Damn-Ascus / Holy Syria (and Geek Wednesday)

Can't tell the players without a scorecard in this geopolitical ballpark of ours. A few weeks ago, Syria was evil—not quite in the big Axis, you know, but seriously, competitively evil. Our leaders—the guys who tell us why we fight—were telling us that Syria was SO evil we couldn't even talk to them about anything—not Iraq (because most of the bad guys in Iraq were coming from there); not Israel-Lebanon (because the Syrians were secretly supporting those gorillas from Hezbollah); nor about terrorism in general (because Syria is one of the champions of terror).

Now, they're the good guys. Go figure.

So why do "we" fight? My co-blogger, Terry McKenna, sent me this note on this question today:

The statement appeared again in the president’s September 11th speech to the nation: “I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress, and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.”

Again... why doesn’t somebody go on record to challenge this?

Before the war, Saddam was a caged and aging beast. He was hemmed in by our no fly zones and by international boycotts – and no, they were not that effective, but they still made it hard for Iraq to do much of anything except sell oil. Yes, at the time, it seemed that the stalemate would go on forever – but far better an unending stalemate than an unending war!

I would add that it is NOT "we" who fight—no person in the current administration; no son or daughter or husband or wife of anyone in the current administration—is fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else except at the buffet tables of Washington dinner parties. Whenever this President talks about the "we" who are fighting, he is always referring to other people or their family members. When Rupert Murdoch, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter talk about why "we" fight, they are speaking from the same frame of reference, in which "we" is always someone else—someone else's body being tossed into a malignant desert to wither or be turned into a smoking puddle of blood and goo; someone else becoming a widow, widower, or orphan; someone else's life being terminated or torn amid a living hell of suffering and lifelong disability.

So for this vapid, modern-day Nero to moan that his critics have chosen to ignore and forget the lesson of 9/11 is beneath contempt. But Mr. Keith Olbermann has already made this point more eloquently then I can—watch this video, all of it. The transcript is linked to from yesterday's post, at the top graphic.

_______________________________

Geek Wednesday

So, is Steve totally selling out—tightening his stranglehold on the music player market—or is he just expanding a product line that has already turned his competition to mush? Today, of course, we found out what happens when an iPod Nano and an iPod Mini have sex; we also learned that you can make a Shuffle about the size of a chiclet. We also heard about the movie-friendly video Pods, which sport up to 80GB of room for those who, like Chauncey Gardener, "like to watch."

We also heard about free album art for all your tunes in iTunes 7, movies at increased (640 X 480) resolution, and more. It was a fairly spectacular (and, for competitors like MS and its zune, intimidating) Display of Cool. And for those of us who happen to think that Apple still makes the finest computer hardware and the best commercial operating system on the planet, it was a reassuring sign that the company will remain strong and increasingly popular for years to come.

So why, then, would a guy like me be getting interested in Linux? Well, part of it has to do with my worries about Apple becoming a corporate megalith like MS: we have written here before about the forced labor issues, the alliance with a known labor tyrant (Nike), and the brutish attitude that has crept into Apple's business and international relations. We have also mentioned the appearance of security flaws in Mac OS X and the likelihood that they will increase with time and the rising popularity of the Intel-based machines that now comprise all of the Mac hardware line.

But this is also about joining what I have elsewhere called "The Open Source Society." I happen to think that experiments like the Firefox browser, the Wikipedia knowledge base, the Mambo content management system, the WordPress blogging software, and the Ubuntu Linux OS, represent a movement that more of us need to become a part of, in more involved and diverse ways. I think that the Open Source Society is democracy as nature designed it—a forum where anyone can contribute, and where everyone is equal. In short, Linux represents another step on the road toward freedom—freedom from corporate tyranny and toward the liberty of self-expression.

And did I mention that it's free, as in, no charge? And you know what else?—it works really well. With the Ubuntu Linux distribution, you get a fully functional OS with the GNOME/KDE desktop, a working office suite that can do most anything MS Office can, an elegant graphics and image editor, GIMP, which outshines by a long shot the proprietary editor you get with XP, and compares very favorably with Photoshop, even PS on the Mac.

Linux is also a doorway to true geekdom. If you can spend time with the GNOME desktop regularly, you will be led naturally and comfortably into the command line elegance of UNIX. That, my friends, opens a lot of doors—technically, intellectually, and professionally.

Finally, Linux is looking like the least expensive and safest form of computing for the coming decade. Windows will always be beleaguered with security flaws and all the problems that constant patching brings; and the Mac is now an Intel machine with an ATA serial HD and all the other familiar components known to computer users—and hackers—worldwide. But with Linux, you can buy a $300 Dell machine, format the hard drive to get rid of the world's worst (and most dangerous) OS, and then install your favorite flavor of the Happy Penguin Platform. In time you will adjust to the difficulties of running an alternative OS (open source geeks have come up with lots of workarounds and adaptations to deal with issues of compatibility and the anonymity that comes with being a truly grassroots platform). More important, you will find yourself becoming part of a community that is self-sustaining and mutually supportive. Yeah, kind of like the Mac used to be.

So I've started my exploration of Linux, and will have more about it in future GW posts. Meanwhile, let us contemplate the delights of the bouncing cow screensaver.

Benefit the Few, Harm the Many: The Bush Tax Policy

Before we turn the page on another 9/11 observance, go over to Norm Jenson's excellent blog and watch the tape of Stewart's painfully genuine monologue from his first show following the attacks. It is one of those rare moments of television that you will never forget. Then check out the transcript of yesterday's essay from Keith Obermann (click the graphic).

Now today we'll be hearing from my GOP partner, Mr. Terry McKenna, on the issue of the economic state of our middle class. It evokes a debate recently held between MSNBC's Eric Alterman and his various right-wing antagonists. First, a word about Dr. Alterman. It appears he's been booted from MSNBC.com—this is his last week there, and he will be moving his sterling weblog to the Media Matters site, whose feed we carry in our sidebar here.

Let me be very clear about where I stand on this issue: it makes me physically ill to think that such a lucid, intelligent, and deeply human voice within the mainstream media should be pushed aside. It makes no economic sense: the man's a best-selling author of five or six books; has appeared on TV and radio on shows as diverse as Larry King and Air America; and his blog justly receives massive traffic (I know this because DR has been a beneficiary of that traffic—we get 1,000 page views in a week whenever one of my missives from his mailbag gets published; and the one time he linked directly to DR from his main column, my server positively groaned from the effect). It makes no intellectual sense: this man has a well-earned academic pedigree (not a free pass through Yale), and he teaches at two or three major universities. Finally, it makes no political sense: Alterman is, to my mind, one of the two leading Democratic/liberal voices of the MSM (the other is Paul Krugman of the New York Times op-ed stable). In other words, he represents opinions that are supported by somewhere between 55 and 65 per cent of the American voting populace, depending on which poll you favor. He represents this demographic with fiendishly meticulous research, scientific rigor, and an often eloquent floridity. Want proof of that? Check out this piece he wrote for 9/11, which preceded the announcement of his sacking at MSNBC.

Now I do not favor boycotts and mass movement-style bans on media outlets; that is the stuff of the right wing religion and demagoguery crowd. I will only note my personal choice here: come Friday, I'm deleting my bookmarks to MSNBC.com, and I'll tell them about it, too (I haven't had cable TV for some 15 years, so that's not a problem). But again, whether you would choose to do that is another matter (hell, if I had cable, I'd have a hard time turning off Keith Olbermann, for one thing); but I would strongly recommend that you bookmark that Media Matters link above and visit Alterman regularly.

And now, Terry McKenna on the economy, tax policy, and the middle class:

Each week I start with a theme and hope that by the end, I’ve come up with something. This week, I’ve returned to the economy. And my question is, who are we running the economy for? In a democratic republic, the answer should be for everyone.

A recent bit of economic news suggests that the benefits of our “free” economy are not being distributed equally. For middle income folks, incomes are down – the figures are even worse for the poor. This promises to be a good issue for Democrats during the upcoming election season - if they can find the right way to sell it.

The data themselves are complicated and even progressives are not of one mind as to the meaning. Here are two articles that challenge us not to get too worked up over the issue of inequality, by Stephen Rose and Matthew Yglesias respectively. For a more typical progressive point of view, read Paul Krugman of the NY TIMES, here and here (you’ll need access to NY Times Select, either by paying for it or via trial subscription). His take away message is that the deepening inequality is troubling.

Mr. Krugman also suggests that conservatives are worried. Perhaps he’s right: his conservative colleague, David Brooks, has already written two pieces giving his take – the first championed our “meritocracy”; the second proposed new economic and social policies (including keeping the estate tax).

We should leave the quibbling to the experts. All the parties agree that inequality is a problem worth studying. Those on the left want to minimize inequality; those on the right want to be able to reassure us that despite the inequality, things are ok.

In any case, if we are running the economy for the benefit of everyone, then how do George Bush’s economic policies fit in?

Economic policies should do the following (at least):

1) allow for growth;
2) make the downturns more bearable;
3) make prosperity as widespread as possible; and
4) provide for just and fair tax policy.

Hmmm. A just and fair tax policy, what does that mean? Under George Bush, a just and fair tax policy means tax cuts – and these cuts supposedly drive economic growth.

Growth is important, but do lower taxes drive growth? I charted annual GDP growth over the past 50 years. The middle gray bar stands for “0” annual growth. The red splotches mark off notable recessions. Although simplistic, this tool shows that our GDP (and thus our economy) has grown and shrunk in a continuous set of business cycles. The only apparent change is a slight lessening of the ups and downs starting in the late 80’s (which may be due to the more aggressive monetary policy starting with Alan Greenspan). By the way, significant tax cuts occurred in the early ’60,s ‘80s and in the past few years – can’t tell, can ya!



So growth and recession flow from the business cycle – and not from tax policy.

Then what drives growth?

We suggest the following:

1) the diversity of the US economy
2) the free movement of capital
3) the lack of internal restrictions to forming new enterprises
4) the freedom of employers to hire and fire at will (Europe is an example of an economy where this is not true – and it’s their biggest problem)

OK, so Bush’s tax policy doesn’t do what it is supposed to. But, does it do any harm? The obvious answer is YES!. Tax cuts have fostered a growing deficit and a dangerous cycle of borrowing. Already, there is tremendous pressure to cut government programs, notably Medicaid. The pressure will only get worse in the next decade as Social Security payments increase. If Social Security benefits are cut – as seems likely now – the damage will be concentrated on those who can least afford it, the aged and the poor.

Thus the Bush economic policy (tax policy) is fraudulent and harmful!

Does anyone benefit? Yes, but a surprisingly small number. Let’s illustrate with Federal estate tax. Estate taxes have never touched more than a small number of all estates. Under the current provisions, only about 7,000 are obliged to file a tax return. And most of the estate tax revenue comes from an even smaller subset. Yet if the estate tax is completely abolished, the loss in revenue will be as much as $1 trillion over a decade – see the chart below.



The balance of the Bush tax cuts have been similarly skewed, so that most of the benefit goes to a small pool of wealthy taxpayers. So we have a policy that is completely unjustified in a democracy – harmful to many and benefiting few.

What would progressives propose instead? To begin with, we’d start with genuine tax reform. The tax system should be designed to generate sufficient revenue to operate. And the burden should be shared among all of those who can afford to pay taxes (what was once called a progressive tax system). Estates and large corporations must share the burden with the rest of us.

Then we’d work to repair the torn social safety net. Writers from Malcolm Gladwell to Paul Krugman have pointed out how the employer sponsored benefits system is faltering. From my position in the insurance industry (and as a manager within corporate America) my guess is that we are even closer to a collapse than we realize – it's just that the data have not caught up with reality.

The two biggest problems are with pensions and health insurance.

Health insurance:

Most people receive coverage through work. Benefits are NOT portable and are EXPENSIVE (family coverage costs approximately $9,000 per family). Laid off workers generally cannot afford to maintain coverage under COBRA, and this coverage is only temporary. Private health coverage is almost impossible to obtain and is even more expensive.

Pensions:

The old style defined benefit program is broken. For companies in decline, the system leads to bankruptcy (think of the airlines and the auto industry). 401k’s would be OK, but there are large numbers of workers who have neither (think of all the consultants, part time and temporary workers).

It’s time for progressives to address both. If progressives get together, surely we can come up with a better way.

And no, I’m not going to outline solutions – this time we need real fundable programs, not pipedreams designed by op-ed writers. And let’s get the professionals involved – the actuaries and finance guys – we should be able to come up with something that works and that is worthy of our democratic ideals.

—T. McKenna

Today is to reflect and remember; tomorrow is to respond. When you treasure the living, you honor the dead.

We'll be back tomorrow.

The Hallowed Pit and the Hollow Man

For those of you who aren't from around here, or who have only seen the place on TV or in photographs, let me tell you what I have seen here.

It's an enormous construction site now; some call it "The Pit." The work goes noisily on around a train station that exists at the bottom of The Pit. The PATH train that runs between New York and New Jersey stops here, just as it always did back when two gawkish, faux-glitz towers stood in this hole.

I pass through here, twice a day every weekday (and some weekends, too). I was in the midst of a divorce when it all happened, and my lawyer's office was near the corner of Vesey St. and Church, across the street from what is now The Pit. I can recall the day I went there, in late October or early November, after they'd allowed the residents of his building back in. He took me to his window and we looked down at the desolation below. It kind of took the usual bitter edge off discussions of child support, legal fees, and the rest of the negotiations that take place between adversaries who had once lain together in ecstasy.

It is a tourist destination now—maybe the busiest one in town, I don't know for sure. Digital cameras click and grind; people talk in subdued voices and point at things; and small, stray groups of activists, peace marchers, and conspiracy adherents sometimes appear and pass through. There are no memorials aside from the occasional bunch of flowers, left to wither on the concrete; often you see a squadron of dark blue or green soldiers with M-16 guns and flak jackets, smiling and chatting with the tourists. The famous and the powerful only come here once a year, along with their train of TV trucks and reporters. The families of those who were murdered here are also invited.

On Sunday, they'll be back, led by a man whose crimes of opportunistic deceit from what happened here are still being further exposed today. His fawning, saccharine-laced contempt will be spilled in a commercial rhetoric that we have become all too familiar with by now; he will speak floridly of the heroes—the police and firemen whose pockets he has brazenly picked, this labor-hating, union-busting President of ours. He will talk a lot about the defense of freedom and liberty, this man who has done more than any president before him to restrict freedom and liberty in his relentless pursuit of the police state. The assembled stooges of the mass media will doggedly, faithfully record every word, every staged moment of this solemn photo-op, and report to us of this President's grace, humility, and eloquence.

But those people, down in The Pit, will not be so easily sold or swayed. So if you would like to gain a little perspective or glean a glimpse of truth, I would suggest that you listen for their voices, which—as we have pointed out before in the wake of the Moussaoui verdict—far surpass any politician's for depth and wisdom. For to them, The Pit remains a living nightmare, a reality that cannot be twisted or spun into anything other than what it was and is for them. Those people will not likely take to being held up as the props for a failed and deranged foreign policy; for they have been taken to depths of experience and understanding that this President and his cronies will never, ever know.

Teatime for Tony (and Friday Reflection)

See ya Tony—don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya: Now if the Redcoats can do it, so can we. Our buddy over at Deficient Brain reminds us of exactly what Tony forgot to remember amid his sudden spasm of caring for the public consciousness. Come on, people, are we gonna let those people who eat their freedom fries off newspaper beat us out in getting rid of our respective warmongering liars? Let's see both sides of the pond cleaned up by this time next year—Impeach NOW.

But are the media here inspired by the British example of democracy in action? We're about to find out this weekend: ABC thinks that blaming it all on Bubba is the way to go. E&P has screened the show and found that it not only assaults Clinton for 9/11, it also fumbles facts that a teenaged fact-checker could have gotten straight. But few in the MSM have given a shit about something as boring as truth for at least six years now—why start worrying about the facts now? If you happen to disagree, then let them know about it.

The True Believer: The answer to our banner quote mystery is Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman/sociologist from the West Coast who, in 1951, quietly wrote one of the masterpieces of 20th century world literature. Buy it, read it, and on every other page you'll find yourself scribbling, "Bush" or "MSM" in the margins. Here's another example, from the same section (118) where we found our banner quote:

The interference of an active mass movement with the creative process is deep-reaching and manifold...it subordinates creative work to the advancement of the movement. Literature, art, and science must be propagandistic...Where a mass movement opens vast fields of action (war, colonization, industrialization), there is an additional drain of creative energy...The fanatic's disdain for the present blinds him to the complexity and uniqueness of life...The blindness of the fanatic is a source of strength (he sees no obstacles), but it is the cause of intellectual sterility and emotional monotony.

___________________

Friday Reflection: Treasure of the Body

I was looking at a woman's body on the subway platform one day. She stood in profile, in a light-colored dress against the background of the murky tunnel wall. I drew in my mind the shape of Infinity around her form, and it radiated—or perhaps received—light, from and through her. It was as if the symbol so perfectly matched the figure that they were a single, coalescent perfection.

Then the train squalled in and the charm was interrupted. But I asked myself then: do you still believe the lie they told you, that your body is a transient lump of ash, a Satanic temple of shame? What if it were eternal—beyond time, as that woman revealed to me—and transformational—beyond degradation? What if it were the living equal of god—dark matter dancing; a roving, playful, metamorphosing vessel of light revealed through the darkness of form?

What if physical death were just another beginning—"the next great adventure," as Professor Dumbledore would say? What if we knew that god walks within and beside us, as does the Earth which, turning, supports us; and which receives the gifts of our bodies, its nutrient cells and regenerative thoughts?

I think that god, and its teaching energy, are meant to be treated as an equal to ourselves, as a kind of life-partner or friend. When we slip into the belief that god is superior, powerful, omniscient, and all-seeing, it tends to strangle the soul, and locks it into a vise of negativity; even a sort of paranoia. That, of course, is when god retreats from our lives, and its teaching voice fades or becomes distorted.  This is how most, if not all, wars begin.