The Change I No Longer Believe In

It's true Obama is very bright and has amazing public relations charm. Whereas Ronald Reagan lacked discretion, Obama is renowned for telling each individual audience exactly what he thinks they want to hear. Now, almost a year and a half after his inauguration, all I can say is: So much for "Change We Can Believe In." BTW, I voted for him, and probably deserve a pie in the face for doing so. But what are the FACTS?

1. The US is still very much in Iraq.
2. The Obama administration has escalated the war in Afghanistan, just as he told us he would during the '08 campaign. It's a fine testament to my own capacity for self-delusion that I thought he might be cajoled into doing otherwise.
3. Obama decided to keep George W. Bush's Iran-Contra and Iraq War tainted Robert Gates in office.
4. The latest Pentagon budget to be passed cost a RECORD $708 billion - realistically it's more in the neighborhood of $1 trillion.
5. The Obama administration has fought passionately in the courts to be able to "legally" violate the civil/human rights of those detained unconstitutionally. It's even gone out of its way to let the torturers from the Bush regime off the hook.
6. Obama has been - to say the LEAST - much less forceful than he needs to be about making BP plug the spewing Gulf oil well and clean up the sludge.
7. Obama has been saber-rattling lately in the direction of Tehran and Pyongyang.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. I no longer believe in this alleged change.

More on Rand & Son, dates corrected

In 2006, Ron Paul voted against renewing the 1965 Voting Rights Act. But it had nothing to do with pandering to racist proto-tea baggers, of course. "Junior" Rand Paul had problems with the 1964 Civil Rights Act the other day. The next day, he flim-flammed, flip-flopped and obfuscated. Rand Paul's "confusion" had nothing to do with pandering to racist tea baggers, of course. Rand just needs to iron out the bugs. He should take lessons from Karl Rove, that behind-the-scenes genius who taught "W" how to say "vociferously!"

Lesson: "Paulians" can be against the Iraq War and still seek to deny certain people's constitutional rights. Ayn Randians can be all for ending the drug war, and still give a tacit nod to racially-motivated voter suppression. I can NOT overlook these reprehensible votes father & son cast, for all the "States' Rights" arguments in the world. Anyway, I'd hoped the Civil War of 1861-1865 and the Civil Rights Struggle of 1956-1968 settled the question of Federalism vs. States' Rights once and for all. When it comes to the most basic protections for people who've been discriminated against for ages, the former pretty much trumps the latter. In my estimation.

However, if all one cares about is the Private Enterprise System's unquestioned "right" to make a fast buck - toxic sludge be damned - then either Paul is your guy. Do YOU trust a used Paul?

Libertarianism is problematic.

I guess it's a question of nomenclature. Does Libertarianism indeed amount to a system that provides unfettered freedom of action for the "free market?" That sounds to me like another way of saying British Petroleum is presently "allocating resources" along "free market" principles. Allocating those toxic resources straight to the Louisiana Bayou! As a result - partially - of woefully inadequate government oversight, I might add. Moreover, BP, by money-grubbing Libertarian standards, is doing "right" by focusing more on trying to salvage the gushing oil from the New Horizons blowout, rather than doing the responsible thing - PLUG THE LEAK FOR THE LOVE OF HUMANITY!! Or am I mistaken somehow? I just don't see the precious Private Enterprise System stepping up and acting decently. QUITE THE CONTRARY! It's been a full month now; the Gulf may be dead by the end of the year!

On another topic, I will say this much: I am annoyed by those absurd "Constitutional Literalists," who utter nonsense like "All we need to do is abide by the exact letter of the US Constitution." Such folks are apparently unaware that the document adopted by the states in 1791 allowed for slavery. It allowed, for purposes of White electoral supremacy, that Blacks be considered 3/5 of a person. It denied women the right to vote. Yes, "Strict Constitutionalists" are seemingly unaware of these deficiencies. Either that, or they are comfortable with chattel slavery and the denial of womens' suffrage. As if the Constitution should be frozen in time, straight-jacketed by 18th Century sensibilities!
By contrast, I believe in the evolution of constitutional law; by means of amendment, for example.

America, the lover who jilted me.

"Good-bye, America. I loved you." So said Jim Morrison. Not my favorite poet, but that choked me up a bit. I can relate. It's a mistake to think a dissident hates the land of his birth. Not me. Quite the opposite. I don't expect anyone to understand why "my heart is of this place." Not of Capitol Hill, but of the Black Hills, though they're not mine. A love of the Big Sky, complicated but real.

Gulf disaster update

The collapse of the "New Horizons" rig has become a global environmental emergency the likes of which we have never seen - with the possible exception of Chernobyl. The world has never before faced the actual specter of an offshore Lousiana blowout soiling British and Irish beaches. But maybe that's not actually a possibility - the oil would sink to the bottom of the sea before it ever went that far? I don't know for sure. I have been hearing plenty of apparently valid speculation about the Gulf Stream taking "New Horizons" oil to the US East Coast.

News during the last 24 hours was all about the vast amounts of submerged crude in the Gulf. Huge amounts of raw petroleum that haven’t been included in the “official figures.” Also how US Gov’t agencies, the mainstream media AND BP have all been, from the beginning, vastly understating the true extent of the contamination. The quantity of oil “spilled” will FAR exceed that which leaked from the Exxon Valdez, if it hasn’t already.

On top of that, it appears BP, despite repeated “attempts,” is apparently only capturing a miniscule 5000 barrels a day! They need to focus on shutting down the well, not salvaging oil. Money really is the root of all evil, I guess.
Ed Garvey was right when he recently wrote that the Gulf of Mexico might be dead by the end of the year. And I won’t even mention the use of “dispersants” which are more damaging than the oil itself.

Having stated the doom and gloom scenario, I firmly believe a short term technical solution, at least, is possible. The well needs to be plugged, and I’m inclined to think they can but they just won’t. Another thing that’s infuriating is certain experts have proposed methods for sensibly cleaning up the oil. I don’t read or hear in the media about any such rational methods being used.

Didn't mean to go on too long, but I wonder if even some people who view blogs like mine are unaware of the scope of this thing. Plus I want folks to be considering solutions.

My valiant attempt to "context" the Great Depression

The idea of a significant public works project in the United States appeals to me, though it certainly appears unacceptable in this age of wildly inaccurate socialism-bashing. But let’s look to history for an example. How many people are fully aware of the domestic crisis that held sway in March 1933, when Roosevelt took office?

Unemployment was far higher than 25% nationally. The dust bowl had transformed much of the nation’s midsection into a vast wasteland. True starvation was hardly unknown in the USA. Herbert Hoover had done too little too late to alleviate a desperate situation; when he appeared around the country crowds would shout “Hang him!” Armed soldiers ringed Capitol Hill. Private enterprise had already had two or three years to prove either able or willing to heal the nation’s festering economic wounds; it had failed spectacularly.

What did the Roosevelt administration do? From “Roosevelt and Hopkins; an Intimate History,” by Robert E. Sherwood: “…They drew the plans for the Civil Works Administration which put the four million people to work in the first 30 days of its existence and, in less than four months, inaugurated 180,000 work projects and spent over $933 millions.” That was a vast sum in 1933 dollars! They were quite willing to improvise; when one program didn’t achieve sufficient results, they came up with another. As Federal Emergency Relief Administrator Harry Hopkins dispersed $5,000,000 to the desperate - during his first two hours in office! Hopkins, facing the wrath of Capital and its reactionary mouthpieces like the Chicago Tribune, figured “I’m not going to last six months here, so I’ll do as I please.”

Millions received a paycheck for real work; for many the it was the first cash in months or years. Thousands of schools (and we are now cutting education funding? MADNESS!!!) and a half million miles of highways were built or repaired. Artists and writers also were employed by the government. When he was criticized for this, Hopkins said: “They have to eat like everyone else.”

Some folks say that spending their way out of the Depression in Keynesian fashion would have worked even better if the “stimulus” hadn’t been cut significantly later in the Roosevelt years. Some opponents of this idea are quick to claim that only the accelerated military spending beginning in the 1939-1940 period - culminating in America becoming the wartime “Arsenal of Democracy” - finally dug America out of the hole. I think there may be some truth in both these claims.

But, bottom line: the New Deal indisputably put hungry and homeless people to work and even saved lives. It even, ironically, saved Capitalism! It is now time to replace the dangerously decaying infrastructure that dates from the thirties and even earlier. A great opportunity that must be properly understood as such. Unfortunately, Obama’s pathetic half-measures, the sadly minimal public works projects of 2009 and 2010, don’t fit the bill.

In the interest of full disclosure: Dan Goldstein is a Socialist!

P.S: N

ow I'm thinking (thanks to someone who pointed this out on another person's Facebook page) that in seeking to draw a moral distinction between two different recipients of public spending, I failed to recognize the actual affinity of military and "peaceful" spending under Keynesianism. My half hour of fact-checking before posting what I wrote above didn't prevent me from stating a likely error concerning ideology. By some definitions, Ronald Reagan was a Keynesian! Hmmm... but does cutting taxes - of the richest Americans in particular - while you dramatically increase spending - like Reagan and W. Bush - strictly adhere to the doctrine of John Maynard Keynes? Economics is admittedly not my forte'...

Don't worry folks, I know how to do a google:)