Skip to content

Month: April 2013

QOTC: RFK’s ripples

QOTC: Robert F. Kennedy

by digby

1968:

Too much and for too long, we seem to have surrendered personal excellence and community value in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over eight hundred billion dollars a year, but that GNP — if we judge the United States of America by that — that GNP counts air pollution and cigarette advertising and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and it counts nuclear warheads, and armored cars for the police to fight riots in our cities. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the Gross National Product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

I’m not sure a whole lot of people in this country agree with that, but it’s a nice thought. I’m pretty sure we love our disposable junk more than anything else, including each other.

Here’s another nice thought from RFK, from his famous “Day of Affirmation” speech to South African students in 1966:

This world demands the qualities of youth; not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease. It is a revolutionary world we live in, and thus, as I have said in Latin America and Asia, in Europe and in the United States, it is young people who must take the lead. Thus you, and your young compatriots everywhere, have had thrust upon you a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived.

“There is,” said an Italian philosopher, “nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation, and the road is strewn with many dangers.

First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world’s ills — against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world’s great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and 32-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. “Give me a place to stand,” said Archimedes, “and I will move the world.” These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in the isolated villages and the city slums of dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration, and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs — that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities — no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgement, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief; forces ultimately more powerful than all the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us “At the Olympic Games it is not the finest or the strongest men who are crowned, but those who enter the lists. … So too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize.” I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says “May he live in interesting times.” Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged — will ultimately judge himself — on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.”

“It is the only way we can live”

I’ve always been a fan of RFK’s rhetoric, not just because it is a soaring appeal to our All-American wonderfulness and oneness, a place to which all US leaders with rhetorical gifts go. I like it because he so often directly extolled the liberal virtues of reason, justice and fairness and always explicitly coupled morality with pragmatism. And he wasn’t afraid to challenge the moneyed interests to join up or shut up. His idealism was explicitly directed outward.

I realize that none of these ideals are in fashion in our politics right now — indeed,despite all the recent hoopla about Obama’s inspirational campaign rhetoric, I’m given to understand from the political scientists that speeches might as well be given in pig-latin for all the effect they have on anything.

But it seems to me that it would be nice if people could hear the words once in a while anyway. You never know, someday some kid might hear this sort of thing and come to believe that liberal values and principles are worth fighting for. This kid did anyway.

h/t to RT

Religious “liberty” in Mississippi, by @DavidOAtkins

Religious “liberty” in Mississippi

by David Atkins

Conservative Christians are always going on about their “religious liberty.” This is what that “liberty” looks like in Mississippi:

A high school in central Mississippi allegedly forced students to watch a Christian video and listen to church officials preach about Jesus Christ.

The American Humanist Association’s legal center filed a lawsuit against Northwest Rankin High School in Flowood on Wednesday, accusing the school of violating the student’s First Amendment rights.

The school has held at least three mandatory assemblies about finding hope in Jesus Christ this month, according to the lawsuit. The assemblies showed a video laced with Christian messages about overcoming personal hardships through Jesus Christ and were allegedly led by local church officials…

The assemblies concluded with a prayer and teachers blocked the exits to prevent students from leaving, the lawsuit claimed. A disillusioned student videotaped one of the assemblies.

I suppose that’s “liberty” in the same sense that a number of Catholic priests took unwanted “liberties” with the children of their flock.

Always remember that “freedom” and “liberty” don’t mean the same thing to them that it does to normal people.

.

Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley: Highway 61 revisited — “Mud”

Saturday Night at the Movies


Highway 61 revisited


by Dennis Hartley


Tell me quick man, I got to run: Mud
















There’s a lot of mystery in Mud, writer-director Jeff Nichols’ modern-day Tom and Huck adventure-cum-swamp noir…not the least of which is how a 14 year-old Arkansas river rat named Neckbone came to be in possession of a Fugazi t-shirt (these are the little throwaway details in movies that keep me up nights-I’m pretty sure I need medication). However, that isn’t the central mystery; this tale is chuck-full of characters with Dark Secrets murkier than the black waters of the Mississippi that burble and roil throughout it.

The aforementioned Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) plays second fiddle to our young protagonist Ellis (Tye Sheridan). Ellis and Neckbone, who grew up together in a clannish riverbank neighborhood, kill time exploring their environs in a motorboat. While scouting a tiny island in the middle of the Mississippi, they happen upon a boat that has been stranded high up in a tree (now there’s a mystery). Assuming that the wreck is abandoned (and being 14 year-old boys) they declare dubsies and agree to keep it a secret between the two of them. However, further exploration reveals dismaying evidence that “someone” may already have laid claim to this one-of-a-kind tree house. When they return to their own boat to leave, fresh footprints indicate that while they were up in the tree, “someone” else was also doing some recon. Enter “Mud” (Matthew McConaughey).

Although somewhat gaunt and feral in appearance, Mud turns out to be disarmingly laid-back and soft-spoken in countenance. He is also quite the raconteur, soon regaling the impressionable lads with his tale of woe. While it may appear that he’s been living by his wits on this veritable desert island for an indeterminate amount of time, it seems that he has but recently returned to the area with a Special Purpose: to reunite with his long-time ladylove, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). So why doesn’t he simply make the 20-minute boat ride into town and hook up with her? Well, there’s this slight hiccup. You see, since they were last together, Juniper left him for this other guy, who turned out to be an evil, physically abusive dirt bag. So Mud ended up sort of, well, killing him. And now, the guy’s congenitally felonious family (headed by veteran hillbilly heavy Joe Don Baker) is hot on his trail and gunning for vengeance. So Mud has to lay low. Despite the preponderance of red flags, Ellis and Neckbone offer to help Mud in his righteous quest.

What ensues is a hybrid of Stand by Me and Whistle Down the Wind , with a touch of Tennessee Williams (the presence of a startlingly grizzled Sam Shepard lends additional Southern Gothic cred). I also got the feeling that Nichols was striving to create a sort of mythic American folk tale, in the mold of Glen Pitre’s woefully underrated 1986 gem Belizaire the Cajun; particularly in the way he immerses you in a unique regional subculture, which in this case appears to have changed little since the days of Mark Twain. While the director’s reach may exceed his grasp at times (due in part to his busy mishmash of character study, family melodrama, coming-of-age tale, love story, mythic folk tale and suspense thriller), the strong sense of place (Adam Stone’s cinematography artfully captures the sultry atmosphere of a torpid backwater), compelling music score (by David Wingo) and excellent performances add up to a perfect Sunday matinee movie.

They have their own hated superpower

They have their own hated superpower

by digby

I wanted to highlight another segment from Chris Hayes’ show last night that I think is important. I certainly haven’t seen anyone else bring this up:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I’m specifically referring to that quote from the Chechen rebel saying they have their hands full fighting Russia and don’t have a particular beef with the US. And furthermore, it would appear that our Boston bombing “jihadist” may have been motivated by something far more prosaic than religious fervor:

The cocksure fighter, a flamboyant dresser partial to white fur and snakeskin, had been looking forward to redeeming the loss he suffered the previous year in the first round, when the judges awarded his opponent the decision, drawing boos from spectators who considered Mr. Tsarnaev dominant. From one year to the next, though, the tournament rules had changed, disqualifying legal permanent residents — not only Mr. Tsarnaev, who was Soviet-born of Chechen and Dagestani heritage, but several other New England contenders, too. His aspirations frustrated, he dropped out of boxing competition entirely, and his life veered in a completely different direction.

Who knows what makes a homicidal maniac tick. But to even speculate that this was the opening gambit some sort of expansion in the Great GWOT is just stupid. The Chechens have their own superpower to hate.

.

If they’re nuts, they’re nuts. And they’re nuts.

If they’re nuts, they’re nuts. And they’re nuts.

by digby

I’m a little bit confused by something. The consensus among the savvy insiders is that the Republican party of today represents an unprecedented opposition, so extreme in ideology, tactics and strategy that even a Democratic White House and a majority in the senate is completely paralyzed by its radical obstructionism. Nothing can be done, nothing anyone says or does can change it (except, perhaps, make sure the American people see that they are grown-ups.)

And yet, many people also believe that they are just like Republicans have always been.  Here’s Ezra writing about Obamacare this past week:

  April 25, 2013 11:53 AMRepublicans Will Clobber Obamacare Until They Hug ItBy Ezra Klein

He says all this is just short term politics and that they will eventually go along because that’s what they’ve done in the past. And yet, I also hear they are sui generis and something more akin to the Southern Democrats of the 1850s.

Now Ezra does show how they will do it in a way that’s quite interesting:

Don’t believe it? Some Republicans are already arguing that Ryan’s Medicare premium support plan simply brings Obamacare to Medicare. “The great irony of Obama’s triumph, however, is that it can pave the way for Republicans to adopt a comprehensive, market-oriented healthcare agenda,” wrote Avik Roy and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, two influential Republican policy advisers. They argue that “both Representative Paul Ryan’s ‘premium support’ proposal for Medicare and Obamacare’s exchanges are modeled on the Swiss system,” and that Republicans should push to have Medicare beneficiaries “gradually migrate into the exchanges’ premium-support systems.”

See? Republicans can go from arguing that Obamacare should be repealed to arguing that it needs to be expanded in a flash. But not until they’ve squeezed every political benefit from making its implementation disastrous.

Why interesting? Well, here’s Ezra himself from a couple of years ago:

If Republicans can make their peace with the Affordable Care Act and help figure out how to make the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges work to control costs and improve quality, it’d be natural to eventually migrate Medicaid and Medicare into the system. Liberals would like that because it’d mean better care for Medicaid beneficiaries and less fragmentation in the health-care system. Conservatives would like it because it’d break the two largest single-payer health-care systems in America and turn their beneficiaries into consumers. But the implementation and success of the Affordable Care Act is a necessary precondition to any compromise of this sort. You can’t transform Medicaid and Medicare until you’ve proven that what you’re transforming them into is better. Only the Affordable Care Act has the potential to do that.

I guess we can look forward to bipartisan comity on that one.

I have no idea if Republicans are going to accept Obamacare in the future, much less if they’ll decide it’s at least a good way to destroy Medicare so they might as well go for it. Maybe they will. Or maybe they see how successful they’ve been at getting the Democrats to willingly propose cuts to Social Security and Medicare and will just wait for them to do the same thing to the health care reforms. Indeed, Obamacare will be much easier to dismantle bit by bit, starting with the funding for the “welfare” portions of the plan like Medicaid. It’s easy to imagine that we will find ourselves unable to afford to pay subsidies at the levels currently prescribed or that the exchanges need to be “deregulated.” There are lots of ways to skin that cat.

Anything could happen. But the complaisant assurance that, of course the Republicans will eventually go along because they’ve done so in the past just seems short sighted to me. Sure, they like using these things as political battles. But the fact that the programs have continued isn’t a sign that the Republicans love them underneath it all. It’s a sign that they just haven’t figured out how to end them without being destroyed politically. That’s why they were designed as “entitlements” and not as complicated subsidized marketplaces. There was a time when people understood that the only way to ensure that a program was safe from these property worshiping conservatives was to make sure that everyone knew who was sending their checks and paying their bill: the government.

The problem really isn’t in thinking that the Republicans aren’t really as nuts as they seem right now, it’s in thinking that they haven’t always been pretty nuts. It’s just that their power to act on their nuttiness waxes and wanes with the power of the conservative faction in politics. And I don’t think there’s any crystal ball that can accurately predict how that’s going to go.

.

“What was Air Force One like?”

“What was Air Force One like?”

by digby

Gawker insists this is an excerpt of the real “Talking Points” memo, including questions for the celebrities,  from Politico for tonight’s White House Correspondents Dinner:

They should have asked Bill O’Reilly for some tips. He used to host Inside Edition, after all.

You’ll notice that they treat the celebrities as if they are mentally disabled children. (“Jon Bon Jovi: what was Air Force One like?” Yikes …. ) On the other hand, this isn’t really any different than the way they treat the American people in general, so it’s not a particular insult to showbiz celebs.

I’m awfully excited about seeing their coverage though, aren’t you?

.

Reliable intelligence

Reliable intelligence

by digby

From the wayback machine —

Fast forward to The Saq of Iraq, April 27, 2003:

WASHINGTON, April 27 (AFP)

Iraqi opposition leader Ahmad Chalabi said Sunday that he has “specific information” about links between the terror group al-Qaeda and the Iraqi intelligence service Mukhabarat.

“We have specific information about visits that leaders of al-Qaeda made to Iraq in as late as 2000, and the requests for large amounts of cash,” Chalabi said.

Chalabi, who heads up the US-backed Iraqi National Congress (INC), an organization that opposed Saddam Hussein’s ousted regime, added that he could not elaborate “because we want to chase down specifically the information so there will be an actionable case for international authorities — specifically the United States.”

Chalabi’s comments came in response to a question about a report in Britain’s Sunday Telegraph newspaper that secret Iraqi intelligence documents found in Baghdad have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network and Saddam Hussein’s regime.

But, lo and behold:

Iraqi “intelligence documents” likely planted. April 29, 2003

The problem with these documents is that they are being provided by the U.S. military to a few reporters working for a very suspect newspaper, London’s Daily Telegraph (affectionately known as the Daily Torygraph” by those who understand the paper’s right-wing slant). The Telegraph’s April 27 Sunday edition reported that its correspondent in Baghdad, Inigo Gilmore, had been invited into the intelligence headquarters by U.S. troops and miraculously “found” amid the rubble a document indicating that Iraq invited Osama bin Laden to visit Iraq in March 1998.

Gilmore also reported that the CIA had been through the building several times before he found the document. Gilmore added that the CIA must have “missed” the document in their prior searches, an astounding claim since the CIA must have been intimately familiar with the building from their previous intelligence links with the Mukhabarat dating from the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Moreover, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, including Britain’s MI-6, have refuted claims of a link between bin Laden and Iraq.

Just saying …

.

When good guys go bad

When good guys go bad

by digby

If you are at all interested in seeing the rationale among liberal types for intervention in Syria, watch this segment of Up With Chris featuring Jamie Rubin:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

You see he gassed his own people with WMD and they might get into the hands of terrorists. We can’t let the smoking gun come in the form of a mushroom cloud. We must disarm the tyrant because if we don’t the terrorists will win. You know the drill. Very well. Too well.

But if you listen carefully, you’ll see the more prosaic “liberal” reason: it’s really fucked up in Syria and will be for a very long time so we should intervene because there’s a chance we might make it fucked up for a shorter time. Or not. I’m going to guess that was basically the same rationale that liberal hawk types told themselves in the dead of night before we went into Iraq too. We’re “good guys” just trying to help. But do we actually help? It’s a matter of opinion, and certainly not one shared unanimously by the people we purport to be helping. If you look at Iraq today, I’d say that it’s clear that if we sought to give the Iraqi people freedom we failed — unless you think that living in a war zone for over a decade is freedom. (I don’t think you can “give” people freedom, in any case…)

The world is an ugly place full of injustice. If it were up to me, and I could pick countries to liberate, I can think of a half dozen off the top of my head, starting with Burma. But sometime in the last half century I learned that war is very rarely a good way to “help” people and that the motivations for waging it are always far more complicated than that. Moreover, I just don’t think the US is a very good “humanitarian” empire. Even if you assume we have the best of intentions, the US just doesn’t have the right political structure to be a benevolent hegemon. I’m not sure any nation state does.

I don’t know what will happen with Syria. I’m suspicious, as always, whenever someone starts talking intervention, especially when they use excuses that have been proven specious in the very recent past. Yes, it’s always possible that they’re right this time. But it’s going to take more than just asserting that there’s a threat of terrorism or that the region will be destabilized to convince me that we will do more good than harm. It’s a horrible, bloody mess in Syria and it’s terrible to feel impotent in the face of horrible bloody messes. But considering the huge risk we take of making things even worse, there is no doubt that we must be extremely skeptical of calls for intervention. The US has a bad hubris habit and considering our hot war success rate of the past 50 years or so, we really should take a good look in the mirror before we act.

.

Australian Koch, by @DavidOAtkins

Australian Koch

by David Atkins

Crikey:

An Australian billionaire who is perhaps best known for his efforts to build a seaworthy replica of the Titanic says he will use his vast fortune to form a new political party to compete in federal elections scheduled for September.

Clive Palmer had been a major financial supporter of the conservative Liberal-National Party, from which he resigned last year amid quarrels surrounding his political aspirations. He says the newly minted United Australia Party, which he unveiled at a press conference on Friday, will be a serious challenger rather than a vanity project.

“I’m running to be the prime minister of Australia,” he told reporters. “I am standing because I think I can offer better service to the community than anyone else.”

Mr. Palmer is a major player in Australia’s resource-driven economy. He owns considerable mining and other natural resource assets, including a nickel refinery that he purchased from the mining giant BHP Billiton and large coal and iron ore deposits in the states of Queensland and Western Australia.

If there’s any class of individual more harmful to society than the fossil fuel multi-millionaire, I have yet to discover who it might be.

.