Punditry

It's fine with me if hard-core partisans cheerlead for Palin so long as they have some reasonable grasp of reality. There are plenty of soberminded conservatives talking her up to counter unfair distortions and offering useful, friendly advice. Jackson tries for it, but he strikes out hard. This article is not wholly devoid of merit, spelling-wise for instance, and it does cheerlead admirably, but it is a wooden read and also quite preposterous. As far as practical application it lacks even a single piece of decent and useful advice for Palin to follow on her quest to dig out, although it does say that she's in the ditch mainly because of her greatest benefactor's campaign. There are no real warnings to be heeded, no unforeseen pitfalls are illuminated for Palin in this piece.

It's fairly delusional to compare Palin to Reagan and Nixon and Clinton. Reagan had a record in a region of consequence before his "comeback", and Nixon had decades on the national scene even before the presidency. Clinton came back during an actual primary, in which he ran for the actual presidency with a gubernatorial record that Palin cannot match. His second comeback was due to popularity based on a presidential record in addition to an energetic post-presidential agenda, possibly coupled with a heavyweight Hillary who immediately entered the Senate upon his departure. Meanwhile, back in Alaska, Sarah quit her job, and then Todd quit his job. The Clintons may have been seen as troubled but everyone knows they mean business. And it is most definitely not an attack on Palin to say that whatever family difficulties she has, they must be addressed in a serious manner. Did the Clintons feud with the Lettermans of the world? Did Nixon and Reagan? Were they as amateurish as Palin? They were neither as amateurish nor quite as lacking in concrete experience with some serious politicking and concensus-building and the reading of newspapers.

Palin's hole to climb out of is rather deep given her stature. The brief record of taking on the old-boys is commendable, the determination and the charisma are undeniable, but what else did she actually do other than fire up the base while dropping everyone else's jaws to the floor? A year later she is still unqualified in the eyes of Independents, and half of Republicans agree with that notion. She has her work more than cut out for her, and so does Mr. Jackson if he wants to advise her in the Post.

Charles and Bob

To Charles Blow:

You're worried too much about the polls, Mr. Blow. Have faith, for the Democrats hold the levers of power and they will use power for the most part wisely. The political strategy has not been optimal for the healthcare rollout, but there is no reason to panic. Obama's team will find their feet, and I am certain that this ridiculous fisaco will make them stronger even as right-wingers invite more and more well-deserved reproach upon themselves. Purely on historical grounds, one cannot believe that the newly empowered left will self-destruct so severely and so soon--no, that sort of humiliation will take at least another decade to unfold, and maybe more. However, Afghanistan IS cause for worry, without a doubt. But most of Obama's domestic reforms will be accomplished to high approval.

To Bob Herbert:

Obama and the liberals are doing with healthcare essentially what Bush's clan did with the Iraq war--taking advantage of a momentous and unusually rare circumstance to realize a huge political agenda that has long been on their radar. It was terrifying to witness the success right-wingers enjoyed in hoodwinking people through mind-numbing repetition of outrageously simplistic lies. It will be satisfying to witness--after all the wrinkles are smoothed out: guaranteed, I believe--the ultimate victory of reform realized by people who seem for the most part incapable of advocating enthusiastically against the democratic process under cover of false, stupid patriotism, who are fundamentally against employing brazenly immoral toxic knavery and cunning to enact what is a straightforward and simple agenda: improving average citizens' quality of life.

President Barack

Let it be known how I was feeling about the whole mess at this point.

Currently the news, which I am entirely unsuccessfully trying to black out (unsuccessful due to my own interminable tendencies), is awash with toxins seeping out of the many holes Republicans are poking into the pending healthcare reform legislation. At this point it seems that some sort of reform with measurable teeth will happen, but the maniacal throngs are incensed and screaming at full throttle and a shrill pitch. Dick Cheney might say the noises are merely the last throes of a hapless zoo of odd and unhappy ducks and a byzantine assortment of mental phlegmatics and political rheumatoids from the nethersphere, if he cared to comment.

Despite having suffered psychological and intestinal trauma as a direct consequence of imbibing the requisite data-sets and info-points necessary to feel empowered on the topic, I feel optimistic as ever about the chances for preferable outcomes and assorted victories on the margins, and, yes, even further inland where the air is misty and silky. Nevertheless, it does certainly look like Jon Stewart is on to something when questioning whether the President is getting his ass kicked by the whole healthcare thing. Is he looking presidential right now? Well, no. Nor was it a good idea--well, let me rephrase that: I would say it did not look very good, although it was probably not a bad idea, for Bill Clinton to retrieve two idiots from North Korea. Sorry, but those two "journalists" are fools, and Clinton sadly gave them a microphone. But that's a small thing.

Back to healthcare: I feel very optimistic. The end.

About Iran... I predict that Iran will remain fairly set in its despotic ways. I do not have the orb to predict what might happen regarding its nukes, but I believe there is a good chance that they will relinquish them voluntarily, and I base this on the belief that there is a good chance the US will use military force to destroy their reactors. I may be completely out of line here, though, for it's a pickle, a malodorous pickle.

Iraq will turn into a decentralized state that will continue to practice some sort of semi-fake democracy, probably doing it a little better than Iran, and it will not devolve into a centralized military dictatorship with a theocratic veneer, aka Iran. Iraq will be decentralized but still remain together, although it will not be fun for some Iraqis who will die. Politically the country will probably engage in die-hard factionalism and periodic low-grade civil war akin to Lebanon, which is similarly torn between the influence of great Western and Middle Eastern powers, terribly divided religiously and factionally, and so periodically it simmers with anger.

Europe will continue to consolidate its power. In the medium and long term, I am looking for greater cooperation between the Anglophones of the former British Empire, led by the US, and the European mainlanders, with Russia as the seemingly wild-card, or cad. Generally I do tend to think that the old racial mindset is not so old, but in fact quite current. Looking at the world in big sweeps, I cannot help but observe a future rooted in enhanced collective economic and military security for the so-called Western cultural domain. As stated eloquently and repeatedly and inelegantly in its mocking simplicity, "the white man" will have his say. As China expands its influence, the Europeans and American elites--regardless of color of course since Western elites do not pay attention to such crude oddities as color, I do say--will increasingly find themselves huddling as closely together as sheer panic and necessity shall dictate. But, some ask while trembling, what will Russia do? Russia, being a European power par excellence, not to mention rightful heir to the mighty Eastern Romans (Greeks), will do the same as the rest of the Europeans--except more violently and racistly.

Here I grant a caveat to a precise and penetrating analyst and past aquaintance whose previously expressed vision of the future still remains insightful and raw: the consolidated European power will compete for natural resources with the American power by engaging in proxy wars on the African continent. We already see a low-grade competition for African resources by the Chinese and the Russians, while the Westerners are already very-well entrenched. Colonialism by proxy, anyone?

China will grow. One hopeful analysis I have heard is that its authoritarian nature will be the ultimate constraint on its power. China will not be able to develop its full potential without opening up politically, and if it does open up politically, it will not pose catastrophic risk to the rest of the world order by threatening war. If it remains authoritarian, it will bark but have no bite. Well, China is certainly encircled by the West, by Japan, by India. But I'm going to be almost unreasonably optmistic as usual, and predict that in the long term, China, due to its sheer size, will become ungovernable through pure authoritarianism. There are certainly quasi-democratic structures available to the Chinese that may serve as seeds and future repositories of power. But that is just too broad and optimistic, nearly. It is going to happen, I believe, but before that happens, will catastrophic upheaval strike in the medium term? One scenario I envision will be the gradual, nearly unstoppable sickening of the Chinese political mind due to the soulless, numbing and evil stupidity of the semi-Orwellian state. As showcased excellently by the fascist powers and many many others, a techologically productive and generally educated populace can be psychologically twisted to insane means and ends by degenerate and inhuman ideologies. Chinese nationalism certainly has buckets of self-esteem--after all, the Middle Kingdom is the most ancient, glorious and supremely continuous civilization known to Earth--along with buckets of resentment--after all, martial Western powers led by the British prostrated and humiliated the country, and might try to do so again--along with plenty shiverings of just-referenced foreign-oriented suspicion. However, it does seem quite a feat to predict what lies on the Chinese horizon for the medium term. It is too commonplace to mention the rise of communication technology and its democratizing power, possibly because its influence is so new, and in my opinion, still somewhat unquantifiable. Overall, I come down on the side of a generally peaceful if not totally uneventful Chinese rise to political and economic mightiness.

India is on a quiet path to expansion in my view. The gigantic cultural mass that produced some of the most enlightened religions has been fairly quietly trodding along, more or less, for at least three thousand years. But I haven't forgotten about the untouchables; thanks to British colonialism aka increasingly entrenched democratic values, the untouchables too are starting to have their say.

Sub-Saharan Africa is another quiet cultural mass, so unlike and yet alike to India. It is massively decentralized, sleepy and steady--more or less. It will remain that way for the long term. Latin America will continue to consolidate its extraordinary racial and cultural heritage/hodgpodge. These two giant physical spaces of the Southern Hemisphere are staggeringly underpopulated, almost like Siberia in northern Asia. Essentially, these three huge spaces, giant expanses, giant rainforests, giant ecologies are far far removed politically from the whirlpools of statecraft and economy and technology and war located on either end--and along the length--of that ancient artery and cultural network, the Silk Road. The Silk Road, of course, went from Europe to China via South Asia: the Middle East, Persia, India.

But the far western end of that now-allegorical global trading-route is the United States. And this is a country possessing many oft-unrecognized attributes that make it startlingly similar to the three physical masses mentioned above. It too is an astoundingly gigantic space, but it is located in a very fertile and traditionally agreeable climate unlike much of Africa, South America, and Siberia. I suppose we could add the arid wasteland of Australia as a fourth beastly-huge global terrain, but why? While deserts certainly play a vital role in the ecosystem, "lungs of the planet" they are not, potentially hospitable to masses of people they are not. As far as political consolidation, of the three Siberia has the major advantage mainly because it is administered by one polity, Russia, with no foreseeable change, although Brazil is not trivial. However, all these considerations only serve to show the awesomely unrivaled long-term potential of the United States. It is already the global hegemon and third most-populated polity. It attracts immigrants probably unlike any other in history. It has the physical space and agricultural fertility to fit as many people as want to come. It could easily house and feed the population of China, and possibly the entire planet. It is the self-styled nation of immigrants, culturally more welcoming than any other major shit-factory, socially and economically dynamic like no other global hot-house sharpener and seller and user of pointy sticks.

Progress, Regress, Digress

For some time now, since the primaries began or even before, Democrats have been dreaming of enough luck in the post-Bush era to capture veto-proof majorities in Congress, such as those elusive 60 Senate votes, as well as maintain the half-century of liberal (increasingly toe-) hold on the Supreme Court. Democrats want near-total power, and they want it back. Now this seems ever more likely and frightening for more and more panicking yet realistic Republicans. But just how impressive would such a “devastating” Democratic victory be? Not even all that impressive. This last decade or so has been slightly bizarre and abberrant. The general rule appears to be near-domination by the more progressive of the two major parties, whatever they happen to be called at any given time, punctuated with certain, and by that I mean guaranteed, setbacks. But the so-called liberal cause marches on. Can we extrapolate from this to speak of human progress in general? Well, why not?

Let’s think back to our first encounter with classical authors, the so-called ancients. In every case, I bet, one of the primary, almost inevitable reactions was surprise at the levels of expression, reason, moral processing and overall elegance on display—as compared to our expectations. “Surprise” is by definition an unexpected turn. But what did we expect? Something less? Why would we have such low expectations of the past? Maybe that’s only for psychologists to help us find out. But in fact, we generally do have low expectations of the past, and I guess it’s probably because we are so fully aware of the reality of progress.

It’s easy to create a mythologized past, as we well know. One common trap we fall into is imagining a past more progressed than it actually was. An even more dubious belief, of course, is one of an idealized past that's even more progressed than the present—thus actually claiming that we have inexorably regressed, presumably from some distant, angelic form. But probably we more frequenty mythologize the past in the other direction, in a way that makes it out to be worse than it really was. This is because for the most part, we are indeed realists, and reality can breed a lot of pessimism. Encountered with evidence of human communication from one hundred or more generations ago, this pessimistic myth proceeds to fall as well, and is replaced or re-shaped by the news-blast. A blast of the unexpected discovery of all that we truly share with Plato, with Sun Tzu.

We are so struck by our common humanity! But what kind of barbarism might we have come to expect, after all? Hmm. There are countless examples. Presently, the abuse of animals, and of each other. Name-calling, and war. We have good reasons to expect barbarism: it is real. What’s harder to nail down is its form, and extent. So we have to observe fearlessly.

A kind of boxing in ancient Rome consisted of two slave-gladiators sitting face to face, chained down except for their arms, their fists reinforced with something like brass knuckles, except less childish and innocent than brass knuckles. They boxed until one of them died.

St. Catherine’s College, part of the University of Cambridge, displays the breaking-wheel on its shield, above its alma mater. The wheel was a punishment that went out of style about three hundred years ago, although its principle elements haven’t exactly been abandoned—only as state-sanctioned punishment. But being broken in the wheel surely demanded an inhuman, evil, incorrigible criminal candidate—it was reserved for the worst of the worst of the worst, wasn’t it? Yes it was, yes sir it was, as is the case with all forms of highly serious punishment. It involved being strapped to a man-sized wheel, with the limbs arranged to lie across the spokes. What do I mean? As opposed to along the length of the spokes? Yes, as opposed to along the length. We're talking "across the spokes." The joints of the limbs, however, such as the wrists, the knees, the elbows, the ankle, were arranged to lie on top of spokes. With solid wood behind them, instead of air. This is where the blows would NOT fall. The executioner took a giant hammer right to the middle of the long bones that define the limbs, and broke them cleanly through the spaces between the spokes. In France, the death-blow to the chest was called the “coups de grace” on the rare occasions that such grace was granted. But by that point, I’m guessing, more and more people were beginning to have the uncomfortable feeling that maybe, just maybe, wheeling is no longer an appealing way of dealing with the feeling that this guy here is just begging for a wheeling, and so maybe it should be discarded. Because the whole point was to break limbs, without causing a massive loss of blood and also leaving the organs fully intact. Thus, after being properly broken in the wheel, it took many hours and even days to die from shock, from dehydration. So this entire “coups de grace” trend was totally missing the point and starting to ruin the whole thing, basically.

These days, when it comes to the least worthy of all Americans, we just inject them with poison or gas. And we’re not adhering to the old-school when it comes to boxing, either. We have come a long way, for sure.

We need not (necessarily) imagine humanity as a parasitic virus, nor ourselves (necessarily) in parallel. We will not (necessarily) self-destruct in a conflagration wrought by idiots, nor rape the earth, nor bring about some other apocalypse. Let’s not forget the reality of progress. Now, I’ll digress.

The famously philosophical and democratic Athenian citizenry consisted of 30,000, ruling over a city of 250,000, which in turn ruled a vast country-side. Yes, a vast country-side. And ancient Greeks sold each other into slavery, and yes, they invented the breaking-wheel as a form of torturous punishment, one which lasted for over 2,000 years, continuously. But wait, wait, let me try again to digress:

Yes, I said a vast country-side. The ancient city-state is such a strangely idealized entity! Such a thing never existed in the past, and no, it does not really exist today, I don’t care what Singapore says. Cities by definition are not self-sufficient, and so they don’t merit such weird glorification.

The village is a self-sufficient socio-political unit, being the settled agricultural domain of the tribe. The state is also a self-sufficient unit. But the city-state is mere fiction, one that means to mythologize the elites who built the state. The city is part of the post-communal, post-tribal political development, the final embodiment of a very significant re-organization of society under the new rules of strict class-hierarchy, the kind which can never be possible in tribal societies: too much intimacy there. The city is also a direct product of the wealth-surplus resulting from hierarchy. It is, in essence and always, the monumental capital of surrounding lands, be they a whole empire, or just enough to provide the requisite food.

To this day it remains what it always was, the truest home of concentrated leadership preserving the social order. It is fundamentally anti-agricultural in attitude except when it comes to consumption. By the time the first cities were actually built, I imagine that agriculture was already convincingly determined to be hard and dirty labor best left to people who really should just be solidified into a slave-caste and have it the fuck over with. Every political unit that has ever been called a city-state is nothing less than a perfectly normal state, with a capital. The word is a pure oxymoron. The idea is a lie.

A city is most definitely NOT a very large village.

Which notion sounds more likely—a village-city, or a village-state? Is a village-city anything more than blurred nonsense? A village-state, on the other hand, is what you might call the condition that immediately preceeds the urgent building of a capital. And unlike the raising of a barn, this one will not be a cooperative effort.

And that is something too: Progress! Capitalized, and exclamation pointed right at you.

The Hammer

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203043.html


Man, you are pissed off!

Aren't you, Krauthammer, or am I just imagining that you're having quite a bad and bitter week? Basically calling all Democrats fully hypnotized is a sign of something mighty heaving inside you. Now, we all know what this feels like, sure. But stop being such a prick about it.

Finally admitting from your influential throne that Barack is near-inevitably the next P. was very kind of you. And I respect something real about your writing, although I hate you and what you stand for; and yet, I respect you as well, for I must, and I love you with all my heart. Yes, you are pig-ignorant sometimes, as we all can be. Certainly, right now for you this is one of those unhappy occasions.

Return to reality. Are you not cognizant that Republicans have controlled all branches of government and both houses for a bit now? Do you think the polls are consistently off by 30-40 percent, that the GOP has not in fact humiliated itself, and been humbled? This they themselves repeatedly admit, and now use it to try to re-power. But it is the Democrats' turn to now face the challenge of avoiding power intoxication--such an urge, it can hardly be totally avoided. Remind yourself what it would mean if Republicans won again after this performance. Democracies and peaceful societies have been destroyed (your regimen) and destroyed themselves before (mine). What would re-electing Republicans now say about the state of our electorate?

As you well know, the alarm levels that Republicans have just achieved are astounding. It is your duty, Krauthammer, to have reason enough to know that the Democrats now have to take their turn in this wonder-world. Don't worry, it will not last too long. So stop being a sourpuss.

Slavery

In all my reading of traditional history, whose unfortunate sway is near-universal, there is greatly important emphasis on the levels of production achieved.  But there is rarely any talk about the constantly occuring phenomenon of needless overproduction due to enslavement.  In the distant past, it seems that mainly the rulers benefitted from consuming high levels of wealth, which as such equates to waste.  The industrial revolution unleashed ever more mindblowing opportunities to produce wealth/waste, yet Marx still had to respond to the slavery which resulted when machines that produced at levels unlike anything ever seen before were not producing enough.  

Future levels of wealth never seem to be enough.  For some, doubling or tripling is desirable.  Others have the foresight to know that given certain key tools, wealth can be squared, or cubed, or raised to the tenth power.  And to do that, once a few eyes are brightened by the possibility-turned-inevitability of magic happening, slaves WILL BE HAD.  It was not enough to discover the "new world" and be content with absurdly rich and abundant land, incomparable to Europe.  The land alone was an excellent and robust wealth multiplication.  And it was not enough to take over full empires with productive goldmine operations, and for what cost?  Maybe 3 cents to the dollar or less?  Those were some good deals, and the shareholders were pleased with the high level of dividends they could now waste.  Not pleased enough though.  It was also not enough for the many astute analysts of the day to contemplate the incredible potential of European mass-colonization to the new lands.  So they worked their way right up to the limits of human tolerance, as usual.  

Now our minds are left boggled when imagining how many months-long trips were made across the Atlantic, back and forth, back and forth, to transport millions of African agricultural force-multipliers.  How many could possibly fit on one ship?  Well, cargo-space was fully utilized--the motto has always been "less waste."  Still, how many trips, approximately?  It seems that the global financial system is a similar new product, discovery, invention, innovation, paradigm--call it what you will.  It is incomparably powerful compared to similar technologies of the past, and still very much changing and developing.  It is very new. 

I think the crises are surface shocks that may one day actually bring about major destruction, but it's the tectonic plates that are truly impressive.  As a statistical matter, the magnitude of any crisis is dwarfed by the underlying strength that drives it--over the cliff sometimes.  A small crisis is also a good thing, and sometimes necessary to maintain course.  And a whole series of small crises managed appropriately is a very good thing--it's called a balanced economy, and even a balanced life.  I believe in advancement, in slow historical change.  But the full undoing of simple and clearly graspable North American slavery still isn't finished.  The restoration of Native Americans is even less finished.  Capitalism is so not finished that it's praised endlessly.  

The financial structures that move the world economy are mainstays of capitalism, and transactions that can yield a billion dollar profit on good days without creating anything but small changes in psychological valuation spread globally have not run their course--they are way too institutionally entrenched, despite all the bank failures.  It will take messianic change.  Half a million Americans died in the Civil War, and that wasn't messianic enough.  This is because messianic change is generally unavailable, and possibly a complete fantasy.  And so I believe in incremental, painfully slow advancement.

We know the ones that are leading the current charge in the latest technological frenzy, and we know the ones that are incentivised and/or directly shipped in to strengthen the cast-iron balance sheets.  They ARE made of cast-iron.  But they could always use 21st century titanium plates for additional strengthening, if only we knew how to make them... But wait a minute, we do know how!  We just figured it out!  And what with how fast everything is happening, we probably should make them five meters thick if we could just ...  I mean, who's against additional titanium-plated reinforcement?  It is honorable, dignified labor to produce them for $13/hr, which is more than the competition pays.  If only polygamy could be legalized again, a large, healthy, hard-working family might even be able to afford one, eventually.

As a caveat, I have little or no real idea of what the fuck I'm talking about.  And I certainly want to employ people making titanium plates.  Currently, I am employed making titanium plates.

Mediocrity

I recall the night on CNN when the news finally broke open, with the bailout of AIG in the wake of Freddie/Mae and those giant bank failures, and about how we were now staring at financial catastrophe. That broadcast was an all-consuming, serious hustle for about 3-4 hours. What a rare, exquisite occurence it was--maybe one reason way some refer to the apocalypse as rapture--and certainly refreshing to watch CNN "keeping it real," because it had no choice. The nightly dosage of strong, long-lasting, unrelentingly dumb blabber was transformed into an alert and focused dialogue. The guest commentators were all new, all inside experts from the innumerable compartments and innards of the system. One was from the Wall Street Journal, who for years trod on a well-established journalistic track to document the illegal and destructive financial activites of some of these failing companies and their leadership cores. He never would have been on air otherwise, but given the chance, he expressed his opinion that a full congressional inquiry and a serious ethics scandal with accompanying jailtime was completely inevitable. He could afford to be certain due to the breadth of his knowledge, but he seemed more certain because of its simplicity: evidence of major crimes was undeniable, uncontestable, factually true and highly accurate, a generously helpful non-lie. Any thorough investigation would end up with the same conclusions. We would only be so lucky. But a lot of very important things were said outloud, and it was great to see mediocrity rise above itself so thoroughly for a while, or, to put it another way, it was great to see mediocrity's exposed core being substantial.