Month: November 2009

The Man

by digby

He looks like a wiry, weather-beaten cowboy, a coiled spring with a leather face. He talks quietly, in measured phrases. With a neutral accent you can’t quite place, his speech has a comforting cadence. Still, you can almost feel the dynamic tension in his brain as he pauses from time to time to choose his words carefully.

Millions of Americans read that in their Sunday paper’s Parade magazine this morning. Oooh baby. Who is that awesome hunk of man?

He is U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus, the boss of Central Command. He is responsible for everything that happens—or fails to happen—in an area of operations that spans 20 countries in Southwest and Central Asia, including two where American troops face danger and death every day: Iraq and Afghanistan.

As President Barack Obama recently studied his national-security team’s recommendations on how to prosecute the war in Afghanistan, I spoke with Petraeus at his headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Fla.

Thirty-five years ago, I was an Army captain on the faculty at West Point, and Petraeus was a young cadet there. I remember him well. He was soft-spoken, but his eyes betrayed an intense, almost burning, spirit. I asked him why he became a soldier in the first place, and he said, “I lived not far from West Point and became familiar with its people. They had discipline and were dedicated, and I wanted to be just like them.”

Petraeus graduated among the top 5% of his class and chose to join the infantry. He became a paratrooper and a Ranger and was promoted rapidly. The Army sent him to graduate school, and he earned a Ph.D. from Princeton. In 2000, he was promoted to brigadier general. His subsequent rise from one star to four was extraordinarily swift.

Some critics say that Petraeus has always been voraciously ambitious, with his sights set on the highest rank and responsibility, but the general himself said, surprisingly, “Even at West Point I was never committed to a long career in the Army and instead fell in love with it incrementally.” Whatever his thirst for authority, he is now in charge of campaigns whose outcomes will affect America’s security for decades to come.

One can’t help but wonder if his “thirst for authority” extends to politics.

The article goes on to outline Petraeus’ plans for a decades long commitment in Afghanistan, while sounding ever so reasonable with his “measured phrases” and “comforting cadence.” It’s quite clear after reading it that Obama should just turn over the running of the wars to this man and concentrate on the female issues Democrats are so interested in. There is nobody so handsomely equipped to run the American Empire as this man. (And he’s like totally smart too.)

When you look at the field of Republican presidential candidates out there, it’s hard to see anyone who could possibly win. But, as I have said for quite some time, I think this guy possibly could. If nothing else, he could save the Republican Party from teabaggery. It’s very hard to see how they could oppose this guy, even if he didn’t follow their purity test. As a decorated General, he would be protected by right wing political correctness from the kind of criticism that will dog anyone else who isn’t orthodox wingnut, (which will be necessary to win.) He is one of the only people I can see who wouldn’t divide the Republicans and could possibly bring in right leaning Independents. (They love the commanding CE0/General types.)

2012 seems too soon and he’s so firmly involved in the war planning that if he were to run against Obama he would have to quit because Obama wasn’t following his recommendations.(I wonder if that might be playing into Obama’s decision making?) How this would all come about I don’t know.

All I do know is that when I read that glowing article in Parade over my toast and coffee this morning, I could hear millions of Americans saying, “that guy would make a great president.” I’d be very surprised if The Man Called Petraeus couldn’t hear that too.

.

The Socialist Scientists

by digby

As you know from the shocking revelations about the climate crisis hoax, the pointy headed scientists are the last ones to whom anyone should listen because they all have an agenda (unlike the faith based people and corporations who just call it as they see it.) However, it’s probably a good idea to keep up with what the nerds are saying just so we know what we need to reject out of hand.

Here’s a new one on health care:

A new analysis by a leading MIT economist provides new ammunition for Democrats as the Senate begins formally debating the historic health-reform bill being pushed by President Barack Obama. The report concludes that under the Senate’s health-reform bill, Americans buying individual coverage will pay less than they do for today’s typical individual market coverage, and would be protected from high out-of-pocket costs. […]

Gruber’s conclusion: “[F]or those facing purchase in the non-group market, the … bill will deliver savings ranging from $200 for singles to $500 for families in today’s dollars – even without subsidies. The savings are much larger for lower income populations that receive premium credits. “This is in addition to the higher quality benefits that those in the exchange will receive, with actuarial values for low income populations well above what is typical in the non-group market today. It is also in addition to all the other benefits that this legislation will deliver to those consumers – in particular the guarantee, unavailable in most states, that prices would not be raised or the policy revoked if they became ill.”

Now David Broder has talked to every “expert” at the Washington Post (well almost every expert)and got a different answer, so take all this with a grain of salt. Still, it’s important to know what the “scientists” are saying. They often have undue influence on decision making.

.

Fools Rush In

by digby

I’ve heard a number of people make the point that “rushing” into health care reform is the domestic equivalent of the rush into Iraq and therefore, will have the same disastrous results. It’s very clever, but completely absurd. I’ll let Andrew Sullivan explain why:

… [U]nlike the Iraq war, health insurance reform was a signature issue in the previous campaign debates – both primary and general – and a clear Obama campaign pledge from the get-go. Unlike the Iraq war, the proposal’s long term costs have been inspected closely by the CBO. I know no one who believes that the total final costs over ten years could go from $50 billion to, by some estimates, between $2 trillion and $3 trillion and counting. And I know of no one who thinks the end result will wreck America’s international standing. But yes, more debate and scrutiny. If you really think three decades of failures, a year of campaign debate and a year of legislative wrangling really hasn’t aired the issues sufficiently.

I would also add that the health reform effort is not based on lies and misinformation. Everyone knows our system is failing large numbers of people and is costing us more than any other advanced country. The Republicans simply believe that’s the best we can do.

.

Still Happening

by digby

As we begin a week of furious debate about the inevitable escalation and heartsnmindsnationbuilding in Afghanistan, it’s more than a little bit depressing to read this article in the New York Times yesterday:

KABUL, Afghanistan — An American military detention camp in Afghanistan is still holding inmates, sometimes for weeks at a time, without access to the International Committee of the Red Cross, according to human rights researchers and former detainees held at the site on the Bagram Air Base. The site, known to detainees as the black jail, consists of individual windowless concrete cells, each illuminated by a single light bulb glowing 24 hours a day. In interviews, former detainees said that their only human contact was at twice-daily interrogation sessions. “The black jail was the most dangerous and fearful place,” said Hamidullah, a spare-parts dealer in Kandahar who said he was detained there in June. “They don’t let the I.C.R.C. officials or any other civilians see or communicate with the people they keep there. Because I did not know what time it was, I did not know when to pray.” The jail’s operation highlights a tension between President Obama’s goal to improve detention conditions that had drawn condemnation under the Bush administration and his stated desire to give military commanders leeway to operate. While Mr. Obama signed an order to eliminate so-called black sites run by the Central Intelligence Agency in January, it did not also close this jail, which is run by military Special Operations forces. Military officials said as recently as this summer that the Afghanistan jail and another like it at the Balad Air Base in Iraq were being used to interrogate high-value detainees. And officials said recently that there were no plans to close the jails.

I don’t know if this information also had anything to do with the resignations of Greg Craig and Philip Carter, the two men most associated with Obama’s stated policy to end these practices, but you cannot help but wonder.

.

Saturday Night At The Movies

Stocking Stuffers: Vintage reels for your Xmas creel

By Dennis Hartley

It’s that time of year- for the obligatory Top 10 lists. This week, I thought I would share some of my favorite “back catalog” DVD reissues for 2009, and perhaps give you some gift ideas for the discerning cinema buff on your list (BTW if you do click a movie link from this site and end up making a purchase, you will also be helping your favorite starving bloggers get a little something more than just a lump of coal in their Christmas/Hanukah stockings in these harsh economic times… *cough* … *wink*).

We’ve had a fair amount of “wish list” fulfillment this year, with some rarities making their belated debut on DVD, amongst the inevitable “Definitive Remastering of the Previously Ultimate Restored and Remastered” versions (what’s an obsessive-compulsive/completist to do-buy that new box set, or pay the rent? Oh, the humanity!).

So here are my picks for the top 10 reissues of the year (in no particular ranking order)…

Carny -This noir-ish character study/buddy film/road movie/romantic triangle melodrama is an oddball affair (think Freaks meets Toby Tyler in Nightmare Alley-with an “R” rating) but still one of my favorite films of the 1980s. Set in the seedy milieu of a traveling carnival, it stars the Band’s Robbie Robertson as the carny manager, Gary Busey as his best friend (and dunk tank clown) and Jodie Foster as a teenage runaway who gets caught up in their strange world. The story is raised above its inherent sleaziness by excellent performances. In all of his scenes where he dons the makeup (and persona) of the Insane Insult Clown, Busey is downright possessed; a reminder that at one time, he was one of the most interesting and promising young character actors around (at least up until the unfortunate motorcycle mishap). Director/co-writer Robert Kaylor also showed great promise here, but has quite the enigmatic resume; one film in 1970, one in 1971, Carny in 1980, followed by a non-descript Chad Lowe vehicle in 1989, then *poof*…off the radar. This DVD reissue is part of the Warner Archive Series, which is a maddeningly good news/bad news development for film buffs. Bad news first: These are bare-bones editions with a “homemade” vibe (they are burning them “on demand” based on number of orders placed direct from their website). Also, these are not necessarily restored prints (making the $19.99 list price a bit dubious, IMHO). But the good news is that Warner is claiming to be in the process of utililizing this new product line as an excuse to eventually clean out everything in their vaults previously unavailable on DVD.

Dodes’ka-Den-Previously unavailable on Region 1, this 1970 film by Akira Kurosawa rarely gets mentioned in the same breath as Seven Samurai or Ikiru; nonetheless, it stands out in his oeuvre as one of his most unique and impressionistic efforts. After 27 years (and nearly as many movies) into his career, this marked the first project that the great director shot in color-and it shows. Almost as if he was making up for lost time, Kurosawa saturates the screen in an explosion of every vivid hue imaginable, like an excited kid experimenting with his first 120-count box of Crayolas. Perversely, the subject matter within this episodic tale of life in a Tokyo slum (mental illness, domestic violence, rape, alcoholism, starvation, etc.) is as dark and bleak as its visual palette is bright and colorful. It’s challenging; but if you can give the director the benefit of the doubt and grant him the somewhat leisurely pace of the initial 30 minutes to get acquainted with the characters, your patience will be richly rewarded. The film creeps up on you with its genuine humanity, packing a real (if hard-won) emotional wallop by the devastating denouement. Criterion’s DVD features a lovely transfer and some nice extras.

El Norte – Gregory Nava’s effective portrait of two Guatemalan siblings making their way to the U.S. after their activist father is killed by a government death squad will stay with you long after credits roll. The two leads give naturalistic, completely believable performances as the brother and sister whose desperate optimism never falters, despite fate and circumstance thwarting them at every turn. Don’t expect a Hollywood ending-this 1983 film is not easy to watch but thoroughly enlightening. Claustrophobic viewers are warned: a harrowing scene featuring an encounter with a roving rat colony during an underground border crossing though an abandoned sewer will give you nightmares. Criterion’s sparkling transfer is a world of improvement over the previous PAL editions.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle-One of the best film noirs of the 1970s finally made its belated debut on DVD this year, thanks to Criterion. This vastly underappreciated film from director Peter Yates features one of the last truly great performances from genre icon Robert Mitchum, at his world-weary, sleepy-eyed best as an aging hood. Peter Boyle excels in a low-key performance as a low-rent hit man, and Richard Jordan is superlative as a cynical and manipulative Fed. Steven Keats steals all his scenes as a skuzzy black market gun dealer. Paul Monash adapted his screenplay from the novel by George P. Higgins. A tough and lean slice of American neo-realism enhanced by DP Victor J. Kemper’s gritty, highly atmospheric use of the Boston locales. The print is outstanding.

Gone with the Wind-1939 was a good year for director Victor Fleming. Even if he had been hit by a bus after helming The Wizard of Oz , his rep would have been secured; but he also delivered a little sleeper you may have heard of called Gone With the Wind that very same year. Well, if you want to get technical about it, he sort of inherited the project from director George Cukor, who dropped out over differences with producer David O. Selznick (who in essence was a co-director as well). At any rate, no matter who actually called the shots, the end result is generally considered to be the quintessential American film epic. You likely know the story (based on Margaret Mitchell’s sprawling novel); spoiled, narcissistic Southern diva (Vivien Leigh) has an unrequited love for dashing Confederate war hero (Leslie Howard) who is betrothed to her saintly rival (Olivia deHavilland) and takes at least 2 hours of screen time to realize that she really belongs with the roguish (and equally self-absorbed) Clark Gable. The burning of Atlanta (and other Civil War distractions) provides an occasional sense of release from the smoldering passion and sexual tension (which finally reaches torrid consummation about 3 hours in). That’s a lotta foreplay, but in the meantime you are treated to a visually sumptuous cinematic feast and mythic screen performances by all four leads. While it has its dated flaws (the unfortunate characterizations of African-Americans) it is ahead of its time in one notable respect-it features some very strong and self-sufficient female protagonists. This is one film that transcends its own medium. Warner’s 2009 transfer is breathtaking.

The Hit– Directed by Stephen Frears and written by Peter Prince, this 1984 sleeper marked a comeback of sorts for Terence Stamp, who stars as Willie Parker, a London hood who has “grassed” on his mob cohorts in exchange for immunity. As he is led out of the courtroom following his damning testimony, he is treated to a gruff, spontaneous a cappella rendition of “We’ll Meet Again” by a group of Cockney thugs who look like they were on loan from The Long Good Friday. The oddly serene Willie doesn’t appear a bit fazed. Willie relocates to Spain, where the other shoe eventually drops “one sunny day”. He is abducted by freelancing locals and delivered to a veteran hit man (John Hurt) and his hotheaded young apprentice (Tim Roth). Again, Willie accepts his “situation” with a Zen-like calm (much to the chagrin of his captors). What is going on in Willie’s head? That’s what drives most of the ensuing narrative. As they motor through the scenic Spanish countryside (toward France, where Willie’s former boss awaits for a “reunion”) the trio engages in ever-escalating mind games, taking the story to unexpected places. Well worth rediscovery, especially since it has been given the deluxe Criterion treatment.

Last Picture Show & Nickelodeon-The main reason I was thrilled about Sony’s 2009 Peter Bogdanovich double feature reissue was that it made his 1976 film Nickelodeon available for the first time on Region 1 DVD (not to denigrate the status of what is arguably his crowing achievement, The Last Picture Show, which has already been available as a stand-alone disc for some time now). Nickelodeon is Bogdanovich’s love letter to the silent film era, depicting the trials and tribulations of independent filmmakers, circa 1910. It leans a little heavy on the slapstick at times, but is bolstered by charming performances all around from a great cast that includes Ryan O’Neal, Stella Stevens, Burt Reynolds, John Ritter, and Tatum O’Neal. The film is beautifully photographed by the late great DP, Laszlo Kovacs (who I paid tribute to in this post). Anyone who truly loves the movies will find the closing sequence incredibly moving. The real treat here is the additional inclusion of the director’s cut, in glorious B&W (Bogdanovich’s original plan). Bogdanovich’s commentary track is wry and illuminating.

North by Northwest-One would be hard-pressed to find a more perfect blend of suspense, intrigue, romance, action, comedy and pure visual mastery than Hitchcock’s 1959 masterpiece. Cary Grant, Eva Marie Saint, James Mason and Martin Landau head a great cast in this outstanding “wrong man” thriller (a Hitchcock specialty). Almost every set piece in the film has become iconic (and emulated again and again by Hitchcock wannabes). Although I never tire of the exciting, action-packed Crop Dusting Scene or the Mt. Rushmore Chase Sequence, I’d have to say my hands down favorite is the Dining Car Seduction Scene. Armed solely with Ernest Lehman’s clever innuendo-drenched repartee and their superbly-tuned acting chemistry, Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint engage in the most erotic sex scene ever filmed wherein the participants remain fully clothed AND keep their hands where we can see them at all times (which is why Eli Wallach and Carroll Baker’s loveseat scene in Baby Doll comes in at a close second). Bernard Herrmann’s score ain’t half-bad either (heh). The 50th anniversary restoration by Warner is crystalline, and corrects the color issues that marred the previous DVD issue.

Wings of Desire-I’ve never sat down and tried to compile a Top 10 list of my favorite movies of all time (I’ve just seen too many damn movies…I’d be staring at my computer screen for weeks, if my head didn’t explode first) but I’m pretty sure that Wim Wenders’ 1987 stunner would be a shoo-in. Like 2001 or Koyaanisqatsi, if you try to synopsize this film in a paragraph or two for someone who has never seen it, it’s like describing color to a blind man. I mean, if I told you it’s about a trench coat-wearing angel who hovers over Berlin, monitoring people’s thoughts and taking notes, who spots a beautiful trapeze artist one day and follows her home, wallows around in her deepest longings, watches her undress, then falls in love and decides to chuck the mantle of immortality and become human…well, you’d probably say “Dennis, that sounds like a story about a creepy stalker.” And if I threw in the fact that it also features Peter Falk, playing an enhanced version of himself (he’s uh, an ex-angel), you’d say “OK, where’s the hidden camera? I’m being punk’d, right?” But it’s more than that. It’s about everything, and nothing; the universe and the subconscious…oh, crap…now I’m sounding too pretentious. Just watch it, dammit! Okay, maybe you should rent it first, THEN decide if it’s worth owning. Personally, I own two copies, MGM’s original DVD issue and now the new 2009 Criterion edition, which has a markedly improved transfer and a plethora of great extras.

Z– This 1969 film was a breakthrough for director Costa-Gavras, and a high-watermark for the “radical chic” cinema that flourished at the time. Yves Montand plays a leftist politician who is assassinated after giving a speech at a pro-Peace rally. What at first appears to be an open and shut case of a violent action by an isolated group of right wing extremists unfolds as a suspenseful conspiracy thriller. The story (set in an unspecified Balkan nation, but based on the real-life assassination of a Greek political figure back in 1963) is told from the perspective of two characters-a photojournalist (a young Jacques Perrin, future director of Winged Migration) and an investigating magistrate (Jean-Louis Trintignant). The great Irene Papas is on hand as Montand’s wife. Although the film is more of a static affair than its exalted reputation as a “fast-moving” political thriller may lead you to believe (there’s much more talk than action), it is still essential viewing. It’s a little bit Kafka, a little bit Rashomon , but ultimately a cautionary tale about what happens when corrupt officialdom, unchecked police oppression and partisan-sanctioned extremism get into bed together. Criterion’s new edition has a beautifully restored print.

.

Covering Your Bases

by digby

We have added a new feature on our weekly national poll — a gauge of voter intensity. The question offered to respondents is a simple question about their intentions for 2010:

QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?

The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:

Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting

Republican Voters: 81/14
Independent Voters: 65/23
Democratic Voters: 56/40

Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will “definitely not vote” in 2010 than are Republicans.

This tracks with other recent polling that shows the Democratic base being very depressed. I suspect there are a lot of reasons for that, but it doesn’t portend well in a time of hysterical teabaggery. It’s especially dangerous when those who are easily spun about election returns will interpret this as the country making a sharp turn to the right (with the Democrats subsequently trampling each other in the teabag line) instead of a disappointed left, which is not the same thing at all.

The Democrats are very likely to lose seats simply because coat tails almost always fall off in the midterms. But it’s very bad news if the election is dominated by talk of rising conservatism, even if the congress is still in Democratic hands. However, if these numbers hold up, something very bad could happen that we don’t even want to think about — this radical rump GOP freakshow could wind up with subpoena power and a Democrat in the White House.

Mike Lux wrote a good piece on this a couple of weeks ago, in which he pointed out that the 1994 election, which was spun as an uprising of the angry white male, was actually no such thing. The angry white males came out to vote in their usual numbers. The problems then were who didn’t vote:

I was in the Clinton White House in 1994 after we lost on health care, and these same demographic groups- young people, Latinos, unmarried women — turned their back on us. I remember seeing the focus groups, and having the reports back from the doorknockers: these hard-pressed voters who had been so excited about Clinton in 1992 felt like he and the Democrats in Congress had let them down, and they had no enthusiasm for coming out to vote.

Managing expectations is a very tough task for Democrats. They almost always make big promises about social and economic justice — that’s what grassroots Democrats care about. And while those things are difficult to deliver right away, I’m astounded by the fact that Democrats don’t pay more attention to this problem early in the term and make a concerted effort to deliver some short term results that can give their base reason to hang on to their enthusiasm.

Clinton was pretty good at speaking in several layers of code, but he had terrible problems in 1994, even though he delivered the economic plan he promised. And that’s because that economic plan was based on the abstraction of reducing the deficit which is a conservative talking point — even if not one Republican voted for it. He failed to get health care, of course, and passed NAFTA, another Republican initiative. (There was the retreat on DADT, too.) The base had little reason to believe that any of the things they cared about were priorities.

He personally won reelection two years later, but that was mostly because his rival was a doddering fool and the economy was coming around smartly. But there were no more big initiatives once the Republicans took congress, at least none that mattered to the base. So losing the congress is not something to fool around with unless the kind of political inertia Clinton faced is what you prefer.

Obama will probably get even less slack than Clinton did. The country is in terrible shape, there’s a war and the right is far less politically potent (even if they are just as noisy.) I’m not sure using the Clinton playbook is very helpful. And for all their insistence that they are not following it, it would appear that the base, at least, thinks they are..

This could all change if HCR is passed and voters believe it is a good plan. At this point, it’s hard to tell what they are going to think of it. (I’m guessing it’s going to take a major sell job after it’s passed, and who knows if that will work?) Waiting for the benefits to kick in for several years is just nuts.

I personally don’t care much if some Blue Dogs lose their seats. I’m sure it will be interpreted by the gasbags as a sign that the Republicans are on the march even though it’s far more likely they weren’t in stable seats to begin with. But I really do not want to see the Democrats lose control of either house of Congress with nutbags who think Lindsey Graham is a screaming liberal in charge of the Republican Party. Only very, very bad things can come of that.

Update: These may be the single most demoralizing stories for the base of all.

.

Trusting The Wimmin

by digby

Ellen Goodman has written a good common sense article on the mammography issue. Being one who is not particularly excited to be getting radiated more often than necessary, I found the information in the study welcome, but I understand that people have strong feelings the other way. I think that the most important thing is for women to have access to good doctors with whom they can weigh the risks involved with all tests like these. I trust that women understand their own bodies and are able to make these decisions for themselves when they are armed with all the information.

.

Causes And Cures

by digby

As deficit reduction fever grips the nation and, as expected, the White House looks to be responding with some sort of blue ribbon panel of poobahs based on the base closing commission concept, it’s important to recognize the politics for what they are, (which is the perspective I usually take when discussing the subject.) But there are, obviously important economic policy implications and Krugman pulls both the political and policy string in this short but instructive post and says that the causes of deficits are what matter. When they’re created because of irresponsibility or for cynical political purposes (“starve the beast” for example) then they undermine confidence and are dangerous in and of themselves. When they’re in response to an emergency, not so much — depending on if, in the end, America is still America:

Most though not all of our current budget deficit can be viewed as the result of a temporary emergency. Revenue has plunged in the face of the crisis, while there has been an increase in spending largely due to stimulus and bailouts. None of this can be seen as a case of irresponsible policy, nor as a permanent change in policy. It’s more like the financial equivalent of a war — which is why the WWII example is relevant.

So the debt question is what happens when things return to normal: will we be at a level of indebtedness that can’t be handled once the crisis is past?

And the answer is that it depends on the politics. If we have a reasonably responsible government a decade from now, and the bond market believes that we have such a government, the debt burden will be well within the range that can be managed with only modest sacrifice.

OK, that’s a big if. But it’s not a matter of dollars and cents; it’s about whether America is still America.

Some of us obviously believe that many of the bailouts represent “irresponsible” spending, but I think the point is that they were done in response to a real crisis, not one created with the express intent of using it as an excuse to cut hated social programs. Unfortunately, if the fiscal scolds and their compatriots in the White House have their way that may end up being the result anyway — in which case motives and causes won’t matter at all.

And when it comes to deficits, the stimulus and the bailouts and any other causes or reasons are completely irrelevant to Village thinking. They simply think that the people of this country are spoiled and need to suffer.

This is something I wrote on January 11th of this year, before Obama was inaugurated:

In case you were wondering what the spoiled, wealthy celebrity villagers believe Obama should do to pay for his agenda, here it is on CNN this morning:

Gloria Borger: Out of crisis comes opportunity. And they’re thinking, as long as we’re not paying so much attention to the deficit this year, next year, why not go for it all? Why not do what we want to do on healthcare and energy? Got it done with the understanding that two or three years down the road we’re going to have to start paying for this.

Blitzer: But if he wants to deal with the deficit, the national debt, he’s got to deal with those entitlements, social security, medicare, medicaid.

Borger: This is the opportunity. This is the opportunity, because everybody understands right now that he won’t have the money. So this is what you call a teachable moment here right now for Barack Obama. The American public can’t keep these entitlements at these levels.

That’s completely incoherent, of course. Universal health care is the very definition of an “entitlement” and will be vociferously opposed on the very grounds that Borger cites: “we don’t have the money.” (And if the “grand bargain” is that these programs have to be paid for on the backs of social security, I have a feeling it’s going to run into some resistance from a large political constituency as well. )

This is why talk of “entitlement reform” at a time of great economic peril is a dangerous thing. The Republicans and wealthy villagers get all excited again at the prospect that they might finally be able to destroy social security and this provides them with a great new excuse to push for it. And in doing that, they scare the hell out of people who are more dependent on those “entitlements” than ever. They make no sense and nobody should ever listen to them.

It’s not that deficits don’t matter, mind you. But they don’t matter more than anything else and they certainly don’t matter right now. And by putting “entitlements” on the menu it becomes nearly impossible for Obama to pass health care and makes cuts in social security and medicare the price that must be paid for the Republican sponsored financial meltdown. How convenient.

(I didn’t anticipate the cynical scare talk about Medicare, but I should have. It’s perfect.)

The deficit mongers among the cognoscenti really do think that most Americans just don’t understand the meaning of sacrifice. They are personally immune from such required lessons in suffering, of course, because they have plenty of money, thus proving they are responsible people who already make good decisions.

.

Bizarre

by digby

What the hell???

U.S. journalist Amy Goodman said she was stopped at a Canadian border crossing south of Vancouver on Wednesday and questioned for 90 minutes by authorities concerned she was coming to Canada to speak against the Olympics.

Goodman says Canadian Border Services Agency officials ultimately allowed her to enter Canada but returned her passport with a document demanding she leave the country within 48 hours.

Goodman, 52, known for her views opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, told CBC News on Thursday that Canadian border agents asked her repeatedly what subjects she would cover at scheduled speaking engagements in Vancouver and Victoria.

‘You’re saying you’re not talking about the Olympics?’—Canadian border agent

Goodman said she told them she planned to speak about the debate over U.S. health care reform and the wars in Asia.

After much questioning, Goodman said the officials finally asked if she would be speaking about the 2010 Olympics.

“He made it clear by saying, ‘What about the Olympics?'” said Goodman. “And I said, ‘You mean when President Obama went to Copenhagen to push for the Olympics in Chicago?'”

“He said, ‘No. I am talking about the Olympics here in 2010.’ I said, ‘Oh I hadn’t thought of that,'” said Goodman.

“He said, ‘You’re saying you’re not talking about the Olympics?'”

“He was clearly incredulous that I wasn’t going to be talking about the Olympics. He didn’t believe me,” Goodman said.

What am I missing here?

.

Trouble In Wingnut Paradise

by digby

With the Dubai debt crisis on everyone’s mind (and nobody knowing if it’s going to have serious repercussions) I can’t be the only one thinking about the infamous Dubai ports deal which the Bush administration was nearly desperately pushing just four years ago. You’ll recall that it was see as some sort of necessary diplomatic initiative and that canceling it would result in a terrible rift with our allies. And he had tons of support:

Editorial support for the deal came from publications including the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Economist and commentators including Tony Snow,[8] Thomas Friedman,[9] Rush Limbaugh,[10] former president Jimmy Carter,[11] John Warner,[12] and Bill O’Reilly.[10]

Why did all these right wingers back the idea that this was an absolutely necessary agreement during a period of extreme anti-Arab paranoia? An email alerted me to this, from Matt Yglesias a while back:

Donna Wiesner Keese, from the Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative anti-feminist group, objected [to the notion that “an active and capable state sector is a necessary precondition for economic growth.”]

Madrick’s statement, quoted by the reviewer, that “there really is no example of small government among rich nations,” is unsupported nonsense. Think Dubai, free and rich.

As Rick Hertzberg says this is a bit of a bizarre counterexample:

I mean no disrespect to the 240,000 citizens of Dubai (its other 1.2 million residents are imported workers, hundreds of thousands of whom live in “collective labor accommodations”), but is this the best Mrs. Keene can do? Not even a “nation” but a province of the United Arab Emirates, specializing in real-estate and financial-services bubbledom?

Yeah, I think it is their fantasy of a perfect nation. I recall being startled that one of the Real Housewives of Orange County (guilty pleasure) went on a romantic vacation with her wealthy uber-Republican husband to Dubai, wondering what in the world could possibly be romantic about the place. It is, after all, more ersatz than Vegas, with even less charm — it’s basically a shopping mall with extremely high-end fixtures. But obviously, they loved the place because they thought it was “free and rich,” just like them. Of course it was only “free” in the sense that people think buying things with their credit cards is “free” and “rich” in the sense that Bernie Madoff was rich.

As Yglesias explains:

… I understand perfectly well why she describes it as “free” — it’s a straightforward consequence of the right-wing’s sick obsession with reducing the level of taxes rich people need to pay as the prime virtue of politics. For from being free, Dubai is ruled by a dictator, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, dignified with royal title in virtue of the fact that he inherited his political power from relatives rather than seizing it of his own accord. The State Department certainly doesn’t seem to think that his subjects, or those of the other UAE component emirates, are all that free.

Dubai is wingnut paradise.

And I look forward to seeing how they blame liberals for its downfall.

.