Onward, Caffeine Soldiers!

The Greek Referendum - Good or Bad?

2011-11-02T11:09:00.012+01:00

I'm not a fan of the referendum, but that's mainly because Europe can't really afford now to let two months pass before the rescue plan (including the haircut) gets an up or down vote by the people. Two months of uncertainty creates too much damage to the economy in Greece and the EU. The stock markets, the investors and the financial sector need a clear roadmap now, January is very far away.

However, Papandreou has a very good case regarding governance, national responsibility and democracy. No real democrat can steadfastly oppose a vote by the people on a matter of national importance! Democracy is about political participation of the people, after all, it's about decisions on the future of the nation. It's NOT about the power of the parties in the first place, that's just a means to reach that goal. So, when the opposition sees a referendum as a "democratic deviation" and an "ideological terrorization", they have to explain this very questionable view of the nature of democracy!

This vote by the people can create more clarity in the minds, too. After all that time of widespread criticism, culminating in violent unrest, it's high time that every citizen makes up his/her mind about the issues. You can't responsibly say "Oxi!" (Greek for "no") to every reform plan and criticize all changes, but refuse to present any alternatives, that's hypocritical. Since people don't trust the politicians to make the right decisions (as is obvious from all the polls), they have to take the responsibility into their own hands! To shout "blackmail" now is simply ridiculous. THIS is the time for every good citizen to show responsibility and participate in making a very important decision for the nation! Only demagogues who have their own selfish interests in mind will oppose this based on alleged concerns about democracy.

So, if your primary concern is to advance democracy, you have to support this move. After all the polarization, it will finally result in the people being alerted that they have not only rights, but patriotic duties, too, most importantly responsibility for the future of Greece. Hopefully, this will result in more support for the painful but necessary reforms. As the Greek senior citizen Dionysia Aggelopolou stated towards reporters of news agency Reuters: ”Let us decide whether it is good or bad. I’ve been through worse, tough times, war. Do we really want to go back to those days?”

Update: According to recent news reports, the referendum will probably be held on December 4th. That's only a month away, so I think that's reasonable. Imho the EU/IMF should respect this and support the Greek government with one billion euros from the rescue tranche in order to prevent the nation from defaulting before the vote. As I see it, that would also be a positive signal to the Greek people, showing them that the Troika is standing by the rescue deal if the referendum supports that.

(This posting is based on a comment posted at AthensNews.gr)

Tweeting Me Softly

2011-03-30T11:01:00.002+02:00

Just stumbled upon this, a song lyric I rewrote as a surprise for a tweep I had a crush on. Maybe good that we broke up, since I am a lousy singer and there's already enough disharmonic noise in the world! :D Well, dear reader, if you're a better singer than I am, feel free to use these words:

Soothing my pain with your fingers
healing my wounds with your words
teasing me softly with your tweets
teasing me softly with your tweets
telling my whole life
with your words
teasing me softly
with your tweets

I saw you wrote some good tweets
I saw you had a style
and so I came to follow
and watch for a while

and there you were that cute cat
a stranger to my eyes
Soothing my pain with your fingers
healing my wounds with your words
teasing me softly with your tweets
teasing me softly with your tweets
telling my whole life
with your words
teasing me softly
with your tweets

I felt all flushed with fever
embarassed by the crowd
I felt you found my replies
and read each one out loud
I feared that you would finish
but you just kept right on

Soothing my pain with your fingers
healing my wounds with your words
teasing me softly with your tweets
teasing me softly with your tweets
telling my whole life
with your words
teasing me softly
with your tweets

you wrote as if you knew me
In all my darkness fair
and then you looked right through me
as if i wasn't there
and you just kept on writing
writing clear and strong

Soothing my pain with your fingers
healing my wounds with your words
teasing me softly with your tweets
teasing me softly with your tweets
telling my whole life
with your words
teasing me softly
with your tweets

Soothing my pain with your fingers
yes you were healing my wounds with your words
teasing me softly
with your tweets
petting me softly
with your tweets
telling my whole life
with your words
treating me softly
with your love

My Shorty Awards Interview

2011-02-12T11:08:00.002+01:00

No, I don't run in any category in the Shorty Awards! There's already an abundance of folks who are much more worthy of these honors. But I had fun answering the questions of the interview, so I put it up here (the effing blog desperately needs a new entry anyway). Maybe someone among my few, but inspiring followers is interested in my view of the Twitterverse. Ok, here are the 34 questions and answers:

What's your best tweet?
Always the next one.
What are six things you could never do without?
oxygen, water, proteins, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins.
How do you use Twitter in your professional life?
I don't. It would ruin all the fun.
What's your favorite Twitter app?
Everything's better than the Twitter webinterface.
Twitter or Facebook?
Facewhat?
What was the funniest trend you've seen?
Laughed so hard that I forgot it.
What feature should Twitter add?
PERFORMANCE!
Who do you wish had a Twitter feed but doesn't?
Hmm, Martin Sheen?
What are some words or phrases you refuse to shorten for brevity?
STFU
Is there someone you want to follow you who doesn't already? If so, who?
Yes. But I won't be begging.
Have you ever unfollowed someone? Who and why?
Don't be so effing curious, or else I'll unfollow u!
Why should we vote for you?
You shouldn't. If elected I won't serve!
Terms you wish would start trending on Twitter right now?
Primary Obama
What's the most interesting connection you've made through Twitter?
2 my inner Tweep.
Hashtag you created that you wish everyone used?
#primaryObama
How do you make your tweets unique?
By adding typos.
What inspires you to tweet?
Boredom.
Ever get called out for tweeting too much?
And you?
140 characters of advice for a new user?
B bold. B original. B funny. And do everything possible 2 keep it short! Because otherwise the damn 140 char limit will cut u off in mid-sen
How long can you go without a tweet?
At least for 13 days, prolly more.
What question are we not asking here that we should?
U're already asking too many questions! 'nuff now.
How do you imagine Twitter changing?
Prolly will get worse. Twitter staff is incompetent.
Who do you admire most for his or her use of Twitter?
@MrCraigBierko
Who is the funniest person on Twitter that you follow?
@MrCraigBierko
What is one of the biggest misconceptions of Twitter?
That someone is actually reading this stuff.
Why should people follow you?
Indeed. Why should they?
Can you name some one-of-a-kind Twitter accounts that you follow?
Yes.
How do you decide what to tweet?
I'm not a decider! I simply put my hands on the keyboard. And then my subconsciousness takes over.
Why'd you start tweeting?
Why not?
Has Twitter changed your life? If yes, how?
One more excuse to avoid doing serious stuff.
What do you wish people would do more of on Twitter?
Fall in love.
How will the world change in the next year?
4 worse.
What are some big Twitter faux pas?
Faux news.
What will the world be like 10 years from now?
Different.

A VAT for the US? A very bad idea!

2010-11-18T13:00:00.012+01:00

Somewhat surprisingly, Paul Krugman has been stomping for the "value added tax" (VAT) recently, as an allegedly better way of reducing the deficit. But among left leaning economists, there shouldn't be any argument about the negative impact of this national sales tax on the low and middle income households. The only VAT liberals should like is Vat69, really! And the history of the VAT in Europe, where it became the main source of income for many governments, and resulted in rising inequality and lower domestic demand, isn't especially inspiring. So, WHY, for heaven's sake, does a good guy like Krugman support THAT?

The Prof now, finally, came up with explanations for his stance:

There’s a lot of backlash against the new Rivlin-Domenici proposal for suggesting a significant VAT — and people are right, sales taxes are regressive taxes. But while I haven’t had time to evaluate the whole thing, the sales tax itself isn’t a killing point in my view.
Why? Because we know that countries with strong social safety nets generally rely a lot on consumption taxes:
...
More generally, it does seem that countries with strong welfare states have less progressive tax systems than those with weak safety nets; see this, from the Luxembourg Income Study (pdf).
...
All of which says that if I can trade a somewhat regressive VAT for guarantees of decent retirement and universal health care, I’ll take it.

Well, color me unconvinced. I've never been a fan of the "millions of flies can't be wrong" kind of argument, imho the discussion should always center on the pros and cons, and that a certain misguided policy is widely used still doesn't make it more reasonable. In the case of the VAT, imho the negative side vastly outweighs the positive one, and Krugman fails to weigh this honestly.

Firstly, he totally underestimates the danger. Once you open the box of Pandorra, it's impossible to get the beast back into it. Not a single European government, no matter how far left, managed to do it. And the beast will only become bigger and bigger over time, as experience shows. With serious consequences on domestic demand, which Krugman doesn't mention at all.

Secondly, imho the REAL reason why the VAT is used by so many nations all around the world is that it's so CONVENIENT for politicians! The small percentages (at first) added to sales don't look like a big deal to the voters, but they flush VAST amounts of money into the coffins of the treasury. And it's even easier to raise the percentage by one point, instead of trying other, more difficult and controversial, measures to get a deficit under control. Consequentially, the VAT only goes up and up and up.

And lastly, as even Krugman points out, the VAT only is tolerable for the low and middle class incomes if it's counterbalanced by a strong social net. But how likely is it that a VAT for the US will be coupled with such measures to reduce the impact on the poorer half of the population? Imho that's just wishful thinking! And that's why I think Krugman is irresponsible with his lightheaded, not really thought through (he admits that) stomping for the VAT. This will most probably result in the US combining policies that are the worst of both worlds, more taxes for the lower 90% of incomes without any compensation for the hardship! That's madness, and Krugman should be ashamed of advocating such a dangerous "solution" to the US deficit problems in such a frivolous manner.

Even more so since his own prefered paper, the NYT, recently showed that it's possible to put the US finances on a solid footing again by simply going back to the Clinton era taxes and cutting some other budget points, without hurting the vast majority of US households. Everybody who recently played with the interactive "fix the budget" feature should have noticed that actually it's very easy to close the gap until 2015, and get the 2030 outlook into reasonable (=controllable) regions. Without any VAT involved! So, really, why should anyone, especially a good guy like Krugman, advocate yet another new tax that will hurt the lower and middle class incomes now? I don't get it.

(Based on comments at Brad DeLong's blog)

Three sentences that are worth remembering

2010-09-26T15:46:00.003+02:00

As voiced in a posting at the A-Blog recently. Ladies and Gentlemen, here's John Aravosis:

The President is supposed to help further your ideals, not take the place of them. So it's not disloyal to try to hold the President accountable to his promises. In fact, I'd argue that you're being disloyal to yourself, to your own principles, and to the entire reason you got into politics in the first place, when you don't.

These are important sentences, a necessary reminder to distinguish between the means and the goals! People should print these and put them into a frame on their wall. Kudos to John!

"We are just not getting applicants." Boohoohoo!

2010-09-17T00:10:00.005+02:00

I'm so sick and tired of that lame ole apology that we see making the press every other day, here in Germany, too. It's blame the victim all over again. Really, how come there can be a lack of applicants at a time of high unemployment? Obviously, it has to be a logistical problem, the people are there, but they don't have what the industry wants. And that is the "right" qualification and up-to-date experience! But that's NOT the people's fault.

Qualification is expensive, and at a time when folks barely manage to make ends meet, it's VERY difficult to "invest in yourself". The costs of training are prohibitive, especially in the technological sector. And some courses aren't even open to private customers. That didn't use to be a problem in better times, when the companies themselves invested in their people. But that has changed, the horrible focus on quarterly profits has ruined any long term planning, and it's obvious that qualifiying your own staff is an investment that will reduce your immediate profits and only bear fruit in the future! That's not helping the managers to get their big bonusses now, so, generally, it isn't done anymore.

Instead, the industry BURNS their human resources! Employees have become throwaway items. Industry wants them young and with the most recent qualification. They exploit them for some years, at an unsustainable pace that leads to burn outs, health problems, failed relationships, marriages and families, and that doesn't leave time to renew qualifications (which the companies don't want to pay for anyway). And once the efficiency of that worker is shrinking, he/she will be fired, and the company will look for the next fresh face instead. The fired folks, with their obsolete qualification, don't have much chances on the job market, it's all downhill for them. And once their job experience is older than one year, it becomes almost impossible to find a position in their old field. They will end up in McJobs instead.

Of course, people aren't totally dumb, and they react on all the stories they hear about these practices. Less and less are willing to go into a profession where they would be only cannon fodder for the industry. And that's when the companies start screaming "there aren't any applicants!". Well, they're lying, of course, there are applicants, but they are older and need a refreshing of their knowledge. The companies don't want that, too costly, so they prefer to wait for the young fool fresh from university to become their next victim.

It's high time this hypocrisy and stinginess becomes exposed! And the media shouldn't fall for the umpteenth show of crocodile tears about "missing applicants" anymore. There should be hard hitting journalism that questions the statements and demands to see the applications. And that doesn't let the companies get away with excuses like "that guy is too old" or "this engineer lacks the qualification in XYZ". Really, what does age have to do with it (that's pure discrimination, btw), and if the manager has time to wait for MONTHS for the "right" applicant to show up, what's the effing problem in hiring the next best guy and sending them to training for some weeks?

Really, why doesn't the media finally pick up this topic, and exposes the sham? This would be a sure nomination for the next Pulitzer for every good journalist!

(based on a comment to a story at OpenLeft)

Cuba, Reforms, and Communism in General

2010-09-10T12:33:00.005+02:00

A Rawstory report about recent critical statements about communism by none other than Fidel Castro himself inevitably led to many comments about the practical value of communism in the modern world. One commenter, LeftyDude, voiced an opinion that is common among many left wingers:
"There is no good reason communism can't thrive, in principle."

Well, as Radio Yerevan would say: "In principle, yes. However, some small problems have turned up in adjusting the human nature to the demands of the theory. But these will certainly be corrected by the next five year plan!" So, sure, in theory, there is also no good reason people can't be totally unselfish and willing to subordinate their own wishes to the larger interests of society. In practice, those people don't exist (or, at least, they are seldom exceptions of the rule). And that's why communism is a nice theory, but not a system that works in the real world. As countless examples have proven, each and every time communism failed because the power ambitions and the greed of people tore the thin fabric of solidarity apart, resulting in a state where some were more equal than others and where the unfulfilled wishes of the majority constantly provided a centrifugal force that had to be held in reign with overbearing "security" forces. In short, with real life people, communism simply isn't a stable base for a nation!

But still, among all those unsatisfying and often horrible precedents, Cuba probably is the most positive one. And the achievements of the revolution, measurable in countless statistics that show the Cubans in several important areas ahead of their more capitalist neighbors, should not be belittled. Under the constraints of their system, it's impressive what those people on their small island without any natural resources of high value have achieved! Especially when you consider how difficult it must have been to be the target of an unfair blockade by the US for decades. Here's hoping that the Cubans will manage to carefully reform their nation into a socialist democracy that allows more enterprise and entrepreneurship without giving away the levers of power to big money. It will be a balancing act, for sure, and the Chinese example shows that "reforms" can easily result in combining only the worst aspects of communism and capitalism. But if anyone can manage to successfully accomplish this difficult synthesis, it's certainly the people on that small island in the Caribbean. !Viva Cuba Libre!

(based on a comment at Rawstory)

Bob Creamer ain't wrong, but he ain't right, either.

2010-09-09T11:26:00.008+02:00

A blog post by Mike Lux at OpenLeft mentioned this story by Bob Creamer at the HuffPo, where that "political consultant" tries to make a happy face about the Dem chances in the upcoming election. As I see it, it's simply whistling in a storm in a very dark and dangerous forest. It's not that Creamer doesn't produce some nice tunes, it's simply that it's not good enough in the deafening cacophony of alarms sounding at every corner!

Like that effing ole fool Deeds, Creamer essentially argues that the rethugs are even worse. But we already know this campaign strategy doesn't work! If nothing changes, and soon, the election will be decided by right wing nutcases running to the polls and Dems and left leaning independents staying at home. And nothing that Creamer writes gives any hope that this won't happen.

Just look at his lame points: 1) and 2) suffer from still making sense if you exchange "Republican" for "Democrat" in them. Both parties are guilty, and neither one can score in this regard! The problem with 3) is that the Dem party simply doesn't stand for "progressive-Democratic values" nowadays. So, by their own fault, this won't help conservative and centrist Dems in any way, and polls show they are most vulnerable.

The issue with 4) is that voters don't see that much difference between GOP and Dem candidates in many races. The new ombudsman of the NYT, who voted for both Obama and Scott Brown, is a good example of this confused mindset. Also, there is a strong anti-incumbent mood right now, and since the Dems have more incumbents, that works against them.

We can totally forget about 5), there are no facts supporting this prophecy. This simply is wishful thinking. And the same goes for 6), there's no evidence that "Democratic Campaigns will be better organized and in many cases have more resources". No, Dem campaigns suffer from a serious depression among the activists who do most of the laborious footwork, while on the right side, the supporters are on fire because they feel the trend is working for them. Just remember the huge participation, and the impressive show of organisation, at the Beck rally! And don't forget that the rules of the game have changed, the Supremes allowed big money to weigh in on the elections now, and the fat cats will exploit that opportunity big time! This will make it hard for Dems to compete financially.

So, sry, but imho Bob Creamer is delusional. This kind of stomping for the party by downplaying clear and present dangers won't work. Actually, it only makes matters worse when Dem Congressmen are led to believe they can still get away from destruction without decisive actions of their own! But the reality is, without a determined effort at passing hugely popular programs now, at the very last minute, many Dems will be toast in November. And deservedly so.

Bad policies -> enthusiasm gap -> low turnout. Not only political consultants, but everybody should be able to see that this is a recipe for disaster! And if the Dems have nothing better to offer, they will end up with that rotten egg on their faces.

(based on a comment at OpenLeft)

Is America like Glenn Beck?

2010-08-28T11:14:00.014+02:00

That's the question Bob Herbert raised today in a New York Times column. He wrote about the recent shenanigans of demagogue Glenn Beck and right wing demaguery in general, under the impression of Beck's recent distortions of MLK and the civil rights issue. Herbert is optimistic the reasonable majority will prevail, but is it really true that "America Is Better Than This"?
On the one hand, yes. On the other, no, it isn't. As I see it, from outside of the US, there's a discrepancy between the ideals of the declaration of independence and the constitution, and the daily reality in the 21st century. And, of course, real life has the upper hand.

Imho the reason behind the horrible image America (or more exactly, the USA) is presenting today is, sorry to say that, the US interpretation of freedom of speech. It simply goes too far, has degenerated into pure fundamentalism. Everything is allowed in the public discourse nowadays, no lie is too outrageous, no insult too hurtful. The idea that the freedom of one citizen ends where the rights of another person begins has been totally forgotten. And one of those rights is the dignity of a human being. Who can honestly say this dignity isn't violated, even denied, if everyody is allowed to smear another citizen in the most vile terms, even with made up accusations, without any obligation to stay with the facts at all?

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, the most prominent of the smear merchants, simply exploit this extreme interpretation of the freedom of speech to their advantage. And while they represent the most despicable variant of mud slingers, those who do it for the money, they aren't responsible for this sad development. It's been talk radio, and to a lesser degree FCC regulated TV, that pushed the limit of socially "acceptable" speech to the limits. And nowadays the internet speeds up the horrible erosion of standards of decency. But that's not an inevitable side effect of modern technology, as the different situation in other countries shows! In most of the rest of the world, libel and slander laws still are enforced, and offenders face much harsher consequences. With positive consequences for the public discouse, which is much more civil than the verbal extremism of the US!

And such personal responsiblity for statements a citizen makes in public should actually be something that reasonable people see as only natural, and not something negative. If you make outrageous remarks about another person, harming their image and creating emotional pain, of course you should face consequences if you can't support these with at least some evidence! But instead, right wing hypocrites like Dr. Laura don't see any obligation to be bound by the truth, while at the same time they complain about the thousands of other citizen, excersizing their freedom of speech in a much more respectable manner, when send notes of protest to the advertisers. It's really a crazy show of egomanical extremes to see no limits to the own speech, while dismissing the right of much more reasonable others to make their voices heard at the same time! Only in the US, as a far as I can see. In most other countries, Beck, Limbaugh and their ilk would already be bankrupt, and the companies allowing them to spread their insults, prejudices and outright lies, too.

So, sorry Mr. Herbert, but imho your column falls short in identifying the reason behind the extremism of Beck & Co. It's the freedom of speech fundamentalism that knows no bounds and has no compassion for the victims at all, that is eroding all standards of decency and creating the base for the hate mongerers! And once again the USA are No. 1, at least in this regard, because too many reasonable people there support the right of Beck and other demagogues to smear, insult, and distort the truth. Nobody cares about the collateral damage in form of those who fall victim to this right wing smear machine, often good citizen who become target of a hate campaign simply because they supported important issues like the health care reform. Their pain seems to be much less important than the demagogues' unlimited rright of freedom of speech. America should be better than this, but, no, it isn't!

(based on a comment to Bob Herbert's NYT column)

Krugman hit by boomerang

2010-08-25T11:45:00.007+02:00

In a blog post today, Krugman tries to refute commenters who pointed to Germany's positive economical performance as alleged evidence for the advantages of reducing the deficit. Sadly, the good Prof seeked refuge to onesidedly using a GDP growth chart as a way to fight back, deliberately omitting the unemployment numbers which show a totally different picture. Just more of his usual badmouthing of Germany. He should have pointed to all the differences between Germany and the US instead, and argued that America can't simply copy single policies, but would have to copy the whole system to get into the same situation. That would have been more fair towards us, and the better argument, too. However, I already wrote about this, and I want to focus on another point now.

And that is that it actually was Krugman who played a most prominent role in providing this ammunition for the austerity advocates! Since the start of the year, he has been picking on Germany, complaining about us not doing enough for stimulus, and painting a picture of doom and gloom about the consequences of our (mostly cosmetic) austerity measures. During all those months, his readers waited for the bad news from Germany to show up in the headlines. But all they found were reports about a positive development month after month after month. Can he honestly blame them now for believing that apparently the rebound can be accomplished without much stimulus, and despite austerity policies? He distorted the situation in Germany for months, and now this turned out to be a boomerang that came back to hit him. Serves him well!

Really, with a lot of respect (and I'm still a fan), but Krugman's picking on Germany was unfair, misguided and strategically wrong. During the time he wasted trying to talk our folks into more of a stimulus, when the development showed them this wasn't necessary, the situation in the US deteriorated. I know, hindsight is 20/20, but didn't he ever have second thoughts that he may be flogging the wrong a**, uh, donkey? D'oh.

(based on a comment at Krugman's blog)

Hack turns voting machine into PacMan Arcade

2010-08-22T12:12:00.017+02:00

Voting machine critics are still coming up with new ideas about how to inform the public about the very real dangers with this technology. And while the media has shamefully neglected the hot topic so far, I hope this stunt will finally make the headlines:

This is your Sequoia touch-screen voting machine....

This is your Sequoia touch-screen voting machine with Pac-Man hacked onto it without disturbing any of the "tamper-evident" seals supposedly meant to protect it from hackers...

Any questions?...

This should reach the broad public, making everybody aware that touch screen voting can't be trusted! However, for leaving a stronger impression, another video would be great, using humor for a more widespread "viral" distribution. How about this possible script:

Typical polling station scenery. Background music - the Boss, "Born in the USA". Title says "This could happen at YOUR polling station!". A very American looking guy with a US flag on his T-shirt, named Avery Joe Sixpack, announces he wants to vote. When he moves towards the booth, he suddenly freezes and shouts: "What the BEEP"! Camera moves and shows PacMan running on the voting machine. Music blending into PacMan sounds.

Fading into a picture with the voting machine showing the usual voting screen. Big title: "Earlier this morning". Music from "Pink Panther". Conspicious looking guy, obviously disguised with big sunglasses, a weird wig and a ridiculous false moustache sneaks into the booth and closes the curtain. Muffled swearing "damn" when a compact flash card and a screwdriver fall to the ground. A hand picks the items up. New big title says: "REAL hack of a REAL voting machine happening now!" Stop clock shows up, counting seconds, movie goes into fast forward. Camera shows his feet moving, indicating he's doing something mysterious with the machine. X minutes and y seconds later on the clock, the man leaves the booth, with PacMan running on the screen in the background.

While showing a close up of PacMan running on demo mode, big title: "What if that guy had been up to no good?". Fading back into the first scene, showing Avery Joe entering the booth with the usual voting screen on the machine. Camera close up, showing Joe is trying to vote for the next president, selections are Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, and Adolf Stalin. Music "Hail to the Chief".Joe taps on, say, Reagan, but for a splitsecond, the machine highlights the Adolf Stalin selection, showing then the message "Vote recorded". Big title: "REAL hack of a REAL voting machine tampering the vote!".

Fading into a picture of a newspapers stand. The melody turns into a dark mood, with marching steps as the bass line. Papers show variations of the headline "Adolf Stalin elected!" Big title: "Don't let it come to this! Don't vote on touch screen machines. Call your representative and demand secure voting!" Fading into a close up of a paper ballot, Avery Joe's hand is shown making a big cross at "secure voting, paper ballots".

End.

(based on a comment at the BradBlog)

Should the US follow the German "austerity" course?

2010-08-20T08:50:00.007+02:00

That question came up in a comment to another Krugman column ridiculing the allegedly "invisible bond vigilantes" (which weren't so invisible here in Europe at all). Brian Bolton from Boston was a bit confused about why austerity would be damaging for the US when others seem to get along with it so great: "I am with you on this but can you explain Germany? They're leading the austerity charge but are experiencing really strong economic growth."

Well, maybe I can put some perspective into this. See, the German calls for austerity in the EU (not for the US!) are based on purely political considerations. The major one is that almost nobody here really likes to use German taxeuros to bail out the PIGS (sry for that discriminating acronym, only using it because it's convenient). Those nations have to go through austerity, nobody wants to subsidize their wasteful spending, and the not-so-invisible "bond vigilantes" have already driven their bond rates up. But since it's not politically practicable to call for the austerity of others while at the same time living the high life on credit card, it was unavoidable that Germany had to lead by good example and implement cost cutting measures of its own, even though it could have afforded and used more stimulus to further reduce unemployment.

And actually, there's even an obligation for members of the Eurozone to keep the deficit under 3% of the GDP, a rule that was established because of German pressure to keep the Eurozone fiscally responsible! So, Germany had to live up both to this major principal and to the consequences of demanding others to spend less. And Merkel reacted on this by coming up with some cost cutting measures, most of which are only cosmetical, and which are dragged out over ten years to make the total amount look bigger. I guess this was seen as the best compromise that would show that we lead by example, without seriously hurting the rebound of our economy. I don't think the pundits and the political leaders can be fooled by that, but as a PR measure it seems to work. But behind the scenes, our social net is still working, stabilizing domestic demand (actually, an ongoing Keynesian stimulus), tax incentives boost investments in important sectors, and the weaker Euro fueled the comeback of our Export industries. Thus, the "economic miracle" here in Germany. Read the excellent roundup in Der Spiegel about this "Keynesian Success Story" for details.

However, the conditions in the US are different. You don't have a similarly strong social net (quite to the contrary, your jobless are threatened to be left pennyless by the Senate every few months), your industries aren't as export oriented (many managers don't care enough about that complicated foreign business) and that the dollar became stronger in relation to the Euro didn't help, too. So, obviously, you can't simply copy German policies, the situation in the States is too different. What is right for some European nations isn't right for you. The US need more stimulus to cope with the unsustainable high unemployment, or else you soon will have riots like in Greece. And as a rich country, with lots of resources guaranteeing credits, too big to fall victim to the bond raiders, you can afford another job program. Hopefully one which will really focus on improving infrastructure and create more employment this time!

(Based on a comment to that Krugman column)

"Anti-Krugmanism" in Germany?

2010-08-17T13:48:00.007+02:00

"Anti-Krugmanism is working right now in Germany."
That's what commenter "Samuel" from Orlando wrote at Krugman's blog today, and it's utter nonsense. Yes, we Germans disagree with Mr. Krugman about the need for more stimulus for our economy right now. And we have good reason for this, since everybody can see that our industries are already working near full capacity, and our domestic demand has increased recently, too. The influential German weekly Der Spiegel even speaks of a "Keynesian Success Story"! So, as we see it, Krugman simply didn't pay enough attention to the different conditions here, where our still strong social net automagically stabilizes demand, and dampens recessions. Also, while our government had to come up with some austerity plans, to reduce our budget deficit to the EU standard of below 3%, and because of foreign relation reasons, too (we can't lecture the Greek when we ourselves live beyond our means), in reality the effect of these measures is miniscule. It's more PR than a serious reduction of governmental services.

So, no Anti-Krugmanism here, but actually policies in place that are much more in line with Keynes, and Krugman's advices, than everything in the US! That the good Prof himself somehow still tried to talk us into even more stimulus, despite the data showing this is unnecessary, and despite the political problems attached to this, is only evidence of a temporary disagreement, not of a general rift.

The situation in the US, on the other hand, is totally different. You don't have the same kind of social net working as a safeguard against economic downturn. So, America does need an additional stimulus to boost domestic demand. The horrible employment numbers show the necessity. And to say that the US should act like Germany, even though the conditions are totally different, is really a fundamental misunderstanding. If the US would firstly copy the German social net, then this would be debatable. But I guess if the WH would really try to implement our kind of social market economy in the states, "Samuel" would be among the first to cry "COMMUNISM"!

(Based on a comment at Krugman's blog)

Some points about the US trade imbalance

2010-08-17T09:50:00.009+02:00

Paul Krugman today agreed with yesterday's NYT editorial which blamed China and Germany for the trade imbalance of the US. He correctly points out that lecturing the Chinese isn't likely to bring any positive results. Actually, I'm sure this can only backfire, since the Asians have been subject to such selfish interference by the West, including military intervention, for too long of their modern history, and with their newfound power and self-assurance won't react positively on more of the same old. You have to take their national pride and sore points of the past into account when dealing with them. So, I totally agree with Krugman on this.

However, I also think that this important issue merits a deeper look into the issues, especially when a world renowned expert on the field of international trade weighs in. Firstly, I would really like Krugman, of all people, to stop talking about the trade balance, and instead use the current account numbers. He should really know better than to use numbers that provide only part of the picture, excluding import and export of services and other income payments! OK, I have to admit, I have good reason for emphasizing this, since Germany had a negative current account during all of the 90s, which should be mentioned when talking about the positive numbers of the last years. But, regardless, the current account is really more important than the trade balance, that's economics 101!

Then, what about the fact that the US had a positive current account (and trade balance) from 1946 to 1976? That's 30 years where the US made huge profits by trading with the rest of the world. That was a period of national wealth. Isn't it a bit hypocritical for Americans now to blame China, a developing country, for having the same era of success? Where there concerns in the US during that time about the imbalance? Did the WH react positively when trade partners where disturbed about the outflow of money from their countries? Can the US reasonably expect China to be more sensitive than this precedent?

Also, as some other commenters to Krugman's posting have pointed out, shouldn't we also look at the other side of the imbalance? The US not only import too much, they also don't export enough. The export numbers of the current account have been stagnating for many years, for instance 2002 was almost the same as 1999, and 2009 was shockingly worse than 2008. So, shouldn't there also be stronger incentives for producing goods that are competive on the global market, and for encouraging exports? A good friend of mine worked for a US corporation for decades, and told me about a disturbing disregard for exports in the management. Almost all of the attention went into the domestic market, where the most profits came from, and nobody invested much work into exporting goods. The managers obviously thought the more complicated foreign business wasn't that rewarding. That mindset has to change for the US to get back to more balanced numbers again!

All in all, imho the problems has more facets that the shallow reporting in the media doesn't mention at all. I hope that at least Krugman will soon find the time to provide a more wholesome analysis here. This is a delicate issue, and false decisions can lead to a trade war and increased tensions, so much more care should be taken to discuss all aspects of the problem. Simply pointing at this year's trade balance is misleading and hypocritical!

(Blog post based on a comment to Krugman's story at his blog)

Close, but no cigar, Ms. Dowd!

2010-08-15T10:43:00.004+02:00

In one of her better columns (which are seldom exceptions among her usual college girl style brouhaha), Maureen Dowd examines the ridge between the Obama/Dino/Big money wing of the Dems, and the progressives. While making some good points, her conclusion "He [Obama] needs to communicate more clearly" falls short, imho.

No, his communication is good enough, when he stoops to communicate at all, which he doesn't do often enough. Since he ran on a promise of more transparency, among many others, most of them unkept, he should do much ore in this regard. But he should stop to paint overly optimistic pictures, as he did during the campaign, when he is unwilling to really make a stand on those issues. Too much of his speeches seem to be based on what his writers think is popular, but not on Obama's actual convictions. With less grandstanding, and more honesty, his communication should be ok.

Unlike during the Bush reign, the the rhetorical abilities of the president aren't a problem this time. The problem is the huge discrepancy between the revolutionary call for change, the pledge to break up Washington's shady and undemocratic power structure, most importantly the role of the lobbys, and the total failure to deliver anything in this regard. There have not even been attempts to get the power back to the people! Instead, even in cases where polls showed a strong public support for liberal ideas like the public option, the administration caved in to the interests of big business, without even trying to fight that influence. Rahm Emanuel's shamelessly selling out of the healthcare reform to the insurers, in exchange for the corporations' conceding not to fight the reform with advertising and PR, is simply undefensible. No amount and quality of communication could put lipstick on that pig. The evidence that this "pragmatic" White House never intended to change the power structures, and instead prefers to simply play along the same old same old lines is much too strong.

So, the huge dissatisfaction of the left wingers with this administration was unavoidable. Team Obama went much too far with their campaign promises, which now turned out to be hollow words. And it's not that the progressives didn't do enough to support change, the attacks on center/right lawmakers who stood in the way of real reform show otherwise. But the left wingers made a futile stand, because "their" president not only didn't support them, but actually supported the reactionaries fighting for the status quo.

Still, Obama could have improved his standing with the "democratic wing of the Democratic party" if he pragmatically admitted that he at least had to deliver their pound of flesh to them for their support during his campaign. Even without going into the swamp of Congress, he could have given the progressives something to feel good about, by making executive decisions in their favor. Appointing liberals to administrative jobs, overhauling regulation agencies, prosecution of torturers, getting rid of "don't ask don't tell" by prohibiting the Pentagon to investigate such cases, there's so much he could have done. Alas, what he did instead was needlessly surrendering to right wing pressure on nominations (most shockingly in the Van Jones and Sherrod cases), dawdling in the reform of the agencies, covering up the Bush crimes, and dragging out the repeal of DADT. Even Bush knew he had to deliver something to the extremists of the GOP, but there's no sympathy for the left wing of his own party from this Dem president!

And that will inevitably backfire for Obama. After all, the progressives muster the highest share of activists. Without them, the going will become very hard in the November elections, and even more so in 2012. The outright antipathy of guys like Emanuel and Gibbs, and probably Obama himself, to large parts of their own party is not pragmatic, but delusional. The Dems need every vote, and the 2000 Nader debacle shows they actually can't take progressives for granted. There will be hell to pay if they ignore that lesson!

(Blog post based on a comment to Dowd's Column at the NYT)

About the attempts by the IDF to frame the issue

2010-06-01T12:55:00.004+02:00

As had to be expected, and as was actually demanded by columnists in the Israeli media, apologists for the IDF tried to "contain the damage" from the deadly act of piracy. They try to twist the facts in their favor, by omitting important details, and by misrepresenting others. One of their most important points was a video where we see passengers hitting at IDF commandos who try to board the ship. But this edited view of the events doesn't tell the whole story, we learn in a report at Rawstory:

"However, in raw video captured by an Al Jazeera producer and published to YouTube late Monday, two journalists provide a play-by-play of the harrowing event as pops and cracks echo in the background. Even before the Israeli forces were aboard, one says, they were pelting the boat with tear gas and stun grenades, injuring numerous people." Well, that's the important point, the order of events! After the commandos had injured defenseless passengers from safety of the helicopters, it should come as no surprise that they were attacked as soon as they came down the rope. This debunks the "self defense" argument of the IDF, too, because the attacker can't claim to be in defense.

And if you look deeper into the narrative that the Israelis spread as a measure to contain the PR damage, you find that the phony story they tell is full of inconsitencies and distortions. For instance, what about the weapons allegedly found at the passengers? Well, it turns out that some brave guys have disarmed some troopers! Those where IDF guns, not the property of the passengers. The other "weapons" shown in a video are slingshots. Slingshots against assault rifles and machine guns! One look at the professionally equipped troopers with their bulletproof vests, helmets and guards shows that this wasn't really a danger for them. It's a David vs. Goliath story, with the IDF being unable to see the irony!

Then, the sticks shown in some video. Obviously makeshift devices, for instance one of them is the pillar of a sunshade! And those are the devastating "weapons" that those elite soldiers had to defend against with their automatic guns. It's beyond ridiculous. Also, I've read at several sites that the IDF claims the passengers threw stun grenades! In reality, those were thrown by the commandos, not surprisingly, since this is basic tactics in a SWAT mission. The question that should be asked is why the Israelis believed this to be necessary when they had to deal only with humanitarian activists, many reporters among them? Aparently, the smoke screen put up by distorting the facts shall prevent the people from asking these important questions.

So, really, the dishonesty of the IDF's official response is breathtaking. But, of course, you need a lot of smoke to distract the public from some simple facts: For instance, that the IDF successfully prevented such flottilas from reaching Gaza several times before. They never used such assault tactics, as if coping with terrorists, to achieve that. And also, that the attack took place 40 miles off the coast, a long distance away from the official 20 mile blockade zone around Gaza. Some apologists tell at a lot of brouhaha about the allegedly legal bockade, and cite a lot of legalese, without ever mentioning this!

However, imho they won't succeed in obscuring the simple truth. That is, that the cynical Israelin government deliberately escalated the response to the Gaza flotilla in order to show strength and to discourage the pro-palestinain activists. And in doing this, the right wing hardliners didn't care much, if at all, about the possible blood toll of that policy. This was their decision, and they will be held responsible for this. Let's hope the payback isn't only limited to a useless condemnation (Israelis don't care about UN resolutions, they never did) but leads to a lifting of the Gaza-bockade. And even trade sanction would be in order, imho. Actions speak louder than words, and are the only way to make an impact on Netanyahu and his gang!

(Blog post based on a comment at the A-Blog )

IDF attack on Gaza flotilla, with updates

2010-05-31T11:25:00.044+02:00

World in shock at deadly Gaza ship raid
ANKARA — Shock and outrage swept the globe Monday after Israeli commandos stormed a flotilla of aid ships bound for Gaza, as the Jewish state's foes and allies closed ranks in condemning the deadly raid.
Police struggled to hold back an angry crowd of hundreds outside the Israeli consulate in Turkey's biggest city Istanbul, while furious protesters shouted "Damn Israel" outside the residence of the Israeli ambassador in Ankara.
Israel's army said more than 10 people died when its forces stormed the flotilla of aid-carrying ships, while a Turkish charity involved with the fleet put the death toll at at least 15 dead, many of them Turks.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLbLilqcZlIOwbCk3hQFR6qZcFGw

The nationality of some of the ships that have been attacked is still unclear, btw. There are two boats running the US flag in that flotilla, but it is yet unknown if they have been illegally boarded in those international waters. Remember the USS Liberty!

Update: Swedish officials report that ALL ships in the flotilla have been boarded, including Swedish ship "Sofia". They ask for clarifications about what happened:
http://www.thelocal.se/26940/20100531/

Update2: A source of questionable credibility reports that the Turkish government is planning to escort a new flottila with warships and fighter jets:
http://www.debka.com/article/8823/
I doubt that the Turks will let this escalate that far. But the point that this will create pressure on Egypt to stop the Gaza blockade is reasonable. And this would be a consequence that the Israelis don't like at all. Tough luck.

Update3: BBC reports "state of alert across Israel":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10...

Update4: Ynet reports 2 IDF soldiers, 4 foreign civilians taken to hospitals:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-38966...
This seems to cnfirm that there has been violent resistance against the boarding of the ship. However, no misunderstanding, pls, under international law, the boarding is piracy, and the resistance is legal.

Update5: A Turkish official states the attack took place in international waters, 70 miles from the coast:
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id...

Update6: In Istanbul, 10000 Turks protest against Israeli actions:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hO7EAbyLw0OHUk-z6tWu04f7GRKg
This will support the Turkish government in taking a determined stance against the Israelis. Further deterioration of the already strained diplomatic relationship is unavoidable.

Update7: IDF jammed (and still jams) communications with the ships. Media agencies call for lifting of that blockage, and for informations about the fate of their staffers:
http://www.imemc.org/article/58817
Obviously, a large number of news reporters were aboard the ships. This will further complicate the PR situation for the Israelis. Even more evidence that the violent approach of the Israelis when dealing with the humanitarian aid flottilla was a horrible mistake, and the resulting PR desaster will have strategical consequences. Whoever is responsible for this blunder (Ehud Barak?) should resign asap!

Update 8: CBC news says Israeli TV reports 19 deaths now:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/31/israel-gaza-aid-death.html
For heaven's sake, 19 people killed in a Wild West action by the IDF? The problem could have been resolved totally peacefully if sanity would have prevailed! Where shall this end? How many people will still have to die before the rest of the world says "enough already!"?

Update 10: Greece cancels joint excercise with IDF:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/greece-suspends-air-force-exercise-with-israel-after-gaza-ship-raid-95247579.html
It's the least they can do. Nobody in the rest of the world wants to be connected to the IDF now.

Update 11: BBC reports: Famous author Mankell aboard flotilla ship, first ship docked in Ashdod, Israel, Free Gaza organizer says Israelis were "shooting immediately", etc etc:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10196585.stm
Good coverage by the BBC. Reliable as always. Accurate informations are the best way to prevent the spreading of dangerous rumours.

Update 12: Isreali Minister of Defense Ehud Barak blames flotilla organizers for deadly clash:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/barak-organizers-of-gaza-aid-flotilla-to-blame-for-deadly-clashes-1.293187
This is really the height of cynism, hypocrisy, and inhumane ethics! If the Israeli Labor party base still has any spine left, and a shadow of a conscience, they should force Barak to resign, and then abandon the coalition! This is in violation of everything that Labor once stood for. Period.

Update 13: 3 German politicians on board of the flotilla:
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20100531-27543.html
This will increase the difficulty for the German government to react diplomatically on the tragedy. Because of the historically sensible relationship to Israel, the Germans have to show restraint in their reaction, but the horrible death toll of the commando action and the presence of Germans among the passengers will necessite a determined statement. A delicate balancing act for Merkel and Westerwelle.

Update 14: Reuters reports: "The German government is shocked by events in the international waters by Gaza," five Germans on board of the ships, two members of German parliament among them:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAT005511.htm
This is a rather strong statement from the German government. Since most over nations will find even stronger words, this is evidence that this is indeed a global PR desaster of the highest degree for Israel. And I still can't even remotely understand why Netanyahu and his gang deliberately let this happen. What did they expect, that the world would only wag a finger? Up until now, I thought there is at least some intelligence left in Bibi and Lieberman. But now they show they are simply dangerous, uncontrollable murderers. Prosecute them!

Update 15: Israeli columnist calls Gaza siege "Israel's Vietnam":
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/a-special-place-in-hell-the-second-gaza-war-israel-lost-at-sea-1.293246
Burston has been one of the very few public voices of reason and humanity in Israel for some years now. And he has to go from hell from his right wing countrymen for this. Impressive, how he still speaks truth to power, and doesn't hesitate to call his nation's desastrous policies a "lemming-like march of folly". A must read!

Update 16: RIDICULOUS! Israel tries to "contain the damage":
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176995
"Contain, the damage", my ass! What do they want to do, revive the dead? Anything short of this won't do. People have died, and all this criminal government cares about is it's effing image! Murderers who don't want to be held responsible for their klillings. They are crazy. Period.

Update 17: Roundup of foreign government reactions, "unacceptable", "shocked", "crime", "irreparable consequences", call for investigation:
http://www.news24.com/World/News/Allies-turn-on-Israel-20100531
Good roundup at Haaretz, too:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/white-house-deeply-regrets-loss-of-life-on-gaza-flotilla-1.293299
Only the first round, I'm sure. There will be even more devastating judgments of Israel's action once more details are known and the public opinion weighs in. This will result in a change of policies towards Israel, no doubt about it. Here's hoping for the EU to suspend Israel's trade privileges.

Update 18: Turkish customs official: "Allegations that there were weapons aboard the Turkish ship are baseless":
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/weapons+stormed+Turkish+ship+Report/3092005/story.html
No surprise, really. The point of the activists was to bring Israel to allow supplies into Gaza, not to start a shoot out they knew they wouldn't win. In this context, it is necessary to point out that this wasn't the first flotilla heading to Gaza, and that all prior attempts have been stopped by the IDF without any bloodshed. It's totally irrational that the IDF this time engaged in a violent action to capture the boats. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? Were they thinking at all? Are they crazy?

Update 19: AFP reports, "Israeli soldiers continued shooting even though a white flag of surrender had been raised":
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/deadly+last+moments+Gaza+flotilla/3092011/story.html
Shocking, shocking! With all those media reporters and influential witnesses on board, I'm sure that the full details of the raid will be exposed, rather sooner than later. Which begs the question: What were the orders of those commandos? Which dangerous enemies did they expect to encounter on the ships? Did those who send them really thought this would be a reasonable way to board a ship full of civilians? This is mindboggling. Several officers and ministers must have become totally nuts.

Update 20: White House spokesman Bill Burton said Monday the United States "deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries sustained" in the incident.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iuQm_Y01E7nGKMGGUeDfWnAcxjLwD9G1QFFO1
"Regrets", huh? I understand this shocking crime by a close ally is a difficult issue for the US, but this kind of downplaying won't do. Public opinion will demand stronger words. It's simply too large a bloodshed, too big a scandal. Obama will have to act, not simply send a stern letter.

Update 21: Israeli PM backs army in Gaza-bound flotilla raid:
http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/world/story/7697117/
At least some accountability, maqking it clear that this was a political decision. Good. But this also raise the chances that Netanyahu himself will have to face the consequences for this crime. Great.

Update 22: Activists refuse to leave Gaza flotilla ships:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=128483&sectionid=351020202
Still determined to deliver their aid cargo to Gaza! Incredibly brave folks. Please include them in your thoughts and prayers.

Update 23: British foreign secretary Hague calls for "Israel to open the crossings" in Gaza:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/hague-deplores-gaza-aid-ship-deaths-1987767.html
Well, this should come as no surprise for the Israelis. Of course their murderous action would result in increased political support for Gaza. I really wonder what illusions they had about the aftermath of their rampage?

Update 24: US ship boarded by IDF, Irish activist injured:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iTPB4-HXG66a6t0X-W6kOUMBLMbQ
Here's the confirmation that the "Callenger 1" is running under the US flag:
http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/press-releases/1189-as-american-as-apple-pie
A US shipped illegally boarded in international waters, at least one passenger injured, this should have consequences! In the past, wars have been started for less.

Update 25: Emergency meeting of the UN security council today:
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=110411
As I said, containment is impossible. This will have consequences.

Update 26: Netanyahu meeting with Obama cancelled:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64U2O020100531
No real surprise. He is too cowardly to face the criticsm for his murderous action. As had to be expected.

Update 27: Understatement headline of the day: "Trouble at sea"
http://www.thejewishchronicle.net/view/full_story/7752524/article-Trouble-at-sea?instance=home_news_1st_left_title
Come on, I totally understand that the US Jewish community wants to keep a cool head, and not add oil to the flames, but this is ridulous! "Trouble"? D'oh.

Update 28: New, comprehensive roundup of world reactions, Kuwaiti MP aboard one ship:
http://gulfnews.com/news/world/other-world/international-reaction-to-israel-s-naval-attack-1.634850
Note the frequent calls for an investigation and for opening up the Gaza blockade now. Israel will have a hard time convincing the US to veto this.

Update 29: Istanbul's Chief Rabbi protest the "intervention":
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=352246
A careful choice of words, but that's totally understandable. Would be good if there were more, much more, righteous Jews who join the protests! The criminal Netanyahu government has to be forced to resign, and strong pressure from Jews all around the world will expedite this.

Update 30: Several Israeli Arab protesters arrested in mass rallies over Gaza flotilla deaths:
http://www.haaretz.com/several-israeli-arab-protesters-arrested-in-mass-rallies-over-gaza-flotilla-deaths-1.293199
Looks like the fears about a third intifada are not exaggerated. Let's hope and pray no protestors get killed!

Update 31: Peace movement activists in Israel protest to show solidarity with flotilla:
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100601/FOREIGN/705319825/1002
Good folks! Sadly, there's not nearly enough of them to make a change. The last election showed this.

Last update: UN Security Council members condemned Israel's attack. Lifting of Gaza blockade likely:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1060250/1/.html
Not the final resolution yet, but the clear and determined statements of the members show the direction this will probably take. And if there will be a lifting of the blockade, this will be great news for the 2 million people in Gaza who a re waiting desperately for water purifiers, electrical generators, construction material and lots of other stuff. Some kind of happy end for that tragedy, at least.

Open letter to Jesse "Doc" Wendel

2008-01-10T10:46:00.001+01:00

I have withdrawn the original post here, which consisted of an exchange with Jesse "Doc" Wendel of the GroupNewsBlog. Jesse has now come forward with the news that he's a chronic pain patient and that this might have affected his work recently. These aren't good news, and I'm honestly sad to hear that. If you read this, Doc, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family! I wish you the very best for 2008 and I hope this year will bring you a cure or at least a better treatment for your condition. And I have to say, in this light the development and improvements of the GroupNewsBlog are looking even more outstanding.
To Doc Wendel and all brave GNBers: Keep up the great work! And fuck the fucking Yankees!

P.S.: Doc, I guess you were right after all. Too much complaining here in the past, and this is leaving a negative (though distorted) impression on an occasional reader who might stunble upon this site. I should do more positive, original stories. But, damn, the high standard you and other liberal bloggers are upholding makes it rather difficult for this humble commenter to come up with anything competitive! ;-)

Don't fall for spin - Iraq IS more dangerous than DC!

2007-08-18T16:21:00.000+02:00

This bullshit is circulating since at least June 2005 in the internets, and, sadly, most readers don't recognize it's a fraud:

You consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.
The rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our Nation’s Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.
Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D.C.

Now, what's wrong with that comparison? Why, the math is wrong!
Well, this has already been totally debunked in the blogosphere. The critics focus on two major points:

Firstly, the anonymous author compares the monthly rate of casualties in Iraq per 100000 with an alleged number of 80.6 for DC for "the same period", and that's 22 months! Regardless that nobody else managed to find this number (80.6), it is obvious that this calculation will understate the risk in Iraq by the factor of 22. Correcting the calculation, using the spinmaster's own mysterious numbers, we see that the 'right' comparison is 1320/80.6=16.37 (1320=(2112/160000)*100000).
So, Iraq is 1537% more dangerous than DC!°
US soldiers aren't on a holiday trip, they are facing clear and present danger.

Secondly, as stated above, The cited numbers are totally questionable. 2112 casualties in June 2005? 80.6 homicides in Washington DC in 22 months? Nobody knows where those numbers come from, it's quite possible they are simply made up.

Also, pls note, even if the numbers would be right, 60/100,000 isn't the "firearm death rate". Sadly, this number includes those who were killed by IEDs, and that's the majority!

Now,let's try a better, honest comparision, using publicly available numbers. To get a picture about the situation right now, let's look at the most recent statistics:
Washington metropolitan police says the monthly number of homicides in June 2007 is 23.
And the US census bureau gives an estimation of 581,530 citizen living in Washington DC.
So, the monthly homicide rate was 3.955 /100000 in June 07.

At the same time, 06/2007, the US forces in Iraq suffered from 98 casualties.
It's more difficult to determine the US troop numbers in Iraq for June 2006. This article from early July by an AP military expert gives a number of 158000. This computes to 62.025/100000 for that month.
Comparing those numbers, we find that in June 2007, serving in Iraq has been more than 1400%, or 14 times, more dangerous than living in Washington DC. Because of the possible errors in the population numbers, and in the troop levels, it's impossible to say that with more accuracy, but this gives a clear picture.

Conclusion: The US should immediately pull out of Iraq. At least, if they care for the lifes and wellbeing of their soldiers.

Ok, don't get confused by this comparison. Actually, all those soldiers doing administrative jobs in the relatively safe green zone or in the big bases distort the numbers. It goes without saying that US soldiers on patrol in Bagdad neighborhoods face an even graver risk. Nobody should diminish their sacrifice by pretending it isn't so bad in comparison. Anybody who spreads such madness should enlist and volunteer for Iraq ASAP!

° This may be confusing: 200% in a comparison means, it's 100% more of something, ok? So 1637% means its 1537% more. My math is a bit rusty, and I was confused about this at first, too.

[This story is derived from comments I posted at No Quarter, the blog of Larry Johnson, who simply doesn't get it. Looks like those CIA guys don't do math. |-( ]

News I'd like to read

2007-08-13T19:58:00.002+02:00

Somehow the great news about Rove resigning made me think about the next big news I'd like to read:

Tapes Reveal Bush, Cheney, Rove Criminal Conspiracy
Nixon's Oval Office taping operation never suspended. Evidence for election fraud, Iraq war lies, and corruption.

Washington, DC -- "Nobody ever told me to stop it" said John Doeberger, a technician working in the White House since 1969, during an ACLU press conference when asked why he still conducts the Nixon-era taping operation. "I am responsible for all telephone and audio equipment in the White House. I had different bosses over the years, but they never showed any interest in the details of my job." In a surprise move, Doeberger decided to go public today after learning from the tapes that the Bush administration not only lied to the American people about the reasons to start the Iraq war, but that they're also responsible for several other serious crimes.

"I was never interested in what's on the tapes before, but when my son was killed in Iraq, I wanted to know what he died for. So I checked into some old tapes from 2003, and what I learned was so shocking that I simply had to inform the public" said John Doeberger, 63, whose son James Doeberger, 28, died while serving in a National Guard unit that is part of the US surge in Bagdad. "Bush, Cheney and Rove stole both elections, they directed the efforts to manipulate the voting machines. They were still laughing about it in 2003, and were making plans for 2004."

"They also deliberately gave away federal contracts to businesses who supported GOP campaigns. I heard Cheney telling Bush: "The oil meeting went really well. Those guys will give millions to assure our support". And everything they told us about Iraq was a lie. They started the war because their buddies in the energy industry wanted it. They never believed in the WMDs. And they didn't care that thousands would have to die for those oil contracts." While giving copies of the tapes to members of the press, he concluded, fighting his tears: "They killed my son for oil, I want to see those [expleted] in jail!"

Well, that's what I would call good news!
:D

(Originally posted as a comment at Americablog)

Victory is not an option anymore, let's speak about the best possible outcome.

2007-02-11T18:23:00.000+01:00

In my ongoing, yet irregular, effort to feed the blogspot beast by cannibalizing comments I posted elsewhere, I want to put some light on the remaining alternatives for the US in Iraq today. Two recent opinion pieces, written by knowledgeable US officers, provide food for thought:

Victory Is Not an Option
The Mission Can’t Be Accomplished — It’s Time for a New Strategy

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush’s illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.
...
First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly “constitutional” — meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.
...
Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis’ rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command.

Read it all, the author, William E. Odom, a retired Army lieutenant general, was head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan and sure knows what he’s talking about. Imho Odom's main topic here, the question if the common idea of a US victory is even viable anymore, doesn't get the attention of the MSM and pundits that it requires. Obviously, it's about time to abandon this goal and formulate a new best possible outcome for the US.

The insights from his strategical view are supplemented by a report by Gian P. Gentile, a lieutenant colonel in the 4th Infantry Division, about his experiences as a tactical battalion commander in Baghdad’s Amiriyah district and the conclusions he draws from them. It says a lot about the chances of the surge to succeed:

In Amiriyah we were neither winning nor losing; we were in stasis. Between August and November last year, I substantially increased the number of combined American and Iraqi army patrols there and the capacity of the American adviser team that worked with a local Iraqi army battalion. Still, the deadlock did not break.
...
As violence mounted significantly in Baghdad over the summer, we confronted this hybrid enemy head-on for a week in early August with an almost fourfold increase of American and Iraqi troops. We also shut down all vehicular traffic in the district, among other things.

The stated purpose for our efforts was to provide breathing room for the government, to allow a break in the violence so it could demonstrate that it was a government of unity. In this sense we “cleared” Amiriyah, and there were no violent acts during that week. Yet the increase in troops was not sustainable.

In the weeks and months after our weeklong operation, American forces did not leave or abandon Amiriyah. We held it with nearly double the number of American and Iraqi troops that had long operated there.
...
But the violence continued. Sunnis killed and continue to kill Shiites and government forces because of sectarian hatred, to retaliate for what they view as unfair acts by the Shiite government and because they fear that any Shiites remaining in their district would provoke more oppressive government actions against them.

Could more American troops have eliminated the Sunni insurgency in Amiriyah? Probably not, because the people were not willing to separate themselves from the insurgents. Residents saw the Sunni insurgents as their final hope for protection from an illegitimate government out to crush them.

So, a regional surge "with an almost fourfold increase of American and Iraqi troops" "was not sustainable", because the troops were needed in other areas were violence erupted. And even securing the region "with nearly double the number of American and Iraqi troops that had long operated there" couldn't prevent that "violence continued". Well, the US can't double the numbers in Iraq, the US army hasn't that much troops. And even if it could, it wouldn't help, as shown by an officer who fought there. So, it's safe to assume that the mini surge announced by Bush will have no serious impact.

Gentile also correctly points out that Iraq is a political problem in the first place: “More American troops, more Iraqi troops and more American advisers cannot produce a legitimate government; only the Iraqis can do that.”
Indeed. The only question he doesn’t address is, will Sunni Iraqis accept a governement elected by the Shiite majority as legitimate? In the long run, maybe, but not in the heated atmosphere now, where Sunni leaders are putting oil into the flames. Iraq is still on a very long journey towards stabilization.

However, imho a prolonged US intervention in the civil war wouldn’t have either a positive nor negative impact on the growing instability of the region. An active participation of the US in the fight might not even reduce the casualties among the civil population. But it may help if the US could really close the borders, so that at least the fueling of the insurgency with arms and ammunitions would stop. Of course, this would demand the redeployment of the troops in border areas.

The WaPo articles cited above show that a US victory, defined as the stabilisation of Iraq under a pro-US government, already isn’t an option anymore. Regarding the demographics, (60% Shia, 20% Sunni) and the high animosity between the sects, it’s inevitable that eventually a purely Shiite national government will run the country. Which of the two main Shiite forces (al Hakim or al Sadr) will prevail isn’t really important, since both are essentially enemies of the US. The US can’t gain anything by playing the umpire, each time they will support one party will result in alienating more Iraqis of the other side. So, it looks like helping limit the civil war by using US troops to cut off foreign interference with the sectarian parties is the only reasonable and responsible alternative that’s left. This should happen better sooner than later.

(Compiled from my comments at TMV)

State Of The Union - Symbol Of Total Uncertainty

2007-01-24T15:59:00.000+01:00

Bush speech wasn't very remarkable in general, except that it was evidence of the great uncertainty that shows in the course of the War on Terror and in the domestic programs of this presidency. The commander in chief's roundup of the strategic position and outlook of the US in the fight against terrorism painted a horrible picture. Nobody can close his eyes and pretend the situation doesn't look worse than just a year before. The removal of Saddam made Iraq the new hotbed for Al Quaeda, religious tensions are on the rise everywhere, the US influence on other states has further diminished (most prominent in the cases of Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan and Venezuela) and the forces are bound in a quagmire of violence in Iraq with casualties steadily rising. Domestically, almost everything the president spoke of has been discussed before, but not a single one of this bright ideas made it beyond the planning phase. Looking back at the developments of the last five years, nobody can reasonably argue that the state of the union has improved.

Personally, I think the president looked very defensive, even uncertain, this time. And the speech was carefully built to contain many undisputed passages, the bipartisan clapping and standing ovations giving the audience the fraudulent impression that the support for Bush’s ideas is much higher than it actually is. Yeah, maybe he has spoken with many of them in an attempt to raise support for his ideas, but everybody he spoke with will have noticed that the guy simply doesn’t listen. So, bipartisan backing for Bush that goes beyond that fool Lieberman is a pipedream and won’t happen. It’s much more likely the Dems will succeed in pulling more concerned republicans to their side.

However, actually, I paid much more attention to Dubya’s body language and the reaction of the audience than to the text. Hell, it doesn’t matter what Bush says, experience tells us that he won’t live up to those sunny promises. There’s a gap wider than the Grand Canyon between his rhetoric and accomplishments today. Just check the past SOTUs and you’ll be horrified at the flight from reality.

Just one point made my alarm bells ring:
“A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.”

Wtf is he talking about? Civilians? He doesn’t mean the peace corps, no? The US has the national guard, the volunteer army, and contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater. Everybody who meets the qualifications can serve if he/she wants to. What exactly is the idea behind this new force and why is it needed? Other listeners got the creeps and had spontaneous nightmares of ‘brown shirts’. Just overheated fantasy, I hope…

Originally posted as comment at The Moderate Voice

Time's Person of the Year: Me. (And you, and you, and you, really all of you)

2006-12-17T16:48:00.004+01:00

Well, WOW! I'm totally surprised about this unexpected honor. I really don't know what to say now, folks. But I'm aware that I wouldn't be standing here today without the help of many people (where's that f***ing list?): Firstly, all those bloggers, the Americablog gang, and Steve Gilliard, Kevin Drum, John Amato, Atrios. Oh, and the motley crew of The Moderate Voice and the team of MyDD. Also the countless number of other blogs who allow comments, and all fellow commenters. Sadly, reciting all the names would break the timeframe now (orchestra is starting to interrupt). And last but not least (shouting against the music now), my family who has always supported me. I love you! Thanks so much, all of you (crying)! I love you!!!
exeunt
:D

Who's a real 'centrist' blogger?

2006-12-12T13:35:00.000+01:00

Well, I'm ashamed when I see the date of my latest entry, so I have the urge to feed the blogger again. Imho this comment may be of common interest, a topic that hasn't been exhaustively discussed at other blogs recently.

When I revisited The Moderate Voice today, an interesting (at least for me) question came up:

"So the only centrists are liberal centrists?"

In practice, 'centrist' is used to describe a general direction, so, ok, there can be liberal and conservative centrists. And of course, the question always is, how to distinguish them from the 'pure' wingers, left and right. Imho an important characteristic of a moderate is that he listens to both sides, and uses arguments from the whole spectrum as it fits his views. TMV's own Joe Gandelman and BallonJuice's John Cole are good examples for this approach.

But someone who consistently agrees with bloggers on the right, while having only criticism for the left side (if he mentions them at all), doesn't look very 'centrist' to me. TMV's Michael van der Galien fits this description. Out of fairness, I scrolled through the last three weeks of blogging there to see if I might be mistaken. Alas, no, he still looks only at the right side for inspiration. And this quote from one of his posts is telling (it's about revitalisation of the GOP): "For the sake of the U.S.A., the Republican party and for that of my conservative brethren in America, I hope so."

Now, this is an honest statement. Sadly, he's isn't always that honest, sometimes he fools readers and tries to establish himself as a moderate, claiming he is rightwing on foreign policy, but liberal on social issues. Well, Michael, where are all those posts supporting liberal social issues? The best I could find was a compromise point of view on abortion (generally, yes, but absolutely no late term). This doesn't sound very liberal to me, many republicans support the same idea. What's his opinion on minimum wage, health care, social security? I can't find any liberal statements at all, and it looks like those topics aren't important to him. So why should anybody think MvdG is a centrist? Not to speak of Ann Althouse! That she managed to trick the panel of the Weblog Awards into letting her run as a centrist blogger, doesn't make her one.

And this leads to another question: Can't a blog be 'centrist' because a liberal and a conservative blogger balance each other? Imho, NO, because two ships following parallel courses may have an average course in the middle, but they will still arrive at very different harbors. The passengers have to decide on which cruise they will book. Just my personal opinion, your mileage may differ.

One final point: While I think MvdG is too conservative a blogger for TMV, I don't believe that his input has already stained the centrist approach of this blog beyond repair. Looking at the less-than-stellar list of nominees (where's Ballon Juice?), and out of respect for Joe Gandelman, I follow the example of Ezra Klein and endorse The Moderate Voice for Best Centrist Blog at the Weblog Awards 2006.

I'm aware that MvdG essentially surrendered to Ann Althouse, but since I haven't seen other TMV bloggers, especially Joe, support this defatist course, I think the race is still on. Stop the travestie of Ann Althouse putting a bad name on real centrist bloggers, vote The Moderate Voice!

Tonight's THE night!

2006-11-07T19:58:00.000+01:00

I had a lot of problems recently, and still face a busy time ahead. Not much energy left for blogging. But tonight (8 pm here in Germany) I'm totally excited about the election. Sanity will prevail! The Dems are heading towards a historical turnaround. The tyrannic rule of King George will end, finally he will have to endure serious oversight. His fabrications and blunders will be brought to light. This will be good for the US and for the whole world. Go Dems!

On 'Moderation'

2006-10-14T10:15:00.000+02:00

The following mod response, targetted at Jurassicpork, a commenter I know as an engaging and serious person and far from being a troll, is an example of awful moderation. This should be a warning sign for blog owners to check if the people they gave mod powers are suited for the task:

"Oh, Jurassic Pork,

You're HILARIOUS!!

I would almost think you were serious.

A note: In the moderation queue, no one can hear you scream.

Jane will never see your comment. She's in L.A. tonight partying with Valerie and Joe Wilson, R.E.M., and Green Day and I am going to delete it long before she ever sees it.

You are a sad, sad little man.

Hope that hiatus from blogging is working out for you. You were never meant for our line of work.

Ta taaaaaaaaaa,
TRex"
Welcome to Pottersville: He Who Sleeps With Firedogs Wakes Up With Trolls

I'm not against moderation in general. At bigger blogs, mods are essential for maintaining a repectful level of discussion that won't turn away readers who are interested in 'adding their two cent'. But it's obvious that mods have to be chosen carefully. People who use deleting and editing power to surpress comments that merely challenge their own views are totally unfit for the job.
For successful moderation, a blog should fulfill four major requirements:

* Clear guidelines for commenters and mods, placed or linked at a prominent space in the blog.

* Moderators should be signed as such (for example, "*ilson, Moderator")

* The process of editing and deleting comments should be transparent for the readers ('Comment deleted because of inappropriate personal attacks. Pls see guidelines' or 'Comment edited because of inappropriate language.')

* The system should allow mod actions to be supervised so that the blog owner can be sure that his mods work in the best interests of the blog.

Sadly, FDL doesn't meet a single one of these requirements. As a result, the blog is one of the worst examples of arbitrary, intransparent moderation with the mods acting like small dictators, drunken with their power.

The time has come for real conservatives to join the good fight

2006-09-13T23:59:00.000+02:00

Christopher Buckley:
"What have they done to my party? Where does one go to get it back? One place comes to mind: the back benches. It's time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds...."

Wow! I'm not known as someone who usually is sympathetic to right wingers, but this honest and thoughtful tirade makes me say:
Kudos, Mr. Buckley!

And that's not because he concludes that it may be time for the other team to take over. No, it's because he shows that it's never been a goal of real conservatism to cling to power without caring about the costs. And because he reminds us that there are still conservative thinkers who have ideals that won't change with a sudden turn of the winds. This icon of conservatism exposes the Bush gang as CINO's, con artists who don't care about any long term goals but only about short term benefits (that can be counted in dollars) for themselves and their cronies. They managed to hijack the GOP and corrupted it with their unprincipled Machiavellism. And while conservatism is soundly based on democratic ideals, Bush's rethuglicans don't really care for democracy nor for the republic, it's all about preserving and increasing the power. They know no limits. And they have been smart in manipulating the US, so smart that this has become a real danger for democracy.

So, now is the time for all real democrats, regardless if in the center or left or right of it, to come to the aid of their nation. It's time for this majority to stand up and shout: Enough already! And maybe then the forces of false conservatism and selfishness and cronyism may be forced to retreat and reason will rule again. Buckley standing up, driven by his patriotic instincts, willing to take a lot of flak from his own party, is an encouraging sign that this time has come.

This doesn't say that Buckley is on our side. No, he will stay on the other side, vehemently fighting many Dem goals like universal healthcare. But, unlike the Bushistas, he isn't willing to sacrifice democracy for short term political successes. And for this he deserves our respect.

(orginally posted at A-Blog)

Better fried chicken than Friedman...

2006-09-12T11:19:00.000+02:00

"The “real reason” for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world."

Of course, this is bull. Friedman is an idiot, I don't really know why anyone reads him anymore. We have to remind us that it's not been 'America' that decided to go against Saddam, it's been a right wing clique in or connected to the White House. All evidence shows that Iraq was the very first thing that came to their minds when thinking about a response to the destruction of the towers, even before thinking about how to punish those who really were responsible. And the neocons wanted to hit Iraq even before 9/11, because of several reasons: Frustration with the outcome of the first gulf war, hate against Saddam for his numerous provocations (not the least his try to kill Bush I.), the urgent desire to secure the oil supply of the US, deep concerns about Saddam threatening Israel, an obsession with strategical power play, to name only the most obvious. These were the motives that powered the gang at the levers of power. Yes, sure there was a widespread desire among americans to hit back, no matter what the target. But this wasn't the reason behind the war, it was just used as a psychological means to sell it to a broad public.

Imho all of this is evident, and while there are still 'pundits' who try to distort the issue, we have to ask ourselves if they are really that dumb or have hidden motives to mislead their audience. Well, I think in the case of Tom Friedman, by looking at his vast output of idiocies, we can safely assume he is an honest fool.

(originally posted at the Poor Man Institute as a comment on a story about the reason behind the Iraq War.)

The MSM doesn't dig it! [Updated]

2006-09-04T17:55:00.000+02:00

There's a disturbing trend in the MSM. More and more magazines and newspapers chose to offer 'analysis' instead of news. Here's a recent example.

Well, I guess we all know how their 'analysis' will look like. More gratuitous spin for Bush, Rove, and Co. But maybe the MSM is heading towards a nasty surprise. Hell, do they really think anyone will give them hard earned money for opinions anymore? If we want opinions, Steve, the unstoppable blog machine, and many other relentless bloggers offer it for FREE!

There has to be a reason the Times (NY of course) doesn't want to publish the 'profits' of their Times Select business. Almost nobody wants to pay for columnists anymore, not even for Krugman! Of course, the price is dependant on the relation between demand and supply. Someone once said 'Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one'. The blogosphere is evidence of this, lots of assholes and opinions there, and it boosted supply beyond all expectations. This made it difficult to make money by simply publishing columns. So, the new role for the MSM today is not to provide 'analysis', but to provide the facts. How long will they be digging their own grave before they realize that?

(originally posted at Steve Gilliard's site and at Buzzmachine)

Ok, half an eternity after I posted this (two days later), Ezra Klein, one of the most thoughtful bloggers of all, ran a story based on the same news. Sadly, we're not exactly on the same line of thinking regarding the validity of Time's business decision (his point of view is between 170-190 degrees different from mine). No big deal, I'm deeply suspicious of people who share my opinions. :D
Of course, I couldn't resist and added my two eurocent, raising the total of that thread to about 46 cent. Here's my comment that actually clarifies my idea about that sparse good, 'facts':

"News just doesn't keep. Good analysis, however, does."

Hmm, ok, but we're not talking about good analysis here, we're talking about the MSM. :D
Honestly, how many good examples have you seen there recently? In times when guesswork about the choice of clothing of a candidate is called campaign analysis and when most space for stories on the economy is used for pie charts, the trend seems to go in the direction of infotainment, not towards being thoughtful and well researched. And the problem is, analysis always is evaluation, so it's based on opinion. And opinions are extremely cheap nowadays, there are thousands of blogs where you get them for free, no matter what the topic might be. Economics 101: If a good is given away for free, selling it will negatively affect your business...

No, the MSM has to concentrate on goods that are sparse, creating a benefit that readers, many of which are bloggers, are willing to pay for. What good might that be? News, and especially investigated facts. Bloggers simply lack the manpower, the budget, and, sadly, in many cases the knowledge to do deep research. But it's the news, stupid, and the facts in it that fuel the blogosphere. So there's the great advantage of the MSM and they should capitalize on it. There's only one downside to it:
Facts have a well known liberal bias (here's to you, Stephen Colbert!).
The corporate media might not want that...

Listen to Bull Moose? Better Mull Booze!

2006-08-11T19:06:00.000+02:00

"The only jihad many in the left-wing in the party are interested in is the one against the party's former vice presidential standard bearer."

With senior Democratic Leadership council spokesmen like this one, who needs enemies?
Oh my.

Stop the Bull, ban the Moose!

The Greatest American Value

2006-08-10T00:59:00.000+02:00

"In the end the people make up their own minds and this is going to be a people’s campaign"
I think Loserman has a point here, but not in the way he might think. After the great experience of yesterday, who's gonna deny that people made up their mind and that the people's campaign was victorious? And, (sry, now I may sound to idealistic, but its the view of a foreigner) what topic has a very high value in the people's mind? Democracy! It's a value deeply embedded in US history, it's part of the american way, and it always has been one of the most distinguished aspects of US identity. And its main rules aren't really difficult to dig, one of them is you can decide to compete for a position, you campaign for your cause, and then comes the day when your fellow countrymen decide.

But that's exactly the point, it's one day of voting, it's THE day, and if you're not elected, you respect the result and wait for next turn. You don't simply do the stubborn, spoiled kid, ignore the decision and pretend that this try doesn't count and that you are entitled to restart the game. We all now this behaviour from our youth or from young sister, brothers or friends, but it's not adult behaviour, especially is it not democratic behavior . The system simply wouldn't work if everybody would feel entitled to ignore unfavorable outcomes and go on, so nobody is allowed to do so (Kant, right?). And in mayn US states, they have such 'sore loser' laws, it just a historical coincidence that CT is not among them.

Imho, what has to be done now is to generate a lot of buzz about voting and democratic rules. Many citizen simply don't think much about the philosophy of democracy, it's something that is simply there, it's taken for granted. But there always has been a lot of emphasis on what makes America great, so not much campaigning is needed to bring it back to conciousness. And especially the organisations that pretend to pursuit the poeple's interest have to be targeted. They have to answer the question if it is according to their ideals and their mission if they support undemocratic manoeuvers. And the emphasis has to be that seeking a second chance to run for an election may be technicaly not forbidden, but that it violates core US values. Imho it should be possible to spread the insight that Loserman is following a deeply unamerican idea and that no patriotic citizen or group should lend him a hand. If the NGOs can be pusged into the defensive on that issue, they will have to drop support for Lieberman, and certainly many private donators would think twice, too. If Sore Loserman insists on spurning the very principles he purports to defend, ok, but he should be aware that it might be a lonesome voyage.

(originally posted at FDL, but to be honest, I'm too tired to engage in a long discussion now. And I suspect that I'll find this posting incredible naive if I take another look at it tomorrow. Well, however.)

Stop the Bull, ban the Moose!

2006-08-09T12:54:00.000+02:00

K, Ned has won, Hooray!, and I made a lengthy post at MyDD about a guy who is a total spoilsport. Sadly, so far I have no responses on it, but that's the problem with MyDD, it's not a good blog for comments (I doubt they ever reached 300). K, since this site needs some content now and then, I'll repost it here. Rant on:

Marshall Whitman, a.k.a. the Bull Moose, is a sore loser!
Pls check his latest post at his blog:

A few years back the Moose [sic! Pluralis majestatis! Gray] broke with the Republican Party on a range of issues dealing with economic justice. His reasons for leaving the GOP are explained here.

As the Moose indicated, just because he became a heretic on the right, he certainly did not join the left. At another time he would be in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Alas, that Scoop Jackson wing today is miniscule.
...
So where does this situation leave the Moose? He is an economic progressive, cultural tradionalist and a hawk - a mammal without a party who continues to graze in the political center.
http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/

Ok, surely some will say that's just the usual, whiny bull from the moose, but I think this statement is very significant and should have consequences. He clearly states he is not in the mainstream of the Democratic party, and in the end even openly says that in reality, he is without a party. You can't say it any clearer than that.

Now, his political identification is his personal business, except for the fact that he is still senior spokesman for the DLC. Shouldn't someone who is speaking for a mayor Democratic organisation be a convincing and supporting member of that party? After this statement by Whitman, is there any logical explanation why he should stay in the DLC any longer? When will this insider club finally make a decision on this matter?

I want to add a concrete example why Whitman shouldn't be allowed to speak for the DLC anymore:

Marshall Wittman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, who supports Lieberman, said Lamont has allowed himself to be defined by his left-wing supporters.

"Had it not been for the involvement of the Democratic left, the party would be fairly united going into midterm elections," he said. "The Lamont campaign can be potentially devastating to the party, not in 2006, but in 2008. At a time of horrific news for the Republican Party, this is the only silver lining they have right now."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la- na-lieberman9aug09,0,4115180.story?page= 2&coll=la-home-headlines

Yes, that's in the LA Times right now!
Is that the official position of the DLC? That the result of this primary "can be potentially devastating to the party"? Even if some might think so, is it acceptable or even reasonable for the DLC to say so in public? And is it the mission of the DLC to give the republican party hope for a "silver lining"? It is my understanding that tomorrow at 11 will be the important unification meeting of the Dems. Doesn't this irresponsible statement from Whitman make this mission more difficult?

Imho the last thing the Dems need right now is a senior speaker who only cares for his personal ideas of the right direction and who shows a blatant disregard for party interests. Someone has to pull the plug from this egocentric running amok. Now.

(originally posted here: http://mydd.com/story/2006/8/9/0569/07635 )
((But it's really a lame discussion at MyDD))
(((Even though I like the site, especially Matt's postings)))

A hard day's night

2006-07-19T02:47:00.000+02:00

It's been an interesting discussion at FDL - http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/18/every-bomb-makes-hezbollah-stronger/#comments

Starting with a great post by Steve Giliard, imho one of the best informed and most thoughtful liberal bloggers. And, sadly, one of the much-too-few afro american ones. He's running a great site, especially if you're interested in history. Check it out!
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/

One note to Jane and Christy at FDL: Closing a thread when it is still hosting a civil discussion is a total no-no imho. This smells like censorship and control freaks. Pls think twice about this policy!

Ok, back to the discussion - the forces of good won! By saying this, I don't want to deminish the few right wing guys who had enough guts to take part in a discussion at a liberal site. They are much better than those simple minded followers who are only capable of blogobating at 'save' right wing sites like Powerline, Protein Wisdom, the Freep and others. But, truth is, it is almost impossible to defend Israel's current actions. So, they were fighting for a lost cause. However, the discussion clarified many points that may have been unclear for some, so let's hope that some lurkers did learn something.

OK, a general point now. I don't know yet if my moods will make it possible, but my idea is to establish this site as a meeting point for liberal commenters. A site to exchange experiences, to release the steam because some blogger simply didn't get it, and to direct others to interesting discussions or a thread that desperately needs more liberal firepower. Just because I'm sometimes annoyed at arrogant bloggers who think they are selfmade men and who disregard the armies fighting for them.

Hooray for the commenters! Here's to us!

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his thoughts with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This blog shall gentle his condition.

Onward, caffeine soldiers!

2006-07-16T03:25:00.000+02:00

I'm a lazy blogger.
Pls move on, nothing to see here. Yet.

Onward, Caffeine Soldiers! (lyrics)

2006-07-15T23:29:00.000+02:00

Ok, an important thing for every soldier is the battle hymn of his unit. Here's the first paragraph of the hymn of the caffeine soldiers, almost not plagiarized:

Onward, Caffeine soldiers, marching as to war,
with a cup of java going on before.
Coffee, the divine matter, helps against the foe;
forward into battle, see the comments flow!

To everyone who might accidently turn up at this foresaken place:
You know how to sing, don't you?