Ideology Of National Security

Daniel Larison at The American Conservative.

Ideology Of National Security

This Daily Show item pointing out a few lines from the Inaugural that seem similar to Bush’s rhetoric is making the rounds (via John Schwenkler). In fact, there aren’t that many similar phrases in this particular speech, and those that Stewart was able to identify seem like so much standard boilerplate. However, the statements seem to be nothing more than this, because they reflect the bipartisan ideological and policy consensus. Obviously, I think there are much better examples that show clear affinities between the ambitious hegemonist views of the two, but the examples taken from the Inaugural are useful to illustrate a more important point. That point is not merely that “Obama is more like Bush than you want to believe,” or that his election represents no fundamental change in the way the government will make policy. While true, these are no longer in any way remarkable, and they have all been covered many times before. If the transition didn’t made these things clear already, I’m not sure what will.

What is interesting is what these statements show about the minimal differences between the parties and the political class’ embrace of shared assumptions about U.S. power and their acceptance of myths relating to American history. When Obama says that “we” will not apologize for our way of life and Bush said that “the American way of life is non-negotiable,” they are expressing in a simple form the key convictions of what Prof. Bacevich has identified as the ideology of national security. Let’s review those convictions. …

via IOZ

Mitchell too fair

Josh Marshall.

George Mitchell
George Mitchell

Mitchell Doesn’t Cut It?

The ADL’s Abe Foxman thinks Mitchell may be too even-handed …

From The Jewish Week …

Some Jewish leaders say the very qualities that may appeal to the Obama administration — Mitchell’s reputation as an honest broker — could spark unhappiness, if not outright opposition, from some pro-Israel groups.

Abe Foxman
Abe Foxman

“Sen. Mitchell is fair. He’s been meticulously even-handed,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. “But the fact is, American policy in the Middle East hasn’t been ‘even handed’ — it has been supportive of Israel when it felt Israel needed critical U.S. support.

“So I’m concerned,” Foxman continued. “I’m not sure the situation requires that kind of approach in the Middle East.”

Unstated here is that Mitchell is half Lebanese Christian by ancestry. And I think there’s little way that isn’t playing into this in the background. Roger Cohen had a good column a couple weeks ago in which he began …

The Obama team is tight with information, but I’ve got the scoop on the senior advisers he’s gathered to push a new Middle East policy as the Gaza war rages: Shibley Telhami, Vali Nasr, Fawaz Gerges, Fouad Moughrabi and James Zogby.

Needless to say this is not Obama’s Middle East team. And as Cohen went on to note, Obama’s team is made up of five Jewish men. Now, I’m Jewish. Got no beef with Jews. And I’m sure this post will generate a bunch of nonsensical emails claiming I’m saying that Jews can’t be trusted to deal with Middle East policy, which is too nonsensical even to discuss. But if there’s reflexive opposition to a distinguished former senator who happens to be half Arab by lineage because of the stated reason that he may be too even-handed, that’s really a problem.

Why Nationalization is the Best Alternative

Felix Salmon.

Felix Salmon
Felix Salmon

Why Nationalization is the Best Alternative

Kevin Drum is a bit like Joe Nocera: he’s reluctant to nationalize, but he doesn’t really say why.

It’s wise to be wary of nationalization. It should be a last resort, and I’ve gotten a sense recently that a lot of people are talking about it awfully casually. Still, it’s true that there are some benefits to nationalization, and one of them is that it allows us to avoid the problem of valuing and buying up toxic assets from troubled banks. If the government owns the whole bank, then the bad stuff can be easily hived off without any kind of valuation at all, and then left to sit for a while before it’s sold off — which is what the Swedes did.
If we have to nationalize, then we have to nationalize. But we should understand the precedents before we do, and go ahead only if we have to.

The only argument I can find in here is an argument in favor of nationalization, not against it. Why should nationalization only be a last resort?

…

See also Krugman.

Had your vitamin C today?

That’s Vitamin Coffee, bub.

Coffee reduces Alzheimer’s risk: study

Middle-aged people who drink moderate amounts of coffee significantly reduce their risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, a study by Finnish and Swedish researchers showed Thursday.

“Middle-aged people who drank between three and five cups of coffee a day lowered their risk of developing dementia and Alzheimer’s disease by between 60 and 65 per cent later in life,” said lead researcher on the project, Miia Kivipelto, a professor at the University of Kuopio in Finland and at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

The study, which was also conducted in cooperation with the National Public Health Institute in Helsinki and which was published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease this month, was based on repeated interviews with 1,409 people in Finland over more than two decades. …

“Middle-aged” here means “in their 50s”. No dementia for me!

Bankers First

Bankers First

4B096207-2504-46F3-8CD9-0ECF252A1837.jpg

The Economist says that this photo is "one of the most apt visual metaphors for the crisis yet". I’m not sure that it isn’t literally true. After all, Charlotte is a banking center, and 23 of the passengers worked at Bank of America alone. I’d say that the passengers in the 12 first-class seats at the front of the plane were disproportionately likely to be bankers, no?

John Mortimer

John MortimerLeo McKernJohn Mortimer has left for that great Pomeroy’s Wine Bar in the sky.

As it’s impossible to think of Mortimer without thinking of Horace Rumpole, it’s impossible to remember either without remembering Leo McKern, who was born to play the part. McKern died in 2002.

Lift a glass of Chateau Thames Embankment to the memory of all three.

More remembrances here, here and here.

Real Wages Soar and Nobody Notices

Dean Baker:

Real Wages Soar and Nobody Notices

I enjoy reading about the hardships of Citigroup and Bank of America as much as anyone, but when the real wages of ordinary workers are soaring, it should merit at least some small bit of attention from the media. Since nominal wages have continued to increase in recent months, even as prices have plummeted, the real wage of workers lucky enough to keep their jobs has soared. …

I mainly wanted to post that first line (especially in view of my previous post); read the story to see why your wages might have been soaring while you weren’t paying attention.

Horror Story

Wow. Or, ouch.

Horror Story

Bespoke Investment Group notes that in less than two years, the market cap of the S&P financial sector has shrunk to $959 billion from nearly $3 trillion at its May 2007 peak.

Citigroup has lost in value close to 10 times its current market cap.
bank caps
Source:
Parade of the Basket Cases
ALAN ABELSON
Barrons JANUARY 17, 2009
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123215043364592063.html

One state, two states, imposition

John V. Whitbeck, “an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel”. today in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Seek democracy, not a two-state solution

President-elect Barack Obama has a problem. Particularly in the wake of Israel’s holiday-season attack on Gaza, he is under heavy pressure to focus immediately on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to “do something.” However, if he were simply to announce an intention to work harder to achieve an impossible goal by means that have repeatedly failed – a decent two-state solution through bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – such a commitment to further years of time-wasting would kill hope rather than inspire it.

Furthermore, he has let it be known that he would like to make a major speech in a Muslim country early in his presidency. A welcome gesture, to be sure, but what would he say? If he were simply to promise more of the same, as he did during his campaign, his frustrated audience might be tempted to throw shoes. What could he say that would truly represent change in American policy and would inspire genuine and justified hope that Middle East peace really is possible?

Whitbeck is talking, of course, about a “one-state solution“, an idea that’s been kicking around since the 1920s. Its low level of support among Israeli Jews (18% in one survey) understates the virulence of Jewish opposition to “a thinly veiled strategy for destroying the State of Israel“. Whitbeck points to the example of South Africa, though the political dynamics don’t strike me as all that similar.

On the same page of the Chronicle, Michael Lerner (Tikkun) advocates an Imposed two-state solution.

The only viable alternative is for Obama to call for an international conference of the European Unon, Israel and the Arab States, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and, yes, Iran and India as well, and allow that international conference to impose a solution that provides security and justice to both sides. Only an imposed settlement has the slightest chance of being just to Palestinians – the precondition for a lasting peace, and a secure Israel.

Hard as it might be to push the Obama administration in this direction, it will be less difficult than getting Secretary of State Clinton to use American power to directly force Israel to be responsive to the minimum needs for peace and justice for the Palestinian people.

Imposed how, exactly, Rabbi Lerner saith not.

And yet…the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution steadily declines. Three impossibilities—one state, two states, and the status quo—, except that the status quo is, sadly, not impossible at all.

What Should Be Done With The Next $350 Billion of Taxpayer Bailout: Criteria for TARP II

Robert Reich.

What Should Be Done With The Next $350 Billion of Taxpayer Bailout: Criteria for TARP II

You may judge these conditions harsh. I think them prudent. They may force a number of big banks to go into chapter 11 bankruptcy, which would not be the end of the world but perhaps the beginning. At least then we’d find out what was on their balance sheets, because they’d have no choice but to sell off some of their junk, even at fire-sale prices (believe me, if the price is low enough, there are investors around the world who will buy them); they’d have to negotiate with their creditors and pay some of them off; many of their CEOs would be fired and directors replaced, which they should have been already; and most of their shareholders would be wiped out, which is unfortunate for them but, hey, they took the risk. In other words, these provisions would force the banks to clean up their balance sheets.

The Money to “Save” Homeowners Is Handed to Banks

A useful reminder from Dean Baker: look behind the rhetoric. Cui bono?

The Money to “Save” Homeowners Is Handed to Banks

NPR reported on Representative Barney Frank’s effort to ensure that a substantial portion of the money from the second $350 billion in the TARP go toward helping homeowners. The proposals that purport to save homeowners would in fact hand large amounts of money to banks. They involve paying banks far above market prices for underwater mortgages. The benefit to homeowners is that they would be allowed to stay in their homes, possibly with zero equity. (Some proposals also give the homeowner a small equity cushion.)

NPR and other news outlets should be reporting who gets the money under these proposals. In many cases, banks may be paid tens of thousands of dollars to leave a homeowner in a home in which they have no equity. At a time when Congress is debating extending the State Children’s Health Insurance Program at a cost of $3,000 per kid, it is not clear how many kids’ health care they or the public would be willing to sacrifice to pay a bank to leave someone in a home in which they have no equity.

—Dean Baker

Back on Tracks

Phillip Longman on trains. Here’s a taste, but go read it all.

truck and train

Back on Tracks

… By all rights, America’s dilapidated rail lines ought to be a prime candidate for some of that spending. All over the country there are opportunities like the I-81/Crescent Corridor deal, in which relatively modest amounts of capital could unclog massive traffic bottlenecks, revving up the economy while saving energy and lives. Many of these projects have already begun, like Virginia’s, or are sitting on planners’ shelves and could be up and running quickly. And if we’re willing to think bigger and more long term—and we should be—the potential of a twenty-first-century rail system is truly astonishing. In a study recently presented to the National Academy of Engineering, the Millennium Institute, a nonprofit known for its expertise in energy and environmental modeling, calculated the likely benefits of an expenditure of $250 billion to $500 billion on improved rail infrastructure. It found that such an investment would get 85 percent of all long-haul trucks off the nation’s highways by 2030, while also delivering ample capacity for high-speed passenger rail. If high-traffic rail lines were also electrified and powered in part by renewable energy sources, that investment would reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emission by 38 percent and oil consumption by 22 percent. By moderating the growing cost of logistics, it would also leave the nation’s economy 13 percent larger by 2030 than it would otherwise be.

Yet despite this astounding potential, virtually no one in Washington is talking about investing any of that $1 trillion in freight rail capacity. Instead, almost all the talk out of the Obama camp and Congress has been about spending for roads and highway bridges, projects made necessary in large measure by America’s overreliance on pavement-smashing, traffic-snarling, fossil-fuel-guzzling trucks for the bulk of its domestic freight transport. This could be an epic mistake. Just as the Interstate Highway System changed, for better and for worse, the economy and the landscape of America, so too will the investment decisions Washington is about to make. The choice of infrastructure projects is de facto industrial policy; it’s also de facto energy, land use, housing, and environmental policy, with implications for nearly every aspect of American life going far into the future. On the doorstep of an era of infrastructure spending unparalleled in the past half century, we need to conceive of a transportation future in which each mode of transport is put to its most sensible use, deployed collaboratively instead of competitively. To see what that future could look like, however, we need to look first at the past. …

Bill Moyers on Gaza

For too much of the world at large the names of the dead and wounded in Gaza might as well be John Doe too. They are the casualties and victims of Israel’s decision to silence the rockets from Hamas terrorists by waging war on an entire population. Yes, every nation has the right to defend its people. Israel is no exception, all the more so because Hamas would like to see every Jew in Israel dead.

But brute force can turn self-defense into state terrorism. It’s what the U.S. did in Vietnam, with B-52s and napalm, and again in Iraq, with shock and awe. By killing indiscriminately — the elderly, kids, entire families by destroying schools and hospitals — Israel did exactly what terrorists do and exactly what Hamas wanted. It spilled the blood that turns the wheel of retribution.

Hardly had Israeli tank fire killed and injured scores at a UN school in Gaza than a senior Hamas leader went on television to announce, “The Zionists have legitimized the killing of their children by killing our children.” Already attacks on Jews in Europe are escalating — a burning car crashes into a synagogue in Southern France, a fiery object is hurled through a window in Sweden, venomous anti-Semitic graffiti appears across the continent, and arsonists strike in London.

What we are seeing in Gaza is the latest battle in the oldest family quarrel on record. Open your Bible: the sons of the patriarch Abraham become Arab and Jew. Go to the Book of Deuteronomy. When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan their leaders urged violence against its inhabitants. The very Moses who had brought down the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” now proclaimed, “You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place.”

So God-soaked violence became genetically coded. A radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. Israel misses no opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians with checkpoints, concrete walls, routine insults, and the onslaught in Gaza. As if boasting of their might, Israel defense forces even put up video of the explosions on YouTube for all the world to see. A Norwegian doctor there tells CBS, “It’s like Dante’s Inferno. They are bombing one and a half million people in a cage.”

America has officially chosen sides. We supply Israel with money, F-16s, winks and tacit signals. Our Christian right links arms with the religious extremists there who claim divine sanctions for Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Our political elites show neither independence nor courage by challenging the consensus that Israel can do no wrong. Although one recent poll found Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24-point margin, Democratic Party leaders in Congress nonetheless march in lockstep to the hardliners in Israel and the White House. Rarely does our mainstream media depart from the monotonous monologue of the party line. Many American Jews know, as Aaron David Miller writes in the current “Newsweek”, that the destruction in Gaza won’t do much to address Israel’s longer-term needs.

But those who raise questions are accused by a prominent reform rabbi of being “morally deficient.” One Jewish American activist told me this week that never in 30 years has he seen such blind and binding conformity in his community. “You’d never know,” he said, “that it is the Gazans who are doing most of the suffering.”

We are in a terrible bind — Israel, the Palestinians, the United States. Each greases the cycle of violence, as one man’s terrorism becomes another’s resistance to oppression. Is it possible to turn this mindless tragedy toward peace? For starters, read Aaron David Miller’s article in the current “Newsweek”. Get his book, “The Much Too Promised Land”. And pay no attention to those Washington pundits cheering the fighting in Gaza as they did the bloodletting in Iraq. Killing is cheap and war is a sport in a city where life and death become abstractions of policy. Here are the people who pay the price.

That’s it for the Journal. I’m Bill Moyers. We’ll be back next week.

via M.J. Rosenberg

Update: link to video

Between libretto and lice

The redoubtable Melvyn Quince waxes philosophical.

Between libretto and lice

It seems to me that a dictionary should be there to provide entries for the things one could not know: who would have thought that rhubarb would have the name rhubarb? It’s so surprising it’s almost incredible. If you had asked me to guess, I would have been picking it out of millions of possible words of that length. So it goes in the dictionary. But I think I would have been able to guess that the main Libyan desert might be called the Libyan Desert.

But leave out pieplant?

In the shadow of Saturn

Saturn

In the shadow of Saturn, unexpected wonders appear. The robotic Cassini spacecraft now orbiting Saturn recently drifted in giant planet’s shadow for about 12 hours and looked back toward the eclipsed Sun. Cassini saw a view unlike any other. First, the night side of Saturn is seen to be partly lit by light reflected from its own majestic ring system. Next, the rings themselves appear dark when silhouetted against Saturn, but quite bright when viewed away from Saturn and slightly scattering sunlight, in the above exaggerated color image. Saturn’s rings light up so much that new rings were discovered, although they are hard to see in the above image. Visible in spectacular detail, however, is Saturn’s E ring, the ring created by the newly discovered ice-fountains of the moon Enceladus, and the outermost ring visible above. Far in the distance, visible on the image left just above the bright main rings, is the almost ignorable pale blue dot of Earth.

…I think we should all be as happy as kings.