Monthly Archives: August 2009

Mary Shelley brings us Sarah Palin

In today’s exciting “Grooming the Bride of Frankenstein” news…AP tells us:

“HONG KONG — Former U.S. vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, once questioned about her lack of foreign policy experience, will make her first trip to Asia in September.

The former Alaska governor will visit Hong Kong to address the CLSA Investors Forum, a well-known annual conference of global investment managers, the host announced Monday.

Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Alan Greenspan have spoken at the event, hosted by brokerage and investment group CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets.”

Palin and Greenspan. Peas in a pod, those two. And there’s this:

“”Our keynote speakers are notable luminaries who often address topics that go beyond traditional finance such as geopolitics,” company spokeswoman Simone Wheeler said in a statement.”

Make that Palin, Greenspan and George Kennan. What the F? Quite bizarre really. CLSA is the Asian investment branch of Credit Agricole Bank, baning/insurance/investment giant. Not exactly who comes to mind when we think of Palin’s base.

“”We just felt it would be a fabulous opportunity for CLSA clients to hear from Mrs. Palin,” Wheeler said.

Yes, fabulous, simply fabulous. And Wheeler added that…

“CLSA approached Palin with the offer.”

Yes. OK. But WHY? Why Palin over, say, Irv Thistlethwaite, former mayor of Knackers Junction, Saskatchewan? Or even (because they can pay the big bucks for speaker fees) Brittney Spears?

It’s another step in the Bride of Frankenstein product roll-out. To remind ourselves:

Step 1) Keep her out of ANY situation where she might open her mouth unscripted (thus the resignation/hiding strategy)

Step 2) Have professional PR types write her intimate Facebook entries

Step 3) Have Rush Limbaugh point to these Facebook entries as proof positive that Mary Shelley’s Palin has intellectual heft

Step 4) Get invitations from high-profile institutions (who’d love to have a corporate-friendly puppet President again) to invite her to speak on economics and geopolitics (she has advanced degrees in both, as we know, and got them without reading any books even which is impressive)in closed to the public and press venues.

Step 4: (this will be next week or the week after) Limbaugh and the Weekly Standard will proclaim her clear leadership/brainyhood/knowledge on the high shout of trumpets.

Politics as consumer marketing. Personally, I’d recommend a different product.
Here, god help us

Update: Greta Van Sustern, on FOX, did the predicted piece on Palin’s invite.  Her phrasing…

“along with other big hitters, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Allan Greenspan”

So, the playbook is pretty clear and we can continue to predict how this will be staged.  And of course we can note again that Van Sustern is husband to Joan Coale who ran (and we preseume) still runs SarahPac, the PR initiative for Palin as future hope.

Update 2: Goodness.  No-longer-welcome-in-the-house Levi Johnston does an interview with Vanity Fair.

Sarah told me she had a great idea: we would keep it a secret—nobody would know that Bristol was pregnant. She told me that once Bristol had the baby she and Todd would adopt him. That way, she said, Bristol and I didn’t have to worry about anything. Sarah kept mentioning this plan. She was nagging—she wouldn’t give up. She would say, “So, are you gonna let me adopt him?” We both kept telling her we were definitely not going to let her adopt the baby. I think Sarah wanted to make Bristol look good, and she didn’t want people to know that her 17-year-old daughter was going to have a kid.

And then, there’s this…

Sarah was sad for a while. She walked around the house pouting. I had assumed she was going to go back to her job as governor, but a week or two after she got back she started talking about how nice it would be to quit and write a book or do a show and make “triple the money.” It was, to her, “not as hard.” She would blatantly say, “I want to just take this money and quit being governor.” She started to say it frequently, but she didn’t know how to do it. When she came home from work, it seemed like she was more and more stressed out.

That last paragraph suggests a motivation different than the theory I’ve advanced above, of course.  So, we’ll watch and see.

You can link to the article herel

Goddamn, I love this skinny, drug-ingesting jewish troublemaker

Quote of the day – “We love euphemisms” category

Curiously, there is a reference to the American cold war past in the CIA report. After Vietnam, it said, US interest in interrogation faded, only to re-emerge with US intervention in Central America as a way to “foster foreign liaison relationships” – presumably with the anti-communist governments such as El Salvador and Guatemala. But in the mid-1980s, after two CIA officers were investigated for killing a detainee – in a country blacked out in the report – the agency said it ended its so-called “human resource exploitation” programme.

Here

Ya gotta love it.  Torture = human resource exploitation.  Let’s try another.   Violent rape of children = facilitated inter-age maturation assistance.

And read the whole piece to find out which individuals involved in the torture stuff are now making the big bucks in the military/industrial complex.

American exceptionalism

I’ve found myself defending David Gergen rather often in various debates with other lefties.  I’d found his appearances on Jim Lehrer’s News Hour (he preceded Paul Gigot who preceded David Brooks in the Friday night slot) uniformly careful and thoughtful and ready to correct himself when he got something wrong.  And, when one looks across the broad narrow spectrum of modern American conservatism, very very few individuals look better than this fellow.  But as to the following … what the fuck?

I think one of the other aspects of this is very fundamental to who we are as a people. There are a lot of sociologists and historians will tell you we as American people are just different. We’re an outliers measured in many ways. Our value system is different. We don’t think like Canadians. We don’t accept government the way it is. We’re not deferential to authority the way Canadians are or in Western Europe.

Well, sure, every nation/culture show differences from others but how odd that folks like Gergen so commonly see these differences as pointing to America’s unique wonderfulness.  The exceptionally ugly, for which there is also persuasive evidence, doesn’t get much mention.  Even less commonly opined upon is America’s claims to a rather pedestrian set of characteristics.

“Not deferential to authority” like those Canadians?!  What is this man talking about?  American politicians, particularly the President, are treated by the media as something akin to the Pope or the King.  Sit quietly.  Be polite.  Follow the conventions exactly.  It’s only a step above “Do NOT under any circumstances gaze directly into His eyes when asking a question”.

Recall, for example, the interview of George Bush and the female Irish news woman.  She challenged him!  The very effrontery of it!  She failed to be obsequious.

All of this (and Gergen is only mildly guilty but quite unconscious of his guilt) is extremely well delineated in Anatol Lieven’s “America – Right or Wrong” and when I get to be World Ruler, it’s going right into every state high school curricula as item #1.

h/t Digby

Chuck Todd, media celebrities, priviledge and the degradation of news operations

I was going to post an exchange between Jeremy Scahill (auther of the extremely well-researched and well-written book on Blackwater) and MSNBC’s Chuck Todd on the Bill Mahrer show last week but opted to go make some money rather than write sentences few will read (I’m working on prudence).

But Glenn Greenwald this morning related a message he got from Scahill of a conversation between Todd and Scahill that occurred immediately after and it is so representative of a serious problem with modern cable “journalism” that I thought it ought to be here.

You can see a bit of the Mahrer exchange  here (apparently, youtube pulled the full piece, apparently on a complaint from HBO?).

So, Scahill takes Todd to task on the show for shoddy journalistic standards and performance.   And after the show, Scahill recounts this exchange:

Right as we walked off stage, he said to me “that was a cheap shot.” I said “what are you talking about?” and he said “you know it.” I then said that I monitor msm coverage very closely and asked him what was not true that I said on the show. He then replied: ”that’s not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV.”

Frank Luntz, George Orwell and reverse-ethnic cleansing – a propaganda primer

So, 1) Israel occupies Palestinian land.

2) as that occupation is tenuous, Jewish settlements are built on the Palestinian land which makes extrication much more complicated (think Ireland and Protestant settlement)

3) as an obvious consequence, Palestinians are driven from their own land

4) world sentiment, UN resolutions, prior agreements between Israel and the US, and the Obama administration put constant pressure on Israel to stop new settlements and find a solution to those previously made on Palestinian land.

5) Frank Luntz (Republican marketer and strategist for hire) is hired by pro-Likud groups (or by Likud or both) to handle the PR problem in all of this.

6) Luntz devises a strategy where this pressure on Israel to cease new settlements on Palestinian land and to return prior land to displaced Palestinians will henceforth be described as ethnic cleansing of Jews and as anti-semitism.

7) various pro-Likud groups and supportive politicians in the US are instructed to sing the same song.

Read it here

Billionaires For Wealthcare

Very smartly done.


h/t crooks and liars

Quote of the day – “Jumping the kosher shark” category

One of the things I find most interesting is that generally Evangelicals are so much more supportive of Israel than the American Jewish community. - Mike Huckabee

“And if Israel disagrees with this obvious fact, then we’ll bomb the shit out of it until Jesus comes”, Huckabee might have added.

I’ll let Josh Marshall (yes, he’s Jewish) at TPM explain this bit of madness.

This is true on many levels. But it also gets at deeper issues. One of which is the inability of the Republican party to attract substantial numbers of Jewish voters. This is treated as odd by many political observers, reasoning that the GOP has adopted such hard line positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict that surely this should lead to an increasing number of American Jews voting for the Republican party.

Some would say that the failure is explained by the fact that Jews are Americans and they’ve got a lot of other issues that matter to them beside Israel. Which is, of course, true. And needless to say, moonbat wailing to the contrary notwithstanding, the Democratic party is also extremely pro-Israel in its policies.

But the nature of GOP support for Israel is simply not aimed at or shaped by the support of Jewish voters. It’s support is aimed at a vastly larger evangelical Christian constituency. And the aims, mores, values, etc. of each group are profoundly different. (The most obvious difference is that American Jews tend to support Israel because of a mix of nationalism, ethnic identification, religious belief and democratic values while the religious right tends to support Israel because its existence will hasten the apocalypse when God will vanquish the Jews en masse in hellfire and turn Israel into a vast evangelical theme park. So the two groups sort of come at the issue from different perspectives.)

At one level, this is obvious: we know the religious right is a huge constituency for uber-hawk policies on Israel. But I’m not sure we think through its implications as clearly or as deeply as we might.

ELO

I’d kind of forgotten these guys, other than Jeff of the Travelling Wilbury’s of course.

h/t Crooks and Liars

Another one of those big fucking surprises

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette pours through Tom Ridge’s new book and offers the relevant passages where the former Homeland Security chief discusses the Bush administration’s desire to increase the terror threat level for political reasons. Ridge reveals that Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued in favor of raising the threat level by noting the correlation it had with Bush’s approval rating…

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/20/ridge-book-ashcroft-rummy/

Anyone watching the behavior of that administration at that time understood this.  Well, anyone not a crazed ideologue or a happy-to-be-paranoid-at-all-times consumer of fear-inspiring propaganda, that is.

But it is encouraging to see Ridge, a rare individual in that administration who seemed to have a smidgeon of integrity, state what was so obvious.

Big fucking surprise

President Richard M. Nixon discussed with Brazil’s president a cooperative effort to overthrow the government of Salvador Allende of Chile, according to recently declassified documents that reveal deep collaboration between the United States and Brazil in trying to root out leftists in Latin America during the cold war.

Here

How much is race a factor in the efforts to stall or erode the Obama administration’s policy goals?

Not much, I think. By which I mean that race is not causal. Race is obviously a part of what we are seeing in numerous venues and instances but the degree of opposition and the virulence of it has an earlier precedent with the Clinton administration.

A far better explanation of what we are witnessing is a response to the threats to vested interests from progressive legislation.

Sorry, I’d write this up rather more completely but I’m a bit lazy this morning.

Healthcare around the advanced world (in brief)

Healthcare in Switzerland? Britain? Canada? Read Krugman here.

So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.

So, what’s up with neoconservatives and Jon Stewart?

Read here

Medical insurance PR exec turns whistleblower

If you haven’t seen this, attend.  An insider lays out how the medical insurance industry operates its PR divisions in order to paint a benevolent and caring picture of themselves while covertly spending multi-millions to obstruct and thwart any change to the status quo which might do damage to their bottom line.

And Potter on CNN… watch here

Income inequality trend – what matches it?

Paul Krugman (and others) have noted recent income inequality figures from  Emmanuel Saez at Berkeley.    Here is the historical perspective graphed…

Two major trends are immediately evident – downwards from the 20s and then upwards from the the mid-70s.  We know what brought the trend down from “the guilded age” but what brought it back up?

I’ve previously noted here Lewis Lapham’s essay “The Tentacles of Rage”. What Lapham describes in this essay matches yjod rise and does so far better than any particular individual or party holding the Presidency or the inititation of any particular policy or the establishment of or dismantling of any particular institution related to governance in the US.

Further, one can see quite clearly how what Lapham describes is presently in full bloom in the broad campaign underway to kill healthcare reform in the US and to bring down a President who likely will, if he is able, move the country back towards the sorts of regulations and perspectives which caused or facilitated the downward trend mentioned above.

I encourage everyone to read the essay with care and with attention to the correspondences between the timeline demonstrated in the graph and the correspondences between the thesis Lapham advances with what we have all experienced since the mid 70s and are still experiencing now.

The dictatorial conception of leadership

Barton Gellman writes a rather hagiographic piece (functionally, if not by intent) on Dick Cheney in the Washington Post this morning. In that sense, it is pretty typical of the majority of mainstream press coverage of the man and his tenure as VP and isn’t of much value.

But there are a couple of passages which, if one assumes they are accurate portrayals (and I do assume that), reveal a mindset that is distinctly authoritarian or dictatorial as regards how government ought to operate and how it ought to stand in relationship to citizens.

He’d [President Bush] showed an independence that Cheney didn’t see coming. It was clear that Cheney’s doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times — never apologize, never explain — and Bush moved toward the conciliatory.”

…But there is a sting in Cheney’s critique, because he views concessions to public sentiment as moral weakness. After years of praising Bush as a man of resolve, Cheney now intimates that the former president turned out to be more like an ordinary politician in the end.

These notions do not reflect what we normally consider ought to be the relationship a leader of a representative democracy imagines ideal between himself/herself and the citizens who placed him in office.  Rather, they are notions that we would imagine to reside in someone who is interested only in gaining or maintaining power and which he might then wield with zero regard for the popular will and with absolutely no sense of a responsibility to be honest or forthright or accountable to the citizens.

From such an “understanding” of the proper role of a leader, it is immediately obvious that propaganda operations will define or mandate all communications between that leader and the citizens of such a state, of the press, of Congress and of the courts.  Secrecy, pervasive stone-walling, purposeful deceits and obstruction of Justice Department or other investigations will mark how such a leader will operate.

James Wolcott

A writer/blogger I’ve recently been turned-on to (h/t Digby) is Vanity Fair’s James Wolcott.  He’s smart as hell and wields the language with wit and grace and little mercy.  Case in point…

poreless, polished replicant Mitt Romney

You’ll find him here.  Have fun.

How do people get this stupid?

An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily argues that Obama’s medical insurance reforms will turn the US into a Brit-style medical insurance system. That’s false, of course. And then the elderly and the phyically handicapped will be denied healthcare and will die. That’s pretty idiotic given nothing like this state of affairs exists in Britain. But here’s the kicker…

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Physicist Hawking was, of course, born in England, has lived his life in England and is now in his late sixties.

Stupid plus dishonest.  It’s a dangerous combination.

Update: If your thinking on this went like mine, you’d wondered at least briefly how the writer of the above piece and any editorial board they might have kicking about there could have made such an idiotic error.  Last night, Keith Olbermann suggested a very likely answer.  Hawking doesn’t have an English accent.  Yes.

Update 2: Hawking responds (clearly, the man is a socialist)…

“I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS.  I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.” Here

h/t TPM

Two cases, unalike

In 2004, MoveOn initiated a contest where anyone could create an ad voicing opposition to Bush.  One of these many submissions included an analogy of Bush to Hitler (it didn’t win the contest nor was it endorsed by MoveOn).  What followed was a broad and sustained attack on MoveOn that lasted a week or more.  It wasn’t only the right which joined in this attack on MoveOn but the mainstream press as well.

Last week, both Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, each of whom have devoted audiences of millions, explicitly and repeatedly compared Obama and Nancy Pelosi to Hitler and Dems to Nazis.  What was the reaction in this case?

Read HERE and you’ll see a paradigmatic example of how the mainstream media continues to function as an effective pawn of rightwing media manipulators and rightwing interests. The difference is stark and it is telling. Note the updates as well, but note the differences in quality and in magnitude.

Josh Marshall at TPM has observed that Washington remained “wired for Republicans”. That is true not merely in terms of lobbying interests and the Washington institutions which have been developed since the early seventies but probably more importantly as regards the effective domination of media content.