I just heard the news that a lumbering old Chinook helicopter was "downed" (likely shot down but not confirmed) in Eastern Afghanistan on the way to a "mission" with thirty or thirty-one US troops aboard, including Navy Seals (one report says they're Team 6, the ones that killed Osama Bin Laden) and seven Afghan troops.
There's no definitive explanation yet, and possibly never will be, at least not for the public. But the possibilities are:
1. The Taliban were tipped off by those in ISI (Pakistani intelligence) that have been tipping them off for years.
2. The Taliban were tipped off by someone inside the Afghan government.
3. The Taliban used weapons to do this (surface to air missile, rocket-grenade launcher, etc.) created and/or sold by US weapons corporations or international weapons corporations with US engineers/managers/workers/stockholders/all of the above...
4. The switch from Gates to Penetta as Secretary of Defense left a crossover period where a mistake could be made.
5. The copter was shot down by "friendly fire"—i.e. one of our own units, or an Afghan one (in which case it could have been intentional).
6. The copter malfunctioned and crashed from a maintenance or design problem originating in the US or a US base in Afghanistan and/or someone sabotaged it.
7. Troops involved, where the pilot or commander or etc. are so worn out and used up from the longest war in our history that someone just made a mistake.
8. Or the Taliban just got lucky and shot down a helicopter that turns out to be the worst instance of casualties for US troops in this war (a reminder of how light casualties are compared to our Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam) and happens to include Navy Seals making it a very lucky strike for them as it then can be trumpeted as revenge for the death of Bin Laden.
9. Something even more sinister and secret (there certainly are plenty of folks on every side of this war who could use an event like this to push their particular perspective and desired outcome).
Any of those reasons suck, and also serve as perfect reasons why war is almost always, with rare exceptions, pointless.
We didn't have to have all the death and destruction of our Civil War if the Southern states could have accepted the change in the times and the public sentiment and beliefs when it came to slavery, but they couldn't (and some on the right obviously still can't!).
We didn't need the death and destruction of almost every other war we've fought, with the exception of World War Two, and even that could have been a lot less destructive had we confronted the obvious evil of Nazism before it threatened the entire world.
This incident today, or last night I guess, in Eastern Afghanistan (or for all we know Western Pakistan) ends the triumphalism of the USA chants when Bin Laden was killed. Yes, we got rid of an evil actor on the world stage, but as the helicopter tragedy shows, it didn't end the killing.
It's like the old idea that an eye for an eye only leads to everyone becoming blind.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
TIME FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE
I watched the Tea Party supporter who made the film about Sarah Palin (that's flopped) on the Bill Maher show last night and it was as frustrating as the rightwing illogic and unreason I have to delete repetitively on this blog which is just parroting the rightwing media machine.
This guy last night would be confronted with logic and reason and facts by the other guests, one of them an astrophysicist the other a woman who I think they said runs Salon.com. Every time they refuted his incorrect assumptions based on rightwing talking points, he'd respond with the same talking point. (He would sometimes say something factual and of course in those cases there'd be no argument, but I've written about that tactic before, it's a well used and often successful one in propaganda).
One of those talking points was that what they were calling "Obama's stimulus" package "failed." Which is equal to the right saying that any economist, no matter how many Nobels they have among them, is wrong if they say anything that goes counter to the Koch brothers and their other rightwing billionaire masters' interests. Because if you take pretty much any indicator the right wants to use, the facts speak clearly that the only problem with "Obama's stimulus" program, was that it wasn't big enough, and that it ended.
The great drop in the stock market this week was partially caused, as the head of S&P (the ratings company that lowered the US rating from triple A to double A plus—but also gave triple A's before the Bush/Cheney Recession began to the very financial institutions that caused it!) said yesterday, by the intransigence of the Republicans to allow any kind of "revenue" increases (i.e. getting rid of loopholes and exemptions in the tax code that favor millionaires and corporations making historical profits, like oil companies, etc.) as well as the Dems not making bigger cuts to programs that help the poor and middle class.
But here are some obvious facts. Jobs have been added to the economy every month since "Obama's stimulus" plan kicked in but not enough to offset the enormous job losses under Bush/Cheney. The obvious conclusion there is a bigger stimulus would have saved more jobs (it's a no-brainer, since many of those jobs relied on either some government support or consumer spending, but if you cut government spending then jobs that depend on that support disappear and those out of work or forced to take low-paying service industry jobs don't have money to spend so consumer spending drops etc.).
It is clear also if you take the stock market for an indicator. It fell off a cliff under Bush/Cheney and when Obama took over was heading for another Great Depression style debacle when the "stimulus plan" kicked in and suddenly it started climbing back up and has been climbing ever since on average. But as soon as the Congress passed a bill with no stimulus but only spending cuts, it went off the cliff again. Pretty clear ain't it?
Not to rightwingers. Who overwhelmingly believe untruths (studies cited in earlier posts, or linked to, show that left-leaning pundits get their facts right a high majority of the time while rightwing pundits don't) dictated to them by their corporate and billionaire masters (though it's only fair to point out that they take their orders often unwittingly, just responding emotionally to people like Rush and those on Fox News etc. because they speak to their fears and what their followers think are their own interests, because they can't see through their fear and prejudices what is really going on—e.g. the rightwinger on my blog constantly thinking he's discrediting Paul Krugman by calling him names or claiming Krugman doesn't know what he's talking about when the facts show that Krugman has been correct about his analysis and even his predictions more often than almost any other economist and so way more than rightwing economists and pundits it's like comparing Michael Jordan in his prime to your eight-year-old daughter's attempts to play basketball).
There is no refuting the reality that rightwing Republicanism has turned what was once a great country, with problems but attempting to address them, into a failing behemoth—with an economic gap between the rich and the rest of us bigger than any other advanced country and many "developing" (or what they used to call 'third world") countries, a failing healthcare system (until "Obama's" healthcare plan began implementing some changes that have actually improved the system), decaying infrastructure (as some said on the Baill Maher show last night, when they go to other countries, some even in "the developing world" they are "embarrassed" for the US because these other countries are not only doing better with infrastructure but have up-to-date technology improving their infrastructure while the US lags behind or completely stops, etc.), the loss of jobs and revenue to outsourcing and offshore scams, et-endlessly-cetera.
When the rightwing terrorist did his destruction in Norway recently, one of the interesting things for me was hearing Norwegians in news reports referring to their country as "the greatest country in the world" or "the richest" etc. (which it is if you base comparisons on health, longevity, per capita income, many economic indicators, etc—and where another country beats them in one or another category, that other country also has universal health care and paid six week vacations and government subsidized programs that have eliminated poverty etc. etc. etc. in other words, is equally 'socialistic").
The right's economic policies and politics have proven over and over again that they don't work, and yet with the help of rightwing "think tanks" putting out talking points and position papers that misrepresent, misinform and lie about reality in order to serve the greed of their benefactors (ala the Koch brothers) and the rightwing media repeating those talking points and their rightwing followers parroting those points all over the Internet and through talking heads on news programs frightened by their own corporate masters into presenting a false equality between "all points of view" as if facts don't matter etc. the right continues to hold a disproportionate influence over the public discourse and political policy (ala the horrible "deal" struck by Obama and the Dems over the "debt ceiling" and deficit just to avoid an even worse outcome, which default would have caused).
It's like the Dems and most reasonable people are now living and working under the restraint of not "first, do no harm" but "first, limit the harm done by the right as much as possible lest they destroy the country completely"—which they are obviously on the way to doing, if people give up and let them.
This guy last night would be confronted with logic and reason and facts by the other guests, one of them an astrophysicist the other a woman who I think they said runs Salon.com. Every time they refuted his incorrect assumptions based on rightwing talking points, he'd respond with the same talking point. (He would sometimes say something factual and of course in those cases there'd be no argument, but I've written about that tactic before, it's a well used and often successful one in propaganda).
One of those talking points was that what they were calling "Obama's stimulus" package "failed." Which is equal to the right saying that any economist, no matter how many Nobels they have among them, is wrong if they say anything that goes counter to the Koch brothers and their other rightwing billionaire masters' interests. Because if you take pretty much any indicator the right wants to use, the facts speak clearly that the only problem with "Obama's stimulus" program, was that it wasn't big enough, and that it ended.
The great drop in the stock market this week was partially caused, as the head of S&P (the ratings company that lowered the US rating from triple A to double A plus—but also gave triple A's before the Bush/Cheney Recession began to the very financial institutions that caused it!) said yesterday, by the intransigence of the Republicans to allow any kind of "revenue" increases (i.e. getting rid of loopholes and exemptions in the tax code that favor millionaires and corporations making historical profits, like oil companies, etc.) as well as the Dems not making bigger cuts to programs that help the poor and middle class.
But here are some obvious facts. Jobs have been added to the economy every month since "Obama's stimulus" plan kicked in but not enough to offset the enormous job losses under Bush/Cheney. The obvious conclusion there is a bigger stimulus would have saved more jobs (it's a no-brainer, since many of those jobs relied on either some government support or consumer spending, but if you cut government spending then jobs that depend on that support disappear and those out of work or forced to take low-paying service industry jobs don't have money to spend so consumer spending drops etc.).
It is clear also if you take the stock market for an indicator. It fell off a cliff under Bush/Cheney and when Obama took over was heading for another Great Depression style debacle when the "stimulus plan" kicked in and suddenly it started climbing back up and has been climbing ever since on average. But as soon as the Congress passed a bill with no stimulus but only spending cuts, it went off the cliff again. Pretty clear ain't it?
Not to rightwingers. Who overwhelmingly believe untruths (studies cited in earlier posts, or linked to, show that left-leaning pundits get their facts right a high majority of the time while rightwing pundits don't) dictated to them by their corporate and billionaire masters (though it's only fair to point out that they take their orders often unwittingly, just responding emotionally to people like Rush and those on Fox News etc. because they speak to their fears and what their followers think are their own interests, because they can't see through their fear and prejudices what is really going on—e.g. the rightwinger on my blog constantly thinking he's discrediting Paul Krugman by calling him names or claiming Krugman doesn't know what he's talking about when the facts show that Krugman has been correct about his analysis and even his predictions more often than almost any other economist and so way more than rightwing economists and pundits it's like comparing Michael Jordan in his prime to your eight-year-old daughter's attempts to play basketball).
There is no refuting the reality that rightwing Republicanism has turned what was once a great country, with problems but attempting to address them, into a failing behemoth—with an economic gap between the rich and the rest of us bigger than any other advanced country and many "developing" (or what they used to call 'third world") countries, a failing healthcare system (until "Obama's" healthcare plan began implementing some changes that have actually improved the system), decaying infrastructure (as some said on the Baill Maher show last night, when they go to other countries, some even in "the developing world" they are "embarrassed" for the US because these other countries are not only doing better with infrastructure but have up-to-date technology improving their infrastructure while the US lags behind or completely stops, etc.), the loss of jobs and revenue to outsourcing and offshore scams, et-endlessly-cetera.
When the rightwing terrorist did his destruction in Norway recently, one of the interesting things for me was hearing Norwegians in news reports referring to their country as "the greatest country in the world" or "the richest" etc. (which it is if you base comparisons on health, longevity, per capita income, many economic indicators, etc—and where another country beats them in one or another category, that other country also has universal health care and paid six week vacations and government subsidized programs that have eliminated poverty etc. etc. etc. in other words, is equally 'socialistic").
The right's economic policies and politics have proven over and over again that they don't work, and yet with the help of rightwing "think tanks" putting out talking points and position papers that misrepresent, misinform and lie about reality in order to serve the greed of their benefactors (ala the Koch brothers) and the rightwing media repeating those talking points and their rightwing followers parroting those points all over the Internet and through talking heads on news programs frightened by their own corporate masters into presenting a false equality between "all points of view" as if facts don't matter etc. the right continues to hold a disproportionate influence over the public discourse and political policy (ala the horrible "deal" struck by Obama and the Dems over the "debt ceiling" and deficit just to avoid an even worse outcome, which default would have caused).
It's like the Dems and most reasonable people are now living and working under the restraint of not "first, do no harm" but "first, limit the harm done by the right as much as possible lest they destroy the country completely"—which they are obviously on the way to doing, if people give up and let them.
Friday, August 5, 2011
A LITTLE RELIEF LIST
As longtime readers of this blog know, I had brain surgery in November of 2009 and one of the results was that a lifetime listmaking compulsion disappeared.
Ever since my earliest memories I've compulsively made lists, in my poetry and prose, in conversations, in my mind when it wasn't otherwise occupied (and even sometimes when it was), including when I was falling asleep at night or trying to (which was when I made my most focused lists to help me tire my mind out, like listing only two word titles of favorite movies for every letter in the alphabet etc.).
Before the operation the largest number of posts for any label was "lists"—but afterward that changed. Not only did the compulsion disappear, even the inclination, but also any capacity to make a list. I'd think of a broad category, like favorite movies or songs etc. and come up with one or two names and then entirely lose interest!
But last night, I actually thought of a list and ended up coming up with many names, so I thought I'd post it for whatever comparative interest it might have for anyone reading this. What came to mind was the idea of movie actors whose work I dig so much I can watch anything, even movies I don't like, if these actors are in them (excluding actors I know personally from work or life, there's too many and I'm afraid my post-op brain would leave some out unintentionally):
Buster Keaton
Jimmy Cagney
Jean Harlow
Humphrey Bogart
Myrna Loy
Spencer Tracy
Gary Cooper
Ingrid Bergman
Cary Grant
Katherine Hepburn
Jimmy Stewart
Carole Lombard
Fred Astaire
Greer Garson
Jane Greer
Robert Mitchum
Theresa Wright
Veronica Lake
Martha Vickers
Ida Lupino
Marlon Brando
Marilyn Monroe
Dorothy Dandrige
Audrey Hepburn
Paul Newman
Grace Kelly
Frank Sinatra
Lee Remick
Sidney Poitier
Kim Novack
Vanessa Redgrave
Gerard Depardieu
Hugh Grant
Denzel Washington
Daniel Day-Lewis
Andie MacDowell
Don Cheadle
George Clooney
Scarlett Johansson
Matt Damon
Keri Russell
Marion Cotillard
Jennifer Connelly
and many more I'm sure
[PS: like Gene Tierney, Robin Wright, Catherine Deneuve, Rachel McAdams, Jean Seberg, Ann Sheridan, Barbara Stanwyck, Irene Dunne, Evan Rachel Wood, Isabelle Adjani, Julie Delpy, Minnie Driver, Kate Winslet...]
Ever since my earliest memories I've compulsively made lists, in my poetry and prose, in conversations, in my mind when it wasn't otherwise occupied (and even sometimes when it was), including when I was falling asleep at night or trying to (which was when I made my most focused lists to help me tire my mind out, like listing only two word titles of favorite movies for every letter in the alphabet etc.).
Before the operation the largest number of posts for any label was "lists"—but afterward that changed. Not only did the compulsion disappear, even the inclination, but also any capacity to make a list. I'd think of a broad category, like favorite movies or songs etc. and come up with one or two names and then entirely lose interest!
But last night, I actually thought of a list and ended up coming up with many names, so I thought I'd post it for whatever comparative interest it might have for anyone reading this. What came to mind was the idea of movie actors whose work I dig so much I can watch anything, even movies I don't like, if these actors are in them (excluding actors I know personally from work or life, there's too many and I'm afraid my post-op brain would leave some out unintentionally):
Buster Keaton
Jimmy Cagney
Jean Harlow
Humphrey Bogart
Myrna Loy
Spencer Tracy
Gary Cooper
Ingrid Bergman
Cary Grant
Katherine Hepburn
Jimmy Stewart
Carole Lombard
Fred Astaire
Greer Garson
Jane Greer
Robert Mitchum
Theresa Wright
Veronica Lake
Martha Vickers
Ida Lupino
Marlon Brando
Marilyn Monroe
Dorothy Dandrige
Audrey Hepburn
Paul Newman
Grace Kelly
Frank Sinatra
Lee Remick
Sidney Poitier
Kim Novack
Vanessa Redgrave
Gerard Depardieu
Hugh Grant
Denzel Washington
Daniel Day-Lewis
Andie MacDowell
Don Cheadle
George Clooney
Scarlett Johansson
Matt Damon
Keri Russell
Marion Cotillard
Jennifer Connelly
and many more I'm sure
[PS: like Gene Tierney, Robin Wright, Catherine Deneuve, Rachel McAdams, Jean Seberg, Ann Sheridan, Barbara Stanwyck, Irene Dunne, Evan Rachel Wood, Isabelle Adjani, Julie Delpy, Minnie Driver, Kate Winslet...]
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
JON STEWART NAILS IT ONCE AGAIN
And a few days before this, so did Alec Baldwin here (thanks to "Alameda Tom" and his "Birth of the Cool" blog for recommending AC's post, though he had the date wrong—it's from 7/29/11).
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
QUOTE FOR OUR TIMES
"The problem is, one party has no brains and the other has no balls." —Bill Maher
BEATS, RHYMES & LIFE: THE TRAVELS OF A TRIBE CALLED QUEST [A MUCH NEEDED DIVERSION]
Took my thirteen-year-old son and my days away from being thirteen-year-old grandson and their friend to see the documentary BEATS, RHYMES & LIFE: THE TRAVELS OF A TRIBE CALLED QUEST, a much needed diversion from the current babble about the disappointing "debt ceiling" and "deficit reduction" so-called "deal."
I always dug QUEST from the first time I heard the side and then saw the video for "I Lost My Wallet in El Segundo" (or whatever the exact title was). But hearing Q-tip explain the origins of that number in this compelling (at least to me and the three teenage boys I saw it with) film made me appreciate the accomplishment of it even more.
It's a testimony to the creativity of the original four members, as well as a fascinating articulation of a record-making perspective that according to some pretty reliable sources in the film made this team of rappers one of hip hop's seminal and genre changing innovative forces.
But mostly it was just fun to see where they came from and ended up, so far. A story well told (shot and edited) by the actor Michael Rappaport, who actually I usually find abrasive and normally wouldn't find his hand at the helm a recommendation. But my thirteen-year-old digs him and I respect his taste as much as anyone I love and admire, and he was right. Rappaport did a pretty sweet job pulling a story together and making it work.
And what a relief to be in an air conditioned theater away from the news and the net and the rapidly becoming boring repetitive spins on our political mess. If it's playing anywhere near you, it's worth the price of admission for my taste.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
