Politics = boring.

That is, when it's not being depressing [PhuckPolitics.com].

Oh, and this picture of the Boredoms is in honor of politics being boring.

They (the Boredoms) are not boring, though; they're great (or at least they were last time I checked, which was not recently). Here's their myspace page.

CNN.com: "Moderates to blame for GOP losses, conservative leader says"

Ha! This is hilarious. On The News Hour with Jim Leher, David Brooks has been predicting that his crippled party will likely need to endure ten-to-fifteen years of working out the kinks before it's able to get back on its feet ideologically or politically. A conservative named Tony Perkins is already proving Brooks right:

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council told CNN that conservatives need to take back control of the GOP if the party is to return to its winning ways.

"Moderates never beat conservatives. We've seen that in past elections," he said.

Rejecting suggestions that the conservative movement was viewed as being out of touch with the electorate, Perkins says the Republican Party needs to go back to basics.

"It's a return to fundamental conservative principles that Ronald Reagan showed work and that people can be attracted to," Perkins said. (Full article on CNN.com)

This is exactly the kind of dream-world nonsense Brooks is referring to. It's going to be very entertaining to watch from the sidelines as the GOP keeps this up! And as it continues to lose election after election after election....

A recent email exchange about Powell's Obama endorsement, veering into discussion of the unconscious assumptions that comprise American "comon sense."

Below is a recent thread of email correspondence between a friend of mine and Yours Truly. I was going to use its raw material as a basis upon which to descant, but in the interest of not wanting to go to that trouble, I have decided instead simply to reproduce it.

It is, of course, redacted, to protect the identities of those whose permission has not been sought. (Permission has been obtained. From Stephen Schlei, anyway. But the full identity of 'Kevin' shall remain, for the moment, a mystery...)

From: Steve
Subject: Powell endorses Obama
To: Tom
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008

I'm sure you've heard about this already. Both of the videos on this page are incredible:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-oba_n_135895.html

In my lifetime I don't believe I've heard a Republican speak more eloquently.

My brother and I were talking about politics, and he brought up an interesting point. I was (am) appalled by the way Americans misunderstand a socialized health care system, and vote against their own interests to support an ideology (capitalism) that doesn't give a fuck about them. We were talking about some other stuff too, but here's what my brother had to say about it, and I think he's on to something:

My theory: people attach themselves not to the ideals and practices of what would apply to them, but to their perceived and possible future situation (that happens to be much better). They won't vote for a healthcare plan that will increase their meager benefits because they believe that they are losing the possibility of benefits that the rich can afford (which they could possibly have one day). It's the same reason no one stops gambling in Vegas, even when they're up. They don't see it as a growth from their starting position, but rather a pittance compared to a huge win.

It's why ordinary people defend big business. It's why they like trickle down economics. It's the entire foundation of the GOP's low class voting base.

I think the Republicans have been selling that dream world for a long time, where you too can be a millionaire (and who should stand in your way?) and all babies are born to loving families.

Steve


On Mon, Oct 20, 2008, Tom wrote:

Yeah, I totally agree with you and Kevin. I have become very interested over the last few years in the period in US history stretching from the beginnings of the US industrial revolution through to the Gilded Age. Part of the reason I have been investigating this period is because it contains the origins or perfection of many of the myths upon which the GOP (and really, in a wider sense, all of us, because they sit, often unexamined, in the American consciousness, I think) and its ideology are based:

• the myth of meritocracy, of 'classlessness';
• our particular American attitude toward private ownership;
• a preference for empirical and positivistic thinking over critical or theoretical thinking,
• suspicion toward intellectualism and even contempt for ideas more generally (which, as David Brooks points out, sees its apotheosis in the person of Sarah Palin);
• Social Darwinism;
• the equation of social justice with 'charity' and suspicion of 'wealth redistribution';
• the equation of everything from education to religion to friendship to governance with private consumption;
• the assumption that 'status' or wealth are earned and/or deserved, rather than conferred;
• the idea of the inexorability of progress;
• suspicion toward 'expertise'; and
• the tendency to blame oneself for one's own poverty, squalor or misfortune.

We could of course go on with such a list forever, but its upshot is that almost every one of these myths seems more or less grounded in the task of masking from view -- that is, both from the view of those who are successful/happy and those who are unsuccessful/unhappy -- the pervasiveness and power of the very structural inequalities that the myth seeks to negate. If (and to the extent that) you benefit from the system, you're living in denial of your complicity in injustice and harm done to others. If (and to the extent that) we get screwed by the system, it provides for us the means by which we acclimatize ourselves to our surroundings, to our fate.

And so it makes sense to think that some of these poor-to-lower-middle-class racists at McCain/Palin rallies are so very offended at the idea of that these myths will be exposed for what they are. They've lived their entire lives aspiring to something that the system tells them can be theirs one day, be it in the form of success later in life or in the form of success for one's children. But it's a very precise set of aspirations that they've been sold throughout their lives, and they are -- and long have been -- resentful of the idea that someone will take it away from them.

As far as I can tell, the only answer to this huge problem is education. Well, there's one other answer, which is sad, but true (sad AND true!): these people are a dying breed. They don't have the power they once had because they don't enjoy the decent middle-class wages they once had but most importantly they don't have the numbers. And the final irony is that it's the GOP which has been the most aggressive force in destroying them: it's the GOP's doing that is turning their neighborhoods into ghost towns. Thanks for the thought-provoking email. Hope all is well...

Best,
Tom


On Mon, Oct 20, 2008, Steve wrote:

Your ideas are great, and I love the way you put them. The subject deserves serious attention. This idea of the American Dream is so strong a myth that it is a reality, or a form of reality -- not the one most people would like if they could pull back the veil. ....

... Anyway, I can't believe how positive I feel about the prospect of Obama winning the election. It'll be like a great weight is lifted from this country, and I think I'll actually walk down the street differently (I'm not kidding!). McCain is down in the polls, and I'm hoping the negativity we've seen recently means they don't have anything up their sleeves which could significantly sway the election. The GOP is desperate and floundering. To me, Powell's statements have been the nail in the coffin, and have revealed to the world just how out of touch the Republicans are. We can only hope that they get so thoroughly crushed in this election that they have no choice but to start changing their party line. ...

Steve


From: Kevin
Date: Tue, Oct 21, 2008
Subject: Re: Powell endorses Obama
To: Steve

Tom precisely explains the extent to which the American Dream has served to suppress progress in this country. I just watched Sick Around the World and it's clear that the only things that have stopped us from pursuing a universal health care system are the myths that Tom listed.

Take the 'myth of meritocracy.' On NPR there was a social analyst that was researching ideological differences between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives, on the whole, subscribe to the idea of fairness in the world. The (particularly brutal) example he gave was that conservatives tend to assign blame to rape victims: that they were 'asking for it' by their attire, social activities, acquaintances, etc. Therefore the rape had some sort of logical justification. Applied to health care, it isn't that people are unjustly denied healthcare by businesses who can choose not to supply it, it's that these people do not work hard enough to earn better jobs that do offer health care. Therefore they don't deserve it - it's only fair.

On a side note, the 'suspicion of expertise' is an interesting one. A study (lost the link, sorry) has shown that people become more insistent about false assumptions if they are given proof to the contrary. For example, let's say a group of people have a 30% certainty that Iraq has WMDs. If they are given the reports and investigative results that clearly show no evidence of WMDs or WMD production, their certainty goes UP to 65%.

It explains why the GOP only has to plant ideas (which to us seem ludicrous) and they gain so much traction. If you insist that Obama associates himself with terrorists, when the campaign produces factual evidence to the contrary it works to your advantage. In this case, you have to give credit to Obama's campaign managers who have masterfully dealt with these attacks. (This also applies to the healthcare thing - those who have fears about waiting lists and expensive govt. run programs will only be more insistent after watching the Frontline episode.)

I'm curious to see if Tom's right about these people being a dying breed. I have faith in the fact that we're moving away from a television-based society to the Internet addicted information junkies of today. Multiple news sources can only be a good thing from here on out, and counters the effect made by choosing only one news source that shares your world view. But I do have fears that the strength of the temptations created by these persistent myths will only continue to fester and grow. I mean, come on. If ever the pendulum was pulled WAY out of line to the absolute limit of bad judgment, it's now after 8 years of GWB and a full on economic collapse. We should be seeing it flying the other direction, but instead we're having to push as hard as we can.

Kevin


From: Steve
Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2008
Subject: Re: Powell endorses Obama
To: Tom

Sorry, I meant to forward on my brother's response to the response you wrote that I forwarded to him. I feel like I'm moderating here. The program "Sick Around the World" that he mentions is a Frontline episode that you can watch off of their website. It's really interesting, and talks about how universal health care works in 5 or 6 other countries, so check it out.

The reason this popped back into my mind is that I was thinking about how much racism there is in this country and how standardized and widespread it is. This "American dream" fallacy supports those racist theories. African Americans aren't economically underprivileged because they're still recovering from hundreds of years of inequality that was only truly addressed 40 years ago, they're just lazy. And all the crime in the ghettos? That's because black people are morally inferior. In this country they have all the same opportunities as me, and look at where they've gotten themselves.

Steve

Crib From This unveils titular 'depression' reference #2.

I seriously wish I were exaggerating in using the 'D Word'. And I hope it turns out that I am.

I, doubtless like many others, have for the last couple of days been conducting a self-education in economics in order to better comprehend various of the enormous ongoing fiscal crises. I have been scurrying around, to and fro, hither and thither on the Web site of The Wall Street Journal, CNN Money, and also some instances of financial bloggery. It brings me no particular joy, but hey, even Karl Marx had go about the ugly business of teaching himself economics...

One Web site / blog that I have found to be exceedingly instructive not only for its candor -- the Federal Reserve, the Executive and Legislative Branches and the media have been drastically understating the severity of the situation in order not to cause panic, mass liquidations of accounts, etc. --, but for its lucidity. It's called Naked Capitalism, and I cannot recommend it highly enough. It's hype.

So, I would like to recommend a few of items that have been posted today on Naked Capitalism, items that are characteristically candid and lucid. Here's how I'll give it to you: I've got good news and bad news.

First the good news: there isn't any.

And the bad news is:

1) The Fed's bailout of AIG to the tune of $85,000 has done nothing to slow the downward spiral of the credit markets (the mysterious, opaque, unregulated markets I blathered about in my previous post).

2) On the basis of a strange article in The Chicago Tribune, Naked Capitalism contributor Yves Smith expresses concern that Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of The Federal Reserve, has no idea what he's doing.

3) Morgan Stanley appears poised to take a cue from Lehman Brothers. Which is to say, tank.

4) Or possibly a merger with Wachovia? And Washington Mutual (a.k.a. WaMu) is likely to tank any day now.

By the way, did you know that we may well be on the verge of a second Great Depression?

First of all: if you are like me and tend not to understand anything about the economy, you owe it to yourself as a citizen, but more importantly as a voter in the upcoming presidential election, and even more importantly as someone who can help inform undecided voters (a constituency that J has often remarked that she doesn't "get," and I agree that it's one of life's great mysteries, like how come anyone likes this person?), to listen to today's highly informative episode of Fresh Air, hosted by Terri Gross.

Warning! In addition to being highly informative, this listening experience exposes to the listener the cynicism, corruption and incompetence that has caused the shocking shockwave of economic strife, Sturm und Drang and the like that has befallen the United States of America. And in this respect, it's pretty infuriating. But, it's the good kind of infuriating, wherein you finally feel like you have a basic sense of what the fuck is going on with Ye Grande Olde Economie, thanks to the success of decades of Grand Old Party ideological warfare. This is the ultimate consequence of the Reagan Revolution, and you got what you wanted, America! Assholes....

But anyway, subject yourself to this unusually informative radio program, and you'll come away armed with the kind of terrifying knowledge that energizes you to spread the word, or perhaps to spread your wings and fly, or perhaps simply to start bar fights. Not surprisingly, you'll also be equipped with a convincing yet subtle set of basic arguments as to why anybody who cares at all about the economy had better get off her ass and vote for Barack Obama.*

As if the fact that no less formidable paragon of bleeding-heart Marxism than Alan Greenspan recently said that the country "can't afford" John McCain's economic platform isn't all the proof we needed? Speaking of which, enjoy this simple but eloquent cartoon, which came to my attention through the blog of the, erm, festively monikered Barack OBlogger:

(By the way, I've discovered that there are a number of political cartoons on the Web site of the Ventura County Star that are after my own bleeding heart in a sort of simple, satisfying old-school way. The cartoonist is Steve Greenberg.)

Terri's guest is the very lively and lucid Michael Greenberger, a professor of law at the University of Maryland, and the former Director of the Division of Trading and Markets at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In which capacity "he was responsible for supervising exchange traded futures and derivatives" (michaelgreenberger.com). What this means is that he knows lots and lots about the shady, irresponsible business practices that is causing the economy to tank, and he describes it from the perspective of a regulator. And from that perspective, things don't look good. (I wonder which perspective John McCain is viewing it from?)

Turns out the Republican Party economic ideology of deregulating everything and its mother, as practiced and expanded continually during all GOP presidencies since Reagan, and which McCain fully and ernestly intends to continue, has profoundly fucked the country. Shadiest of all has been the Bush/Cheney administration, which has been eager at every turn to run up larger and larger and larger deficits, and which espouses explicitly (and, at times, furtively) a policy of opacity: in other words, the administration has clamored, maneuvered, lied and used subterfuge at every opportunity to hide from the American people the true state of the country's finances, as well as the inevitable consequences of their irresponsible behavior with respect to the bottom line of an average American household.

For example: did you know that Cheney/Bush, in attempt to hide the yearly deficit expenses of the Iraq War -- which according to The Washington Post is certain to exceed $3 trillion --, tried to keep these expenses off the books? Specifically off of Congress's yearly report to the American taxpayer of spending and deficits. Fortunately, that plan was thwarted by Congress. And sure enough, the Bush Administration also wanted to keep the Federal Reserve's $200 billion taxpayer-funded bail-out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac off the books. The idea, you see, is that if that menacing figure of $200 billion -- which is being supplied out of the pockets of the taxpayers -- is prevented from appearing on the books, then the taxpayers wouldn't have to go through the psychological turmoil of knowing that it is indeed they who are strapping to their backs the burden of this awesome sum. Thankfully, Congress again told Cheney/Bush: "Fuck off."

And now, here's something that's sure to put an even bigger bounce in your taxpaying step. In today's Fresh Air interview, Greenberger explains that the Fed's $85 billion loan to bail out insurance giant AIG is backed up by -- that is to say, it uses as collateral -- AIG's considerable assets. In the Fed's public statements, it has used this fact as a means by which to reassure the US taxpayer that he won't have to shoulder this burden.

But wait, what do AIG's 'assets' consist of, exactly? The assets that are being used to back up the US Government's $85 billion loan? Why, AIG's assets consist of the insurance policies of its customers. Bet that makes holders of AIG policies feel cozy and warm. Or perhaps, a bit toasty.

Now, these policies are for the most part held not by AIG itself, but by smaller, subsidiary companies under AIG's umbrella. Wow. So, what does that mean, that the risk is spread around a lot or something? I'm going to answer no, even though I don't really understand my own question (you have to forgive me, because I'm of necessity reconstructing Greenberger's

comments from memory, as the Web version of the show to which I have provided a hyperlink will not begin functioning until later in the day on which I'm typing these words).

Turns out that AIG, like apparently everyone else, held a lot of subprime mortgage-backed securities. Remember: this means that it invested a significant percentage of the life insurance policies of its customers in those sketchy-ass subprime mortgage loans. So, when the housing sector tanked -- as it would do inevitably, given that the sector was skyrocketing exclusively due to incompetent oversight and lack of governmental regulation (of which, if you want more, vote for John McCain, who's always been in favor of more and more DE-regulation and shows no sign of changing tack in any sense other than rhetorically) -- so AIG's fortunes tanked.

But here's what's even more sinister: Greenberger describes an additional reason for AIG's southward turn: credit-default swaps. Credit-default swaps are a kind of insurance policy against defaults on loans, particularly risky loans (like subprime mortgages, etc.). If that doesn't make sense, and I'm sure it doesn't, just listen to Greenberger talking to Terri Gross, and it will become clear. So: anyway, despite occasional clamors from responsible people, the federal government has made it its policy to exercise virtually no regulation and no oversight with respect to credit-default swaps, or CDS. Therefore, there is zero obligation of transparency on the part of the entities involved with these transactions.

AIG has made a regular and frequent part of its business to issue CDS, a practice that is apparently unusual for insurance companies; for an insurance company to make such risky investments would be unthinkable in an environment with the appropriate oversight, transparency and regulation. Especially since oftentimes, if not in the majority of instances, the buyers of these swaps did so to protect against the risk of a default or bankruptcy on subprime mortgages!

This unregulated, mysterious CDS market is several times the size of the stock market!

Wow. If McCain manages to fucking win this election -- I know this is a clichee, but --, I'm sorry but anybody with any sense would pack up and leave for Canada. We can avoid that, but only if we stay in the faces of those who are undecided in this election and explain to them what the consequences will be if McCain wins.

Not to mention that in this economy, if the American people were to vote the same party of the last eight years into office all over again, it would be the biggest act of collective masochism the world has ever seen.

Okay; off to take a shower to wash away the self-righteousness..... But it just won't wash awaaaay / No, it doesn't ever wash awaaaayaayayayay, / Darlin', pleaeeeeeeese. To be sung in the style of Bryan Adams, ca. 'Everything I Do I Do It For You'. And that's a wrap.

_________________
* And, also to remind Barack supporters to register to vote ; it's unbelieveably easy and quick to put the requisite paperwork together, thanks to this kickass feature on Barack Obama's Web site. Remember: this election could very easily turn on whether or not a sufficient number of young people show up at the polls on election day. So don't hold back out of politeness: remind your friends; get in their faces and make sure they vote.