. Right-wingers and Republicans relish in loathing her; but with California’s strong “blue” tilt it would appear unlikely that Fiorina could mount a serious challenge. Still, with her sizable fortune committed to the effort, and an even more surprising victory by Scott Brown in Massachusetts, anything could happen.

Also running for governor, Jerry Brown, is just about as far from Whitman as we might imagine. Brown comes from a family long-connect to California politics. His father, "Pat", was a 2-term governor, while sister, Kathleen, is a former state treasurer and former strong candidate for governor. Brown is clearly a committed, public servant, having held a string of prominent public positions, including governor, Secretary of State, mayor (Oakland) and Attorney General. As well as anyone, he knows the ins and outs of state politics, and is "grandfathered" out of the two-term restriction. In a 40-year career under the scrutiny of public life, he has no significant scandals or flaps to exploit. Aside from being called “Governor Moonbeam”, in all of those years and positions, the only raps that emerge against him appear to be (ironically) that while governor he sat on a $5 Billion dollar budget surplus, (okay), and that he was instrumental in passage of a measure to seal gubernatorial records for 50 years… well this is a troubling position.

At any rate, with Whitman’s sizable war chest and her commitment to “bare-knuckles” campaigning, here also, anything is possible.

Still, the campaign features no substantive messages from any of these camps. Instead, all we’ve gotten so far is mud-slinging. It’s likely that this will persist to the end. The sad truth is that it’s almost certain that if a candidate proposed a program that would solve our state’s (or country’s) problems, the voters would reject it. We are accustomed to being told we can have all that we want without paying for it. Even in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, prominent Republicans continue to insist that government can increase revenue by cutting taxes. We don’t imagine that they actually believe this canard; but we acknowledge that they believe it has a decent chance to get them elected. At times that seems to be all that Republican candidates and politicians care about.

A substantive breakthrough in these contests would be refreshing, but let's not be too quick to condemn---we get the kind of government that we demand.

Food for Thought

From the Boulder (Co) desk of correspondent William Jellick:

'Eight years of Bush and Cheney created an insidious, pervasive rot throughout the government—a rot so severe that it prevented the government from carrying out its most basic functions and, as we have now seen, could not be easily undone by a new administration. The pro-oil, anti-regulatory culture, agenda, and ideology relentlessly advanced by Cheney and others in the Bush administration unquestionably led to the catastrophe that now threatens to destroy the environment and economy of America’s Gulf Coast—Cheney’s Katrina.'

These guys had one agenda - clear the regulatory decks to make as much money as possible.

....and here's the article that backs up that claim.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/09/cheney’s-culture-of-deregulation-and-corruption/

ed. note: you may need to copy/paste this link to your browser to get it up.

also,

Never thought I'd live to see the day... (David) Stockman, Reagan's OMB director, slams the Republican party in this NYT op-ed today. Lays blame for our current economic mess on 40 years of Republicanism - starting with Nixon's decision to move off the gold standard - which he was encouraged to do by none other than the high-priest of the 'free-market-as-panacea-to-everything' religion - Milton Friedman (Keith - I remember you railing about the worthlessness of our money 15 years ago).

Of course, it's also a slam at what he considers Democratic economic policy, implying that Republicans have morphed into their own enemy as deficit-deaf entitlement-drunks. But trying to unwind the problem with his medication, at this point in time, would certainly kill the patient - if you believe Krugman, Stiglitz - and of course, Keynes - who point to Hoover's devastating policy to enact fiscal discipline in the early 30's as putting the word 'great' into what might have merely been a 'severe' depression.

'...it’s a pity that the modern Republican Party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and financial discipline — is needed more than ever.' ...Stockman

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion

Financial Services Reform

Only last week it looked like we were on the verge of re-regulating the industry. Then Senator Byrd dies; political dynamics of the senate change; Republicans shift their votes and the “super-majority” is lost. Is this any way to run a government? We’re back to square one.

Check this scenario:

Joe Thompson buys an old house---a fixer-upper, really a “tear-downer”, for $85,000. He hires an unscrupulous contractor who for $50,000 gives the place a good “cosmetic” facelift. Next he hires a property assessor, known to be somewhat less than thorough. This gleaming, remodeled house is “appraised” at a cool $275,000. Joe can’t really sell the place because any decent inspector would look beneath the façade; so he takes up residence and two months later there’s a mysterious fire that burns the place to the ground. The insurance company pays off and Joe doubles his “investment” until someone in the fire department asks too many questions.

So what does Joe end up with, and what do we call this? We call it arson and fraud; Joe gets 8 to 20, with parole after 5. Joe defrauded an insurance company.

Scenario 2:

McNulty and Smith run a commercial bank and control pension funds for large manufacturing firms. With assets of nine billion dollars, and real estate on a run, they sell mortgages to anyone who comes along: “You can’t lose money on real estate; Just sign here for the loan---don’t worry about paying it off; you can sell the house in a year and make a big profit.” M&S makes a cool commission on each of the mortgage transactions.

Then they hire an unscrupulous rating agency, Moodys, Standard & Poors, Fitches. They pay one of these “highly-respected” companies to rate these securities AAA, bundle large quantities into “Mortgage-based Securities” and sell them (“dispose” of them) on the international market. Oh, they get a nice commission on that sale also.

This all looks like a pretty smooth operation. But it gets better. The executive board at M&S knows very well that these loans aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. So they “short” the securities, or the firms who bought them, sit back and wait. The inevitable occurs: the bottom falls out of the real estate market; values tumble; M&S complete their transactions, buying back the investments at a small fraction of what they sold them for.

Meanwhile, millions of struggling “home-owners” all over the country are thrown into financial turmoil. “Buying into the American Dream” has become a nightmare. Unsuspecting pensioners all over the world lose their life savings.

So what does M&S get for this piece of work and what do we call it? We call it “banking” and the managers at M&S become wealthy beyond the dreams of Avarice. The financial losses of millions of little people end up lining the pockets and mansions of these few fat-cats. We also call it “Shorting the American dream.”

No, my friends, this is not a “hypothetical” scenario. This is the way our bankers operate. Look into the report on Magnetar’s operation that hit the news in the past month.

Is this “legal?” Yes. Who pays for the losses of the big banks? We add that to the national debt. Can’t we put a stop to this? Apparently not. For the last year, the industry has been pouring a million dollars a day(!) into lobbying congress to keep the door open for this kind of scheme. And the Republican Party is not going to sit back and let the government impose new rules on the industry without a fight. You can bet that enough Democratic legislators are also scooping up chunks of this cash to keep them from moving the Rep’s aside.

Write to your congressmen; look into their voting.

The Teflon President

by C. A. Jones

A generation ago, the nation watched as flap after flap, misstep after misstep washed off President Reagan. In his second term, with advancing Alzheimer’s, the man was no more coherent than George W. Bush. He was, however, adored by Republicans, and he bamboozled us with “credit card prosperity.” Reagan acquired the cognomen, the “Teflon” president. Nothing stuck.

President Obama, entrusted to protect us and reverse the tides of dispute and chaos, is under siege. Can he operate under such duress? Is he doing his job? Is he really under fire? Robbinsense thinks not.

Suppose: A nameless president contracts to a foreign oil producer for a difficult project, a company with a history of accidents without satisfactory resolution, of poor safety and quality control. A year later this president announces support of renewed drilling in off-shore and eco-sensitive sites. Suppose: Above project subsequently goes ballistic and because of safety precautions below international standards, begins spewing an ocean of oil into the ocean. Unnamed president claims the contractor is on top of the situation, and eleven days pass before he appears to survey the damage. Suppose that the feckless contractor had contributed heavily to this president’s campaign… What would we expect the response of the “environmental” community to be---the response of the left-wing punditry to such a petro-president? If it were George W. Bush, the howl would be deafening. But the contractor was, of course, BP, and the un-named president, Obama.

BP spent $15.9 Million in 2009 on lobbying. What does it get for this “access?” In 2005 an explosion at its Texas City refinery killed 15 and sent 43,000 fleeing to the safety of shelters. The Chemical and Safety Hazard Investigation Board concluded this was caused by “company deficiencies at all levels of the BP Corporation”, including several cost-cutting measures. A $50 Million fine, in face of $17.2 Billion profit in 2007, was less than a slap on the wrist…murder, even manslaughter charges: all dropped.

In 2006 The Justice Department launched a criminal investigation into two massive BP oil spills in Alaska caused by corroded pipes. The danger was apparent to all, but the “corporate” decision was made to let the pipes fail and pay the fine, which would be less expensive than fixing the pipes. The proposed, massive investigation would reach well into the boardrooms of the London-based corporation, but the Bush administration dropped the prosecution in favor of a $20 Million fine and a misdemeanor charge. The list of prominent names on the BP lobby panel is a virtual who’s who of the last three administrations. BP has been one of the largest suppliers of fuel to the Pentagon for several years.

And now, we have reports from surviving workers that BP officials were on the Deepwater Horizon platform “hours before the explosion” demanding that corners be cut. They ordered Transocean Ltd. to purge the drilling mud that keeps oil and gasses from ascending the pipe and replace it with seawater to expedite completion of the well head. This ploy is straight from the BP playbook.

Curiously, while the “Drill-Baby-Drill” chorus has ended after the blowout, there are no political fingers pointing, in any direction. Mr. Obama tapped BP for this difficult, sensitive project in the gulf after accepting substantial campaign contributions.

This impropriety, leading to disaster, is but one of many problems that we find with conduct of this administration. Our wars continue: drugs (Reagan), Afghanistan (Bush, with complicity from congress), Iraq (Bush under false pretense), terror (Bush, orchestrated by a demagogic fear campaign), Pakistan (Bush/Obama).

Mr. Obama has largely adopted the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan as his own. In Afghanistan we still have over 100,000 troops behind President Karzai, heading an egregiously corrupt government with little public support. We’re dumping $12 Billion per month into this futile effort, ensuring the enmity of their people and the fertility of the country as a matrix for terrorism. We’ve now had more than a thousand American troops killed in that country, plus 4000 civilians killed by our military forces, innocents with no connection to 9/11 or ill intent to our safety. This does not include the thousands killed by their own people for collaborating with our pipe-dream efforts. Does anyone know what our objective is there? Are we trying to turn Afghanistan into a Western style democracy? Those people have their own culture and institutions to sort out. Our interference adds to their litany of woes.

Our military’s own report on a February Predator attack which killed between 21 and 27 civilians found the bombing crew negligent. The 3-man crew, which consists of a pilot, a camera man and a liaison officer, ignored evidence that the group of SUVs was carrying civilians. The attack was broken off when women and children wearing brightly-colored garments were seen fleeing the vehicles. Can we allow trigger-happy, “gentleman-pilots”, comfortably sitting in a building in Las Vegas, to be killing people on the other side of the world---out of zeal? How soon do these “soldiers” become inured to killing and lose contact with the consequences of their action. This is no more than an arcade video-game to them.

In a speech in Kabul, President Obama actually stated: “The USA does not quit once we start on something…” What the bloody #$%&* does that mean? Is Mr. Obama too young to remember Mogadishu, Beirut, Vietnam? Our country does not quit on its politically-driven misadventures until our political will is out-flanked by personal and community sacrifice borne by our apathetic population. A mere 0.5% of that population directly supports our government’s wars, while the other 99.5% conduct daily affairs as though we live in Wonderland. Our president has not asked us to “pony up” to support this mess with a surtax, has not spoken of a draft to bring more than this tiny fraction of our public to task. This is all business as usual---Bush Lite.

In the mid nineties President Clinton, a political centrist, adopted the Republican agenda. Among other things, he balanced the budget and initiated welfare reform. He also pushed an anti-crime agenda that would make any Republican proud, expanding the scope of the war on drugs and imposing mandatory sentencing guidelines. He signed a bill declaring convicted felons disqualified for public housing or any public assistance, which likely set the battle against recidivism back a generation.

Did these measures bring political capital to the Clinton Administration from the right? Absolutely not! For stealing their agenda they hated Clinton all the more, becoming more obstreperous, more obstructionist. They impeached him over lying about a personal indiscretion. But Republicans have no problem with a Republican president lying to drag our country into war, killing hundreds of thousands, destroying national treasure and disrupting international relations for perhaps a generation.

So what has Mr. Obama done to incur Republican wrath? Liberal? What a laugh! The man is a measured and calculating conservative. Republican wars continue. Republican bailouts continue. Gitmo still operates. We have not unconditionally renounced torture. The “Patriot Act” still looms over our liberties, while contributing little or nothing to national security. Speaking of national security, Obama has publicly stated that he will do nothing to prevent those placed on our “terror watch list” (under provisions of “The Patriot Act”), from acquiring hand guns, assault rifles---anything they want. Financial reform is only emerging now, under a cautious banner, filtered by an administration manned by Goldman Sachs alums.

Robert Rubin and Larry Summers head our president’s Treasury Department. These men, along with Alan Greenspan, championed the hedge fund mess that led to our financial collapse. In March 1999, this troika of blowhards literally shouted down Brooksley Born, head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, before a congressional panel in her effort to control the industry and prevent catastrophe.

Healthcare reform, supported by the insurance industry, has been passed. But it’s a shell, with no public option. In a slap to women, Mr. Obama signed a bill denying public funds for abortion services. The prescription drug bill, driven down congress’s throat by Republicans, and mandating that all drugs be purchased by Medicare at full retail price, is still in place, draining $80 Billion per year from the budget. On the environmental front, the government has moved to suspend the moratorium on whale hunting. He has opened the door to new drilling in sensitive areas (whoops!) and a new generation of nuclear reactors.

And the continuing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico? The president’s finger prints are all over it. Considering that the right-wing noise machine has its slur campaign amped to over-boost on everything from the Obama legitimacy to bail-out programs initiated by a Republican administration, how can they pass this up?

The easy answer is that Republicans support our wars under any pretense and support the continuation of war. And oil? “Drill, baby drill.” Do you think they’re going to start pursuing alternate energy technology? The Republicans have no intention to attack the president over substantive issues. There is practically no substantive issue that currently runs counter to right-wing agenda. Republicans are not motivated by issues. They are motivated by slogans!: “socialist”, “death panels”, “Hitler”, “death taxes”, “communist”, “birther” claims, “secular/socialist regime”, “big spending”, “liberal media”, blah, blah, blah. Now they’re back to “spending” (which they always worry about when a Democrat is in office). Where were the "tea partiers" when President Bush was running up $8 - $900 Billion annual deficits during times of prosperity, prying into our bedrooms and depriving us of our liberties with bogus claims of national threats?

Obviously, there are many issues on which the president is vulnerable. Only in the past couple of weeks have the media begun to examine the apparent dearth of “leadership” from the president over the crisis in the gulf. Whether this is a real failure on his part, or only one of perception may be a matter of “politics”. But it’s only “leadership” that is being examined…no mention of culpability. Mr. Obama’s gift as an inspiring orator and visionary has carried him to the Whitehouse, but his lack of inspiring “leadership” is also becoming apparent. The irony in this matter is that Mr. Obama appears to be the flip-side of Mr. Bush. While “W” had no oratorical skill and little poise in public, it would be ingenuous not to note that he was an inspired “leader”. [The problem with Mr. Bush’s leadership was that at almost every turn, he led us in the wrong direction.]

So why is Mr. Obama getting a free ride on the continuing mess over which he is actively presiding? The irony here is that his agenda is being driven by the Republicans and the right wing. In a brilliant campaign of demagoguery and hysteria, the right has stolen the political agenda and defused the left. While the right-wing’s issues are at the front of the Obama agenda, they hammer him over inconsequential, non-substantive silliness.

We can only guess at the “policy” that lies in Mr. Obama’s heart. But he is afraid to confront the political storm of belligerence, scorn, outrage that would result from pursuing real change. The right keeps the left off balance with claims that are preposterous beyond bothering to refute. This noisy rabble sees the president as an alien usurper, intent on imposing a socialist one-world regime. What hole did these people emerge from? We suspect that the great majority of them consist of Republican racists, intolerant of being led by a Democratic black man. But the campaign serves to prevent the left from initiating an attack on Mr. Obama over substantive issues. The left doesn’t want to add fuel to the fire that’s already cooking their man. The agenda remains in the right-wing court. On substantive issues, President Obama is the new “Teflon President”.

This country needs the kind of change promised by candidate Obama. Each of the candidates in the 2008 election guaranteed what our president is afraid to attempt. Are we really only positioning for re-election? Can we only expect one year of governance from a president in a first term, followed by 2 ½ years of a (possible) second term before he is “lame ducked” out? Do we go rudderless for 5½ out of each eight years? Healthcare reform or not, Robbinsense has taken off the gloves. We still rate the President’s performance a solid D.

C. A. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer