Category Archives: Current Events

Matt Taibbi on what passes for "the left" in today's political climate. I'm not sure a lot of folks who hurl the word "Liberal" as a curse would know a real Liberal if he, she or it came up and taxed the rich right in front of them.

A number of folks have sent me links to articles that purport to prove that Climate Change is a myth, right up there with the Loch Ness Monster, The Easter Bunny and the "fair and balanced" policies of Fox News. I've kind of given up reading these because, first of all, they never seem to "prove" anything other than that someone who argues for the existence of Global Warming is fudging the truth about something. There is, let's remember, such a thing as a faulty argument in service of a valid premise. Also, and more important: It really doesn't matter much if I get convinced that Global Warming is bogus. I'm more interested in seeing if any of the contra-arguments convince the scientific community. And so far, I don't see that happening. (Note: A couple of Republicans with chemistry sets do not equal the scientific community.)

One other thing I should have mentioned in what I wrote here the other day. A lot of the plans being recommended to combat Global Warming strike me as good things to do even if Global Warming turns out to not be the threat some say it is. Renewable energy? Less gas consumption? A cleaner atmosphere? Are those bad ideas?

Now, I feel like I'm forgetting something. Oh, right. This is Recommended Reading, so I'm recommending the reading of this column by Paul Krugman. He's optimistic about the Copenhagen conference, though not that Obama's foes will ever possibly see that.

Peter Beinart offers up an interesting explanation of Obama's Afghanistan intentions. By "interesting," I don't mean it's exactly right. But if you're trying to grasp what the goal and objective is, it might be a good place to start. I still don't understand exactly what the mission of in Iraq ever was except to do some things that would enable us to convincingly say, "We won!"

Dick Cavett remembers Walter Winchell, a man I always found fascinating. He was a newspaper columnist and radio newsguy who wielded unprecedented power…and often did so recklessly. We always seem to have at least one of these guys around. Lately, it's more than one. But all of them put together don't add up to one Winchell.

People keep e-mailing me links to articles that declare the "hoax" of Global Warming is over; that the e-mails that some are calling "Climategate" prove that beyond a shadow of a scintilla of a hint of a doubt. I might start to believe this if I saw these new disclosures convincing even one person who already didn't think Global Warming was a fraud. From what I see, these leaked e-mails prove nothing of the sort.

I have an odd viewpoint about Climate Change. I want to believe it's a myth. I think the best thing that could happen on this front would be for us to see some decisive proof that we have nothing to worry about. Don't you think that? I just see the case for environmental disaster as, at present, a lot stronger than the case against. It's like 80% in favor of the kind of stuff Al Gore and others are discussing, and 20% against…and the probable disasters if the 80% side is right are so cataclysmic that we can't just sit and hope they're wrong. Supposing there was an 80% chance a bomb was about to go off on your block and a 20% chance it wasn't. Would you just sit there and wait to see how things turn out? I wouldn't, even if it was only a 5% chance.

Of course, everyone can argue the percentages. I say 80/20. You might think 70/30 or 50/50 or 20/80. I think it's about 80/20. The new "Climategate" revelations don't budge the ratio for me…but even if they did, I'd still be at like 79/21. I also think — and I'll bet you agree with me on this — that there are a lot of looneys on both sides, offering up bogus "evidence" that their view is inarguable. When Mankind looks back on this controversy — assuming, of course, that there is a Mankind to look back on it — they're going to note that even a lot of people who were on the "right" side of the question were full of crap.

Harry Shearer sets Tiger Woods straight on something.

More from Fred Kaplan on what Obama plans to do with Afghanistan. I wish I felt more confident about all this than I do. It's beginning to feel like one of those "we're screwed no matter what we try" situations.

One of the tactics Republicans are using to try and stop the Democrats' Health Care Reform plan is to try and scare older folks with the following worry: The plan calls for much money to be taken out of Medicare…and that, they say, will cause massive cutbacks in services to the point where many seniors will die.

Many things are wrong with that argument. One is that people are dying because they don't have health insurance, and the G.O.P. is trying to stop them from getting it. Another is that the Republican Party has never exactly been a protector of Medicare and would probably prefer its elimination. But the big fib in there is that the whole claim doesn't seem to be true. Says who? Well, the A.A.R.P. is saying the Repubs are wrong on this…and they kinda have the best interests of older Americans at heart.

Congress is thinking of doing away with the Estate Tax. This would enable very, very, very, very, very, very, very rich people to become very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rich people. It would cost this country an awful lot of money. It would not prevent you from inheriting (without any tax at all) your Aunt Hilda's wealth.

I think cutting taxes is a great idea, especially if we cut spending at the same time. But we oughta be cutting them for the middle class, not just for folks related to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett…neither of whom, I believe, are in favor of this move. This article will tell you more.

Bryan Appleyard (great name) used to believe that all this talk of Global Warming was just Hot Air that wasn't really getting any hotter. Then he did something kinda radical. He did research.

I have no idea what to think of Barack Obama's Afghanistan plans. Part of me suspects he sat down one morning and asked his advisors, "Look, no matter what I do about anything, the Republicans are going to say it's a disastrous mistake. Let's come up with some plan to lose the Democrats and Independents, as well." And then another part of me decides, "Well, he's a smart guy and I guess he knows what I'm doing." But that second part of me is only about half-convinced.

I guess what scares me is that even Fred Kaplan, who knows more about this stuff than I ever will, isn't much more convinced. Click that link and read what he had to say about tonight's speech.

I always thought the whole Willie Horton ad campaign that got our first bad president named Bush elected was a smarmy affair in which a lie was effectively sold. Actually, during that election, I thought Bush and Michael Dukakis were more or less evenly matched in terms of qualification and up until the last week or so of the campaign, my vote could have come down to a coin flip.

Ultimately, I went for Dukakis largely because a couple of late Bush statements about the Horton ads — simultaneously defending them and claiming he had nothing to do with them — were maybe the most disingenuous, weasely things I ever heard uttered by a serious candidate for public office. I was less disappointed that he won than I was that that advertising campaign did. I suppose it was because in response, Dukakis looked rather clueless and unpresidential. In any case, I thought its whole premise — holding Dukakis responsible for the actions of that furloughed prisoner and making him seem more involved than he was — was, like I said, a good example of selling a lie.

The newly-surfaced report of Mike Huckabee pardoning a guy who went out and shot four cops struck me initially as…well, I'm not sure anyone is lying about the whole matter at the moment. Huckabee isn't really a candidate right now so there's no reason for anyone to gin up a story about him…yet. But it sounded to me like someone was just applying the same (dubious) principle that a governor following procedure is responsible for what a released prisoner does. This article by Joe Conason, who's been on top of this story for some time, suggests that it's not the same thing. And to Conason's credit, he doesn't even mention Willlie Horton.

I was telling someone today that I have no idea if our getting deeper into Afghanistan is a good idea or not. And now I find that Fred Kaplan isn't sure, either. This worries me.

David Sirota on one of my pet political beefs. It's this mindset that government spending is immoral and destructive and we must do everything we can to slash it to the bone…except for the wasteful, bloated part of it that can be labelled "Defense." In that area, we need to spend every cent possible even if the Pentagon can't account for billions or spends it on weapons systems that don't work.

About (I'm guessing) 85% of my Liberal friends would love for Sarah Palin to be the next Republican presidential nominee…or to at least be prominent enough in the G.O.P. primary to provoke a good old healthy Civil War within that party. I frankly don't think she'll get that far. If she runs for President (big "if"), I think she'll be running the way Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader have always run — for personal promotion, not with any delusion of victory.

But ~15% of my Liberal friends are afraid that the other Republican contenders are so weak, and her base is so fanatical, that she just might have a shot at the White House. I've never worried about that but if I did, this excerpt from her recent interview with Greta Van Susteren would put my mind at ease. Palin was asked how she might go about winning over those who don't see the world her way. Her reply?

…the book is a good tool to get — hey, read the book, and if you still don't like the positions that I take or if you don't like who I am after reading the book, unfiltered through the media, then so be it. You know, I'm never going to win you over. But at least give me a shot there in trying to figure out who I am, what my record is, what my accomplishments are and what I represent.

And then, Greta, if I can't please them, I can't please them. I'm not going to try. I'm not going to change who I am or compromise my positions, my values, in order to placate or to try to get some demographic or some group of people on board with me if they just don't get it.

Her first instinct was to push buying her book. That's what she's out doing now…promoting her product, rather than her ideology. And the rest of that answer is what you'd say if you weren't even going to win over the G.O.P. moderates, let alone the Independents and whatever Democrats might be gettable. There are plenty of things you could say without compromising your positions that would keep the door open to support from those groups. You could talk about finding common ground; of how if they hear more of your message, they'll understand that they share certain mutual pragmatic values, etc.

The problem Ms. Palin has with standing for national office is that without her hardcore supporters, she has nothing. But if she starts to moderate and reach out to those who think she's too right-wing and simplistic, she'll lose those hardcore supporters. What they like about her is that she doesn't do that. It's that "I'm never wrong" attitude that (cough, ahem) worked so well for George W. Bush. Yeah, Bush got elected with it but he knew enough to at least pretend he cared about the majority of the electorate.