Hugo Again
We take a momentary break from the American presidential campaign this weekend to refocus for a few moments on one one of the more colorful and worrisome among other presidents in the hemisphere — Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.
I probably wouldn’t bother to even blog this item if it weren’t for a moronic show I heard on “community radio” last night: an interview with some local college students who had just returned from a state-sponsored dog and pony tour to Caracas, They were competing with each other in a contest to see who could most uncritically praise the Workers Paradise their hosts had shown them.
You’d hope that a few years in college would help build your critical faculties, but you’d be wrong. These kids had definitely seen the future and the future definitely worked. Case closed. Punto cerrado.
Lucky for these mopheads that they were traveling with a “solidarity delegation” rather than something more sinister like, say, an international human rights group. They would have a much more negative stay.
Venezuelan TV has been replaying video of the way its agents summarily picked up, packed up and deported two reps from Human Rights Watch, including well-known Chilean Jose Miguel Vivanco. Perfect authoritarian style. Nothing is more threatening to demagogues and power-mongers then the disinfectant of daylight and anyone who would dare to expose injustice in People’s Venezuela must, de facto, be a CIA agent. As usual, the American left remains silent on these sort of hiccups. HRW is an heroic organization so long as it is exposing the crimes of U.S.-backed regimes from Chile to Haiti. But let it get bashed around by a thug like Chavez and no one says as much as perdon.
Meanwhile, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a definitively left-of-center research outfit with whom I had some pleasant association back in the 80′s has just published this report on the state of the Venezuelan military. It notes the new and growing relationship between Chavez’s armed forces and that of Mr. Putin’s. I suppose that’s their business. What is more disturbing are the billions and billion of petro-dollars being pissed away on a mountainous military budget in a country that faces no credible threat of war.
(Oh yeah, I forgot. The Bush administration might invade Venezuela to seize the oil we already buy from it every day). Anyway, read the report before you start bitching at me.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Plus this nifty:
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/09/mccain_spanish_ad_obama_chavez.html
September 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Yeah, but what the hell does this have to do with Sarah Palin ?
September 20th, 2008 at 4:27 am
HRW is a bourgeois humanist organization and is as such inherently hostile to working class interests.
Right, cummings?
September 20th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Chavez may suck but we must commend his international appeal. Austria’s latest fascist darling, Heinz-Christian Strache, “…praises Venezuela’s left-wing demagogue Hugo Chavez and, in his campaign rap “Viva HC!”, chants “Yes-We-Can” (in English), a reference to the campaign slogan of Barack Obama. That’s an odd choice given that Strache is urging that some African immigrants be deported. “Austria! First!” he sings, backed by an unsettling crowd chant. “Our Homeland! Our people! Our culture! Our language! Is what I stand for, HC Strache!”
Also like Country First? Nah…
September 20th, 2008 at 7:49 am
I will not defend more authoritarian practices, but HRW is often more vivid about regimes not allied with the US than with regimes allied with the US, at least since the 90s. AS HRW and Clinton and pals lined up to save Kosovars by making their situation worse, HRW practically ignored Kurds in Turkey.
So its more complex than Bob says…but on the point of Venezuela’s defense relationship with Russia, Venezuela has every reason to do so, from the point of view of realpolitik as well as genuine threats- ongoing threats documented widely – to Chavez’s government. This isn’t a blanket endorsement. This is fact. I too, however, like in any country, would prefer to see money going to actual “21st century socialism” than military buildup. But Chavez sees America funding coup attempts in Bolivia, you can pardon him for thinking he’s next.
September 20th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I’ll add I’m a grad student and I agree that undergrad lefties – I organize these people, for example – are really hotheaded about their leftism, as it were, but so what? I joke a lot that for them its everythign against the CIA (Capitalism Israel America)…not that I defend any of those three things, but people before they’ve developed a crtiical, materialist critique of the conjuncture, will often intrinsically take on ultra positions, and I say, good on them.
September 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Wanna bet that the lefties praising the “workers paradise” are going to vote for Obama?
In he who gets the last laugh department….
September 20th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Woody… No doubt the pro-chavez lefties will indeed vote for obama. Will you agree that KKK members will vote for McCain?
September 20th, 2008 at 8:49 am
So you’re a community organizer JC?
September 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Ku Klux Klan Endorses Obama
September 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am
The trouble with you, Cooper, is that you don’t even bother to respond to why the Venezuelan government expelled the 2 HRW’ers. A good reporter would at least take the trouble to do so, but then again you are nothing but a lap-dog for the bourgeois press, no matter what you were doing 37 years ago. Take a look at yourself, Dorian Gray.
September 20th, 2008 at 8:55 am
No I’m a union organizer. http://tao.ca/~cupe3903/web/
September 20th, 2008 at 9:00 am
And some context on the right wing – even neonazi CIA backed brigands and Franco-ites in Bolivia – see
http://i1.democracynow.org/2008/9/17/evo_morales_accuses_right_wing_governors
and others…
September 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Wrong again woody…
“Ku Klux Klan DOES NOT Endorse Barack Obama for President”
http://www.kkk.bz/
September 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
On Latin America one more thing…I saw Steven Soderbergh’s epic 2 part film “Che” with Benicio Del Toro, at the Toronto International Film Festival. A masterpiece, comparable with Lawrence of Arabia.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:06 am
I love how every single post that Marc does on Chavez brings out the loony defenders of the authoritarian ethic.
Ironic that today Hitchens has an article in the NYT quoting Orwell to the effect that it is not enough to be anti-fascist, one must be anti-totalitarian in principle as well. The hard left’s worst sin is that they do not understand this.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:10 am
That COHA piece is reprehensible and written from the point of view of a presupposition of American power being benign….and to Dan O – I am not defending authoritarian practices, merely contextualizing them. Chavez shouldn’t have done that to HRW. But NGOs have long been used- and this is copiously documented – by intelligence agencies to subvert countries.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Hitchens has no right nor reason to make that comment, defending what he’s defended (with weaselly anti-torture qualifications) over the last few years. He’s so full of shit that he spits brown.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:12 am
I repeat about the COHA piece…its written as if it was by Otto Reich in the 80s. What bullshit.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Cummings – I wasn’t really calling you out as much as Joe Smith.
I don’t want to beat the dread Hitchens horse here–god forbid–but I follow him pretty closely, and I don’t recall any sly defenses of torture, just the opposite actually. Of course, I may have missed something. Enlighten me.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Oh, I think I misread your “weaslly” comment. Sorry.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Bill, if you read my entire comment, you would see that I said that the KKK endorsement was a joke.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Woody, when I find something worth responding to you in your petty comments, I will. Until then it’s like scraping bubble gum off one’s shoe.
Joe Smith, revolutionary! In fact, you’re clandestine, afraid to use your real name. Why dont YOU tell us what the evil human rights workers were doing that merited their arrest. I didnt mention it because frankly I couldnt find it.
Cummings, old boy, perhaps you should consider temporary employment in McCain’s Spin Shop. Your penchant for guilt by association innuendo would get u far.
Would u care to substantiate how HRW has been, in your words, more “vivid” in denoucning left wing abuses rather than right wing? Or are u just making that up to justify your support for Chavez?
I also LOVED ur last wisecrack… quoting you now: “NGOs have long been used- and this is copiously documented – by intelligence agencies to subvert countries.”
Well, duh. Obviously true. Would u care to document how HRW has been used to help subvert Chavez, unless, of course you believe that reporting uncomfortable truths is subversive.
To be more serious, what a silly statement. Governments themselves stand way in the front of the line, way, way ahead of NGO’s in subverting other govrnments and more importantly in undermining their own societies. Which is worse; two nerdy NGO civlians wandering around Caracas with a notepad and a digital camera? Or spending hundreds of millions that could be invested in social infrastucture on useless submaries, russian plans and stockpiles of machine guns?
Please dont answer.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Marc -
In all honesty, where do you infer g-by-a in my writings. Context is not association. A good materialist should know that.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:33 am
I don’t “support” Chavez. In fact I think his model is flawed. But I support efforts to counter US hegemony. I don’t think I would be wrong in inferring that you prefer US hegemony, but that would by g by a.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Dont be coy, cummings. You say that HRW has been unbalanced in reporting left/right abuses. EVidence, please.
You say that hr groups are frequently used to subvert governments. That is guilt by association straight up, dude. Your implication is that HRW is, was, might be subverting Chavez. Evidence, please.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:37 am
And I’ll answer – as I thought I was clear – Marxc’s question. Obviously spending one’s petrodollars on a bloated military infrastructure is worse than nerdy NGO dogooders. I wasn’t AT ALL defending their arrest. I was trying to paint a backdrop of ongoing and documented efforts against left governments – widely reported in teh case of Bolivia – and how this may well be a determinate factor in Chavez’s increasingly bonapartist style.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I said nothing about left/right abuses. I said they are more vivid on abuses by regimes that oppose US hegemony than those that support it. The example of Kurds in Turkey vs. Kosovars in Serbia in teh 90s is well documented, as is the concentration on Darfur at the expense of Congo or Kenya. This isn’t a statement obviously of support for Sudan or Milosevic. It is merely pointing out that in getting these liberal organizations operate under a presupposition of benign US hegemony.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:58 am
cummings – Can I quibble? You often cite your claims about the world by asserting that they are “well documented.” This doesn’t really constitute proof of any kind of course, and is really a kind of wispy waving away of the need to actually make your case. It’s not convincing.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I’m not writing a seminar paper here. If you don’t believe my assertions, google them.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Cooper: Joe Smith, revolutionary! In fact, you’re clandestine, afraid to use your real name. Why dont YOU tell us what the evil human rights workers were doing that merited their arrest. I didnt mention it because frankly I couldnt find it.
—
Of course not. You don’t take the trouble to read anything that challenges your pro-imperialist mindset. Don’t you ever get tired of a steady diet of the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, NPR and Harry’s Place? You really are very narrow-minded despite your “leftist” pretensions. And my name is Joe Smith. My father John Smith gave me that name and my mom Mary approved of it.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Jesus, Joseph and Mary — Almost!
That’s right, kid. You nailed it perfectly. I’m a pro-imperialist running dog, uneducated, misled and propagandized by the LATimes and NPR…. and, oh yes, Harry’s Place. Right.
Not to worry, however. Ive made an appt with the doc and next Tuesday I’m skedded for the operation to have the Chomsky-Zinn Diode implanted in my neck. That should open up my mind a bit, no?
After you’ve wiped the froth from around your lips, you might get around to answering the intellectually dishonest question you asked me in the first place. Just exactly what horrible crime were the HRW people committing to merit their explusion? The world awaits your response, Mister Smith.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Hey Cummings, is Mister Smith one of your undergrads? He sure fits the profile!
September 20th, 2008 at 11:09 am
I understand, Marc. It’s sort of like me walking through here and having to scape dog mess off of my shoes with your new love of Obama posts and reg’s comments–all ignoring logic and consistency. At least I try to spray some disinfectant and sweet smells to it.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Just exactly what horrible crime were the HRW people committing to merit their explusion?
—
You’re the friggin’ professional journalist. That’s for you to research. The point I keep stressing is that you wrote a shitload of prose about the HRW being expelled without bothering to at least check out what Venezuela’s official position is. You make a mockery out of the journalism profession.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am
It seems the deportations were out of line.
I don’t know if we (the U.S.) have have any right, or credibility these days, criticizing others for how they manage their economy. Maybe it doesn’t matter, but Chavez is in office the result of what has been described as a fair election.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I see, Mister Smith, you have no answer. OK, kid. Watch ur tongue, meanwhile, or I’ll send you to cyber-Siberia
I know why they were expelled, dope. They were expelled because Chavez doesnt want any independent scrutiny of the abusive aspects of his government. If u have some different reason to provide, then put up. Or… um…. shut up.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Bill Anthony… Ive never been able to follow the sort of reasoning you suggest.. I dont know about you but I am capable of criticizing.. oh.. three. four, maybe seven or eight things at once. So, our government commits evil. That means you close your eyes to other evils? I would think Venezuelans deserve as much one’s concern for justice as would Americans.
———————— ———————————– ————-
As regular readers know, I rather sadistically return to the theme of Chavez and or Castro every now and then on this blog. Some have said I have an unhealthy obsession with them. No, not by a long shot. What I AM obsessed with is moral hypocrisy.
So whenever Im bored I put out a little bit of cheese and all the moral situations, much to my delight, come sniffing around it. Never fails.
We can’t criticize governments our government is hostile to.
We are for civil liberties and civil rights as long as we dont have to apply them to “anti-imperialist” regimes.
Human rights must be defended in Guantanamo but not across the fence in the rest of Cuba.
Elections must be crystal clear in Ohio but it’s OK if Chavez uses the state apparatus in his electoral favor.
We’re for freedom of the press and against censorship unless someone is censoring anti-revolutionary outlets.
Up is down.
As I’ve noed many many times before… back in the 80′s Gore Vidal would tour the country making a counter-state of the nation speech. He would begin by saying, more or less, “When I criticize America, everywhere I go, these right wingers come up to me and say ‘but it’s worse in Russia.’ I say, yes. And so what?” He was correct of course. And so is the inverse. Just how “bad” GW Bush is — and he’s pretty bad– is NO excuse whatsoever for the anti-democratic policies of the Castros or Chavez. Bye.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Cooper: They were expelled because Chavez doesnt want any independent scrutiny of the abusive aspects of his government.
—
That still does not answer my question. You are putting forward what you consider to be the “real” reason they were expelled, but can’t be bothered to track down the official reason. Even if you think the official reason is bogus, you still have an obligation as a journalist to *at least know what it is*. For example, the guy who blew up a Cuban passenger airliner was *really* let out because the US has been trying to topple the Cuban government since 1960, but I also know the official reason: that this terrorist would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in Venezuela that demanded his extradition.
That’s what journalists are expected to do, know both sides of the story. I guess the further you get in the sordid world of bourgeois journalism, the less important that is. Or perhaps you learn that the role of the journalist is pretty much to craft propaganda.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Joe Smith
There are ambiguities. A better way of defending any revolution, within the somewhat Rawlsian discursive framework that Marc is putting forward, is to grant the criticism and apply the same logic as you would across the board to all government actions that transgress “bourgeois freedoms” (sic) and THEN within that context, defend Chavez.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:43 am
And Joe – all governments lie, including those on our side.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I’m finished with Smith. Must, indeed, be an undergrad and I don’t want to cut any more into his much needed study time.
Cummings: I love this “the somewhat Rawlsian discursive framework.” I supervise 63 grad students. Thank God none of them speak like that!
Fight On, Trojans!
September 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
LOL
Different discipline, comrade.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
You supervise 63 dissertations?
September 20th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Heavens no. Im on 3-4 dissertations committees at a time. More than enough. And not all grad students do a thesis… many do reporting projects instead for the MA in journalism.
However, I run what is called the “homeroom” for the entire grad class in which the core themes of the curric are debated… y, know.. like What is Journalism and Why is There Air?
Of course, for the former, I need only get my marching orders from NPR.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Yeah we call that a “colloquium” or something. I didn’t realize how grad education in journalism worked.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Your point is well taken, poorly worded on my part, one certainly has the right to criticize Chavez.
Deporting the human rights workers was wrong. How Venezuela organizes their economy, including their spending priorities is their own damn business.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
The key to Hugo Chavez’ success in maintaining power: “Drill, baby, drill!”
September 20th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The key to Hugo Chavez’ success in maintaining power: “Drill, baby, drill!”
guilt by association… Chavez and the Republicans want to drill? Is this commenter for real or is he this blogs resident troll?
September 20th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
[...] Cooper Commits Calumny, Criticizes Comrade The CIA’s Marc Cooper is at it again, covering for the crimes of capital. Hugo Chavez, a member of the revolutionary vanguard, and [...]
September 20th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
hi Marc,
A very interesting formulation, “As usual, the American left remains silent on these sort of hiccups.” Since you have spoken out, I guess that makes it clear you aren’t part of the “left” (whatever that may be. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, orthodox definition of political positions have been jettisoned these past eight years.) Of course, since you’ve identified yourself as a Zionist, you clearly can’t be much of a leftist. (Zionism, of course, is the Jewish version of the KKK–although Zionism has achieved things the KKK can only dream of.)
But enough digressions and back to the main event. Was Chavez wrong to expel the HRW staffers? Absolutely. As the dictum goes, the more you exercise your power, the weaker you get. Chavez shows his pettiness and weakness.
Of course, since the USA has already tried and failed to overthrow Chavez three times now (the coup, the oil strike, and the referendum) we can perhaps place his paranoia in context. I’m not in the least excusing this despicable action on his part, just pointing out the fact when the Superpower Terrorist Bush has you in his gunsights (literally) you might get jumpy. Should Chavez do better? Absolutely. Should he apologize and invite the HRW folks back? Definitely.
While I agree with the main thrust of your analysis, you seem to have this perpetual hard-on for hating on Chavez. Most of the things you criticize Chavez for are perfectly justified. But do his transgressions rise to the level of Bush? Is he doing anything whatsoever that’s praiseworthy? What about the near-universal health care plan he’s implemented? Sure, we might criticize that on the basis of the 11,000 Cuban doctors serving under coercion. There’s always a plus and a minus.
So Marc, if you’ve gotten this far, answer this: On the whole, has Chavez been better or worse for Venezuela than the previous regimes? Is there anything whatsoever admirable in the fact that he’s foiled three Bush Junta™ attempts to overthrow him? I agree with much of your Chavez critique, but find that you’re not willing to recognize much, if anything, of what he’s accomplished on the positive side.
All the best from NOLA!
September 20th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
JQP ? or GMR ?
September 20th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
God do I fucking love this thread. Politics really can be fun!
September 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“What is Journalism and Why is There Air?”
Ha!
(This semester I feel like I’m teaching exactktthat for undergrads—particularly the air part.)
Sorry. Have nothing interesting to say about Hugo.
Carry on.
September 20th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
make that “exactly.”
September 20th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Maybe Marc’s journalism seminar can tackle this question for the mediocre media:
Is it finally OK to say Reaganomics failed?
September 20th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Nice turn there, professor COoper.
Thought ya were going to have a zinger along those lines…
The market follies had me nose to the grindstone all week. Grim week for Mc. So sad.
So ya uncork this fooking Chavez (nut) post thingy and a dinner party from Doris Lessing’s The Good Terrorist breaks out.
To yer health, jc.
’bout o’ Hugo, I’ll go with what comes to me at first blush and redirect an Eric Idle, “Not the Messiah (He’s a Very Naughty Boy).”
Do love the left, though…
’bout dinner time — so here’s a shameless plug for the coolest of Los Angeles, the 15th City District.
http://www.lobsterfest.com/
Thanks, Janice.
September 20th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
bunkerbuster…
only if you acknowledge that deregulation began under Carter, and even championed by Ted Kennedy.
September 20th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Shit, I miss grad school.
September 21st, 2008 at 12:46 am
The bailout is another Bush administration scam…
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/no-deal/
God help the congressional Dems if they blindly go along with this shit…again.
September 21st, 2008 at 1:19 am
I think it’s fair to say now – three weeks later – that McCain obviously made a disastrous Veep choice to help him ride out September and October of 2008…
September 21st, 2008 at 3:21 am
The credit collapse was not caused by banking deregulation.
Sub-prime lending and CDOs would have been perfectly legal under pre-1995 banking rules. In fact, mortgage securitization was pioneered in the 1980s and successfully lowered the cost of borrowing for homeowners for more than two decades, with nary a default.
The latest bubble was the result of massive, prolonged overborrowing by individuals and investment banks. That was enabled by Alan Greenspan’s decision to hold interest rates at artificially low levels for several years.
Cheap mortagages made expensive property look too good to pass up to millions of Americans who simply couldn’t imagine a scenario in which interest rates rose at exactly the same moment property values declined.
Sure, the spreading of mortgage liabilities far and wide through the financial system and the mis-rating of those liabilities as AAA added to the problems once the bubble burst, but those circumstances didn’t cause it.
This particular bubble is very unlikely to happen again in our lifetimes because the financial pain will be intense and long-lasting.
The myth that home prices only move one way — up — has been dramatically shattered. Few borrowers will still be naive enough to take on mortgages that will bankrupt them if rates and prices swing the wrong way.
Remember, this all started with a surge in mortgage defaults that was bigger and longer than anyone had predicted. Deregulation could not have caused that.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:29 am
And as for the Palin choice, I agree that it was disastrous for the country and for the level of political debate, but from a strictly tactical point of view, I don’t see how McCain could have done any better.
The polls show a clear swing in favor of McCain after Palin’s selection. Does anyone believe nominated Lieberman would have achieved the same or better?
Sure, now that Palin’s celebrity is wearing off and the news media aren’t all Sarah all the time, her benefit is fading. And all the dirt that’s been dug up about her is starting to stick. But still, she’d have to cause a nearly double digit drop in McCain’s poll numbers to even bring him back to where he was before she was nominated.
I have a feeling her debate is going to be a lot like GW Bush versus Al Gore. She’ll get a few things right and a lot of things wrong, and come off as doltish, but likeable and thereby “win” against Biden, who will attempt to give nuanced yet overbroad responses and will, inevitably, be portrayed as “smarty pants.”
Or maybe Biden will surprise us all and refuse to get caught up in that and instead take a chain saw to John McCain’s and George W. Bush’s positions, while referring to Palin with nothing but deference…
September 21st, 2008 at 5:10 am
Good comments BB.
I am not sure when it became legal to offer No Doc loans, or if it were ever illegal for to be stupid with your own money as a lender, but I would hope you would agree something is very sick in our basic financial structure when mortgage brokers are able to find a market for loans made with no collateral, low or no down-payment, and no evidence what so ever the client is able to pay it back.
Advertising NO DOC loans alone implicitly encourages those who cannot afford a loan to ‘go ahead and lie on the loan app cause we won’t be checking’. It is crazy. Who is putting up the money for these loans the ordinary person like you or I would never put up the money for?
The mortgage broker puts up no money or collateral themselves, likely shops for a high property appraiser who carries no risk either for a bad appraisal, then walks away with 2 to 4 percent of a $400,000 loan with apparently no responsiblilty whatsoever when a clearly badly made loan defaults.
Anytime you have people making loans using other peoples money with not only no risk to their own money but actually making money on bad loans, the system is sick at its root, and it was not fixed when exactly the same thing occurred in 1989. Be bailed out banks and got nothing in return to prevent it.
I don’t know about you, but I want heads on a platter before handing out more money. I want the SEC’s. I want Fannie and Freddie’s. I want those who lied on loans prosecuted. I want financial executives who sold their stock up to 1 year or move before their companies failed prosecuted for insider trading. I want campaign contributions, jobs after leaving, and jobs for family members made illegal for any Congressman serving on a committee that oversees the source of those contributions and jobs.
I want something in return for my involuntary risk this time. And Senator’s Dodd, Frank, and Obama, please shut up and sit down, You’ve done enough damage and we know who your working for. Your hands are the dirtyist in Congress.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:52 am
Most economists believe a decisive – among multidetermined factor was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act by Clinton.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:09 am
Yes JC. This was one big reason, and with one hell of alot of lobbying bribe money fed to our Congressman, and Greenspan’s approval, to get it passed.
Another was huge pressure on Mortgage lenders; Fannie and Freddie et al, to take on risky loans in order to put risky people into risky real estate.
Another was Greenspan keeping mortgage rates unusually low after 9/11 to stimulate the economy, then kept on stimulating way past the need for it.
What happens when you have more competition(risky home buyers) made available by Congressman, and artificially low interest rates made available by the Fed, and mortgage securities(oh the irony) being packaged and sold on the Stock Market made legal by the removal of Glass-Steagall(originally passed after 1929 Stock Crash largely caused by stock/bank mortgage mixing)? Home prices skyrocketed, which did not help those intended to helped to begin with, and mortgage quality plummeted causing a crisis.
Mortgage brokers, financial executives, and gov’t clowns walk away with their booty all in tack. They took the risks, we are being forced to bear their responsibility……again. Disgusting!
September 21st, 2008 at 8:13 am
that would be “to get it(glass-steagall) repealed.”
September 21st, 2008 at 8:35 am
But – pace BB – you can’t separate the current crisis from neoliberalism and its ideology of deregulation – which did indeed start under Carter. Nothing BB or you say is not salient, but it doesn’t take into account the fact – agreed upon even by Hayek, let alone Marx, that capitalism is – naturally – prone to crisis, and the mroe freedom that capitalism is given – from deregulation to repealing Glass Steagall – the more serious will be the crisis.
I think Robert Pollin’s Contours of Descent and Robert Brenners The Boom and The Bubble should be read with itnerest on this point, David Harvey’s work, even folks like Robert Kuttner were predicting this years ago.
September 21st, 2008 at 8:36 am
Jim R and I making sense?
It must be crisis!
Gore Vidal described our current conjuncture back in the 60s “Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor”
September 21st, 2008 at 8:40 am
http://www.newsocialist.org/index.php?id=1636
September 21st, 2008 at 8:41 am
I will not defend more authoritarian practices, but HRW is often more vivid about regimes not allied with the US than with regimes allied with the US, at least since the 90s.
Keep that knee jerking. Here’s Álvaro Uribe, George Bush’s bff (and probably only friend) in Latin America on Vivanco:
I’m not writing a seminar paper here. If you don’t believe my assertions, google them.
Actually, as I often comment to Woody, if you make the assertions, provide evidence for them.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:11 am
Thanks Randy…
Next time I’m in a room with a few of the most important living political economists, as I often am, I’ll be sure to cite every point I make in a seminar discussion.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am
And I’m sure that when they question you, your response is, “If you don’t believe my assertions, google them.”
One wonders if the PhD you’re aworking on stands for piled high and deep.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
bb – McCain is stumbling and fumbling and swinging wildly in his “economic” analysis. Palin is increasingly inchorent in talking about issues. As reality checks in, McCain would have looked like a far better bet if he’d had even a guy like Romney – who has managed a couple of complex entities – on his ticket than running with the lady who won a contest.
Also, look at the economic heavyweights Obama gathers in the midst of this crisis and the deliberative approach he’s taken (along with the populist rhetoric.) I’m not a fan of all of these guys, but it looks precisely like the “presidential” move, while McCain attempts to rewrite his record, is still running away from chief economics guru “Foreclosure” Phil Gramm, makes totally contradictory statements on successive days, blusters about firing Cox when he couldn’t (and ascribing the blame to Cox is a joke), and hehas Etz-Holkin out there as his economic mouthpiece – the genius who just last week claimed that John McCain “created” the Blackberry. The McCain campaign is a wreck. A big mistake was losing the respect of key media players with the Palin choice. He’s got no backup butt buddies anymore after years of free passes from the press.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:44 am
Marc had better take “s0cialist” off of the “bad words block” list or there’ll be no way for conservatives to attack…the Bush administration. Let’s call this the “Jim R” exception…
September 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am
No, pal.
I am deferred to, considering the position I am in in the first place. I am not around liberals who feel threatened by radical conclusions and profoundly different epistemology as to how the world works.
And yes, my PHD is piled high and deep.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am
And there is usually someone – often myself -with a laptop – and in seminars google is often used.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:03 am
I am not trying to argue, as I’m busy with working on a synthesis of various theories of transition, but my point is that in the context of discussion with people who defer to one another even with manifold plausible interpretations of facts (And the very notion of “truth value”) – whether its a blog comments area or a seminar on Neo-Gramscian Approaches to World Order, no one has to have a pile of texts to cite their arguments. If an argument stinks, someone will call you on it…but I challenge you – empirically – to dispute any of the points I’ve made iwthin thecontext of this discussion. One counter-example involving the fascist Uribe does not disprove my broad contention about Human Rights Watch. Further, I was and am critical of the more Peronist fraction of the Bolivarians who pushed Chavez into making this dreadful decision.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am
jcummings: “I’m in a room with a few of the most important living political economists…”
Now I’m scared.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:07 am
I couldn’t get the link to post through “moderation” or whatever, so I’m going to past this email that TalkLeft got it’s hand on from a very teed off congressman. (I think Jim R might even approve.)We need more like this in the coming week:
Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can’t be any “add ons,” or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don’t really want to trigger a world wide depression (that’s not hyperbole, that’s a distinct possibility), but I’m not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.
Nancy said she wanted to include the second “stimulus” package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don’t want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.
Henry Waxman has suggested corporate government reforms, including CEO compensation, as the price for this. Some members have publicly suggested allowing modification of mortgages in bankruptcy, and the House Judiciary Committee staff is also very interested in that. That’s a real possibility.
We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which hasn’t budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill. There are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work out before next week.
I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.
I’m open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them. (end email)
September 21st, 2008 at 10:14 am
oops – that was from “OpenLeft”
September 21st, 2008 at 10:32 am
S0cialist is becoming a less bad word to me after being shell shocked every decade under uncontrolled capitalism.
“blusters about firing Cox when he couldn’t (and ascribing the blame to Cox is a joke).”
The President can fire cox, and he should reg. McCain is saying he would if he were.
McCain wasn’t ascribing ALL the blame to Cox silly. But it is a good start, and yes Cox had power to do certain things in the market, that he has now belatedly done to help, A stop to short selling and investigation of stock sales records looking for illegal abuses are two. Two little and too late.
Greenspan is another one that needed firing. He was warned by more than one economist of the dangers going on in the market place with low interest rates and no-doc loaning.
They will all be fired Nov 4. McCain has long record of kicking ass and taking names in both parties. Obama has a short record of kissing ass and taking money whereever offered.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am
Oh, and you know how it hurts my feelings reg when you take my name in vain.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:49 am
Jim – you’re delusional regarding McCain. His campaign is being run by lobbyists who have been in on this gravy train from day one. McCain is a joke. The John McCain who lives in your imagination died, if he ever existed. He also is proving himself utterly incompetent in even discussing this situation. How can anyone who made “Foreclosure” Phil his campaign chairman and chief economics advisor be considered anything remotely resembling a “maverick” – McCain is almost as vapid as Palin not that he’s being forced to play in the big leagues with his nostrums, cliches and ridiculous notions actually being given a reality check.
BushCo wants $700 billion handed over with this “overisght”:
“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
September 21st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Yes I agree with all of your last post reg. But I don’t want to be one of the holders of the sons-of-bitches. I want to be one of the beaters…..on the condition the sons-of-bitches include all the Congressmen on the Banking Committees who took money from the other sons-of-bitches. Oh,that would be all of them I guess. Good! (rubs hands gleefully)
September 21st, 2008 at 10:56 am
that would now be “I agree with all of your next to last post reg”
We have dualing posts going on. You win.
September 21st, 2008 at 10:57 am
Jim – Cox can be fired for “cause”, in which case the entire administration should be fired. There is zero evidence that Cox committed any “malfeasance” or “incompetence” that wasn’t part of this administration’s general policies in regards to the markets he oversaw. This is the height of hypocrisy and cheap scapegoating – which is about all McCain’s got left.
McCain is in a meltdown – even George Will expressed some serious reservations regarding McCain’s putting his “personality” on display, with all of its flaws and inadequacies. The notion that this guy, post-Palin and post-Wall St. crisis, has even an ounce of “presidential” temperment, intellect or analytical competence in him is preposterous. Obama can gather nearly all of the big boys together and speak with authority in the midst of this mess. McCain can’t even manage his soundbites.
“When you’ve lived in a box….”
September 21st, 2008 at 11:08 am
Jim R…I am imagining you singing Amazing Grace.
September 21st, 2008 at 11:09 am
I’ll give you this, Jim R – the “Clinton Democrats” are entirely complicit at one end of this. But the big difference I see between the GOP and the Dems is that, while the Dems are as prone to over-reach and narrow-guage selection of “interests” as anyone else in the Beltway circus, they aren’t inherently hampered by an obsolete and dogmatic ideology of de-regulation or delusions that markets are simply “free” and that government is always the problem. Government can be a big problem at times, but I don’t see any arguing with the fundamental economic philosophy of, say, a Paul Krugman who looks at the entire construct critically and pragmatically, as opposed to a Phil Gramm who spouts cliches that mask an essentially corrupt operational stance as a shill for the banking industries. That said, I think that – as an example – two guys who I generally respect – Dodd and Biden – have also besmirched themselves when they’ve acted primarily as representatives of home-state industries rather than responsible servants of the larger public interest. McCain’s biggest problem is that he’s essentialy a know-nothing on the economy who is purely reactive or gloms on to any crap idea that the conservative establishment serves up, like Social Security privatization or his truly nonsensical approach to health care “reform.” He’s just out of his depth when it comes to serious stuff – including national security. His “surge” fetish demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of either the actual political and military situation in Iraq and a chickenshit avoidance of looking long and hard at what he gleefully stepped in. (Anyone who was urging an invasion of Iraq 3-4 days after 9/11 is certifiably a nutcase you don’t want near any buttons.)
But hey, “When you’ve lived in a box…” as manly Fred Thompson so magnificently intoned at the RNC…
September 21st, 2008 at 11:15 am
Folks, before we go off half-cocked, keep this thing in perspective: $700+ Billion is only about 80 times the $9 billion in petty cash the Bush administration lost track of when they were handing out stacks of paper dollars to all comers in Baghdad a few years ago.
Worst. Administration. Ever.
September 21st, 2008 at 11:54 am
I’m convinced this “Paulson Administration” economy bomb will be looked back at very much the way we look at the “WMD’s – Mushroom Cloud Imminent” rush to war in Iraq if Congress just acts like sheep, asking for a couple of cosmetic adjustments.
Here’s some commentary with more perspective than we’re likely to see coming from the “public servants” ensconced in the Beltway:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014812.php
September 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
“Anyone who was urging an invasion of Iraq 3-4 days after 9/11 is certifiably a nutcase you don’t want near any buttons.”
Uh, it was accepted policy by the Clinton Administration that a Saddam regime must be toppled. It’s on tape, including Biden saying it.
Given that, and 9/11 with troops already deployed in the region, and the unknown chance this crazy SOB would pass bio weapons to the other crazy SOB, was good enough for me. The execution has executed the Bush Admin.
“I am imagining you singing Amazing Grace”
Yes JC. You and I together in harmony, singing and believing the words of that old hymn. Another soul saved….and potential rightwing nut for our camp. Glory!
September 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Reg and others: since you seemed to like my Malkin link from a few days ago, I thought you would enjoy the following from Patterico, written by one of his co-authors.
http://patterico.com/2008/09/21/challenging-times-for-free-market-advocates/
September 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Jim R: “It is a good start, and yes Cox had power to do certain things in the market, that he has now belatedly done to help, A stop to short selling and investigation of stock sales records looking for illegal abuses are two.”
I’m not convinced that short-sellers are the problem.
September 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Uh, it was accepted policy by the Clinton Administration that a Saddam regime must be toppled. It’s on tape, including Biden saying it.”
That’s why Clinton launched a land invasion of Iraq.
Jim – check into the real world when you discuss this stuff. Just because Chalabi was running a game in DC lining up nutcases from McCain to Lieberman to advocate for using US resources to do his job for him doesn’t make the Clintonites as irresponsible, impulsive and incompetent as BushCo, despite what was “on the record.”
You guys need to take responsibility for your craziness. “It’s Clinton’s fault – and Biden’s – they made us do it” is pretty weak stuff from supposedly grown men. I think Biden blew it voting for the war, but even at that point he demonstrated a much more measured skeptical approach than the crackpots and neo-con hacks like McCain and Lieberman. You should have had a job editing the old Soviet Encyclopedia, with those revisionist skills.
September 21st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I am more concerned with the events in Mexico, than far off Venezuela.
http://borderreporter.com/
“Look at these headlines from the past month: murderous grenade attacks on innocents, 30 beheadings in a single week, battalions large enough to overwhelm 24 men and meticulously put them down, cruising around Mexico. “
September 21st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
That was me lenny.
A standing Military is a countries Defense. Where elected politicians agree to use it, for example Afganistan, is considered a defense. NATO’s mutual defense and all that you know.
I lump parochial schools in with Education. It is long traditional and an important component to public education.
I did fail to address ten-percenters I see. I didn’t know what it meant.
Peace
September 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Ignore the above comment. Left over from another thread.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Sorry, but repeal of the Glass-Steagal act has almost nothing to do with the current crisis.
As I explained, investment banks have been securitizing mortgages, i.e. creating CMOs, CDOs, etc, since the mid-1980s, well before the banking reforms of 1995.
Nor did deregulation suddenly make it legal to write mortgages without documentation from the borrower.
These practices were driven by an inflamed consumerist culture and a prolonged period of artificially low interest rates, held down as a favor to George W. Bush, with zero objection from any public figures.
One could also point a finger at credit rating agencies. They operate with an inherent conflict of interest, which is that they collect fees from the originators of securities they are rating. They were happily stamping AAA on the highest tranches of all manner of CDOs and it turns out they were wrong, the securities were far riskier than that.
And then there’s some blame as well for the financial press and publicity machine. Credit derivatives, along with CDOs, boomed and were hailed far and wide as spectacular financial innovations — indeed the products of wizards and wunderkind.
The errant voices, such as that of Nicholas Taleb, author of “Fooled by Randomness” were shunted aside in the crescendo of gladhanding about all the money that was pouring forth.
Taleb predicted the collapse early on, but not by foreseeing a bad result for deregulation. Rather, he spotted the inadequacy of the value at risk model, which is what every investment bank uses to guage its level of risk.
Because this model is based on crunching numbers from the past, it is infected by survivorship bias and cannot account for the freak occurence or “Black Swan.”
So investment banks were confident in gearing up their leverage higher and higher, as long as their value at risk remained at acceptable levels.
What they didn’t do was test their model against a scenario in which interest rates surged simultaneously with a decline in home and commercial real estate prices over a prolonged period.
It was more a case of investment banks hoodwinking each other than pulling the wool over the public’s eyes.
As for the result of the current bailout, we needn’t rely only on hypotheticals. Similar rescues worked in Sweden in Japan, though in the latter case, the process was slow and the initial bailout required a more thorough-going follow up a few years later that got the job done.
In both cases, economic growth recovered along with lending.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
BB
There are dozens of people who are smarter than both of us who disagree with you, on both sides of the political spectrum. I can’t think of – after some googling any respected political economist who holds the view you cited above, outside of the busienss sheets.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
And even if you’re right, you’re still not problematizing capitalism in general. Capitalism is prone to crisis, no matter what form it takes.
September 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Is there anything positive about capitalism in your view JC?
How do you justify the huge differences in standard-of-living between capitalistic countries and communist ones?
Would you agree China’s move to capitalism is almost solely responsible for Chinese’s significant rise in standard of living.
Has a communist country ever freed a land they have occupied without huge pressure from capitalist ones, and hasn’t capitalist countries always done so without pressure?
Why do you love Castro?
September 21st, 2008 at 4:31 pm
What a President sounds like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZH_19Oa5gg
September 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio…
http://www.1001words.com/2008/09/obama-to-nation-im-outta-here.html
September 21st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I don’t know what you’re studying JC, but it surely isn’t economics.
Please note that the problems did not stem from financial diversification, which is what the changes to Glass-Steagal allowed. Neither Bear Stearns, nor Lehman, nor AIG were part of a commercial bank (the kind of agglomeration allowed by the 1999 banking reforms).
Citigroup, for example, is one such agglomeration, and it has so far weathered the crisis sans taxpayer help.
If Glass-Steagal had not been amended or “repealed,” Bank of America would not be allowed to take over Merrill Lynch.
And your claim, JC, that smart people agree with you is about as self-crucifying as your boasts about your IQ and quakademic credentials. More to the point, your claim is flat wrong. There are numerous notable economists who agree with me, or rather, I agree with them.
Brad Delong is one, for starters:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/106400/33527404
And there’s:
Glass-Steagall would not have prevented Wall Street’s aggressive move into complex, but risky financial instruments like credit derivatives, says Mercer University law professor David G. Oedel.
“There’s no question that the use of derivatives spread the problems in the sub-prime mortgage market,” Oedel said. “But I’m not thinking Glass-Steagall would have saved the day here. Credit derivatives and the securitization of loans would have occurred whether Glass-Steagall was up or down.”
http://www.dealwatchblog.com/post/2008/09/Lawyers-say-repeal-of-Glass-Steagall-isnt-to-blame-for-Wall-Street-woes.aspx
And so on and so forth. You may want to revise your Google skills, JC. I found this stuff in 5 minutes flat and I’d wager there’s a lot more where it came from.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
If an argument stinks, someone will call you on it…but I challenge you – empirically – to dispute any of the points I’ve made iwthin thecontext of this discussion.
You obviously snoozed through Logic 101. You are making the assumption that you have proven anything, when in fact, all you have done is make an unsupported claim. It is not up to me to make the effort to prove you wrong, given the fact that you have proven nothing.
One counter-example involving the fascist Uribe does not disprove my broad contention about Human Rights Watch.
It is 100% more than anything you have offered as proof for your claims.
Just for the record, some time ago you made a comment claiming that Juan Cole had supported the Iraq War early on. I disagreed and you provided a link that confirmed your claim. My response: “I stand corrected.” All that incident confirmed was the following:
1.) It’s not hard to prove a claim, if it is indeed provable.
2.) When presented with proof, I will gladly acknowledge that I am incorrect.
So in summary, you present a position and when asked for proof, rather than offer one scintilla of proof, insist that others disprove you. I’ll let others judge whether you’re being reasonable or tendentious.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
2 words for the rest of the evening: Mad Men!
September 21st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
It’s a re-run.
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 am
I’m studying political economy, which yes, eschews the neo-classical bullshit you’re spewing. There are certainly differences of opinion and method, and particularly presuppositiosn. I think you take Brad DeLong out of context. I heard him on Doug Henwood’s show bitching about the repeallign of Glass-Steagall. Perhaps its multi-determined, and causation is overdetermined. In the last instance, you approach from a presupposition which naturalizes capitalism, quote capitalist economists, and of course, get your hogwash.
I’m going to organize security guards and support staff.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:14 am
Dont be coy, cummings. You say that HRW has been unbalanced in reporting left/right abuses. EVidence, please.
Time for a thought experiment: Jcummings drowns kittens. Prove me wrong.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
>accepted policy by the Clinton
>Administration that a Saddam
>regime must be toppled. It’s on
>tape, including Biden saying it.
there’s a big space between “let’s organize a coup and have the SOB assassinated” and “let’s invade the country, set up a sectarian civil war so we can divide and conquer, and hand out the oil fields to our campaign donors”
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I’m with reg on Mad Men. I never thought I’d enjoy TV after the onion ring scene…
RP….I really think that people who demand I prove my points here in a fucking blog comments area feel threatened by me. I have no evidence otherwise, and I’m fine by applying the same callous attitiude towards you as you do to me. I had a 12 hour day of serious inquiry and political organizing. Whatever can be said about my beliefs, I actually implement them, both theoretically and practically.
I respect Human Rights Watch. I think most of what they do is good. That being said, they are simply able, by own analysis, and by that of Jean Bricmont, Samir Amin and others who have written on the issue, that the focus of their work enables them to command more resources and or media attention and or fundraising by virtue of their work highlighting human rights abuses in regimes – despicable as they may be – that oppose US policy than in regimes that don’t. My evidence is not based on vulgar empiricism but on a close reading of their 2007 report, as well as commentary by Jean Bricmont, Amin, Michael Mandel (one of the most respect human rights lawyers in the world) and others. I’d be glad, if you are really interested to send you a variety of analyses that support my contention, but it comes down to an ontological difference, in that empiricist that you are, you demand “quantifiable” social scientific data, while I look at the balance of forces, looking at more how information is used and controlled than the information itself. So by the numbers, by your liberal logic, yes, you can’t prove what I’m saying . But by coming from a specific standpoint different than the dominant western cartesian liberal logic, i.e. a standpoint of class struggle, of opposing your system, then my analyses- which are indeed objective given the first principle of history being that of class struggle, historical materialism, as it were – will go straight over your liberal cartesian dualist head.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
And I get paid to do what I like, and even to fight the system.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
How do you justify the huge differences in standard-of-living between capitalistic countries and communist ones?
There are not communist countries. Non-capitalist countries during the cold war had a variety of standards of living – and it certainly was higher in the GDR than in Burundi. That said, it is impossible to prove whether or not a post-capitalist system can work since capital is totalizing – i.e. the Soviets still had to sell their diamonds on the international market dictated by capitalist values. I’m not a Trotskyist, but I think he was right when he asserted that you can’t have socialism in one country. Socialism must be international.
Social Democracies, on the other hand, have a far higher standard of living than laissez faire countries like the U.S. And China sucked no matter what economic system they’ve had since the cultural revolution, but there’s more poverty now than in mao’s time.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:18 pm
“I really think that people who demand I prove my points here in a fucking blog comments area feel threatened by me.”
1) Um, no.
2) See #1.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Randy – I’m almost embarrassed to admit I was mostly referring to my hope that Mad Men ran the Emmys last night. I think they did pretty well – Best dramatic series and some other stuff. I know the Emmys are a joke and the show sucks, but this will help draw a larger audience, I hope.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Any show that includes a reading from The Port Huron Statement in a Manhattan ad agency meeting circa 1962-63 gets my attention.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
reg
The show is clearly based on Tom Frank’s great book the Conquest of Cool…check it out.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
RP….I really think that people who demand I prove my points here in a fucking blog comments area feel threatened by me.
Don’t flatter yourself. You’ve proven nothing.
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
But by coming from a specific standpoint different than the dominant western cartesian liberal logic, i.e. a standpoint of class struggle, of opposing your system, then my analyses- which are indeed objective given the first principle of history being that of class struggle, historical materialism, as it were – will go straight over your liberal cartesian dualist head.
Shorter cummings: I’m going to pretend like I have an answer, but in fact, I really don’t I’ll just hurl an insult your way and go on pretending that I don’t have to prove anything, but you have to prove a negative.
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
I guess we’ve proven own points to ourselves. Ontological difference.
I did point you in a direction to prove my point but since my point – I repeat – is based on analysis and how it is possible to read the activitiy of neutral liberal ngos.
September 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
liberal cartesian dualist is no more of an insult than socialist marxist dialectician.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:20 am
Saying something goes straight over one’s head, does. BTW, as someone who has a non-academic job, I spend most of my time solving problems. My approach is about 90% oriented towards a dialectical analysis of the problem at hand.
I did point you in a direction to prove my point but since my point – I repeat – is based on analysis and how it is possible to read the activitiy of neutral liberal ngos.
Actually, you dropped some names. As for empiricism being vulgar, it is only so in the sense of being common, but it is the basis for science, medicine and the law among other disciplines. Somehow I don’t think that is a negative.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
jc never disappoints. Let’s do some of that close reading he likes, Randy: “you demand ‘quantifiable’ social scientific data”–in other words, empirical information. jc looks at the “balance of forces” based on the “objective” “first principle of historical struggle.” (I’m using the quotes not as scare quotes but as direct jc quotes–I’m not as handy posting things as y’all are.)
Hmm. I think that’s exactly what Bush et al. did in getting us into Iraq. Actual information doesn’t matter, because the objective first principle (for jc, class struggle, for Bush, freedom) has already decided upon.
I would worry about jc except his continual alienation of everybody pretty much assures he’ll never have any power. (Woody too.)
Thanks Randy!
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 am
Damn. That’s “has already been decided upon” to close my second graph.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:21 am
gnebel:
My pleasure. “Truthiness” is bipartisan.
September 24th, 2008 at 8:13 am
I didn’t say empiricism was vulgar…god no. I meant vulgar in the sense of reductionism.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I took it to mean vulgar in the sense of being common.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Its a term of art, so to speak – vulgar as in when someone simply explains EVERYTHING by virtue of a particularly mode of analysis…vulgar marxism would be simply reductionist thinking that reduces all human phenomena to “base and superstructure” etc.