With all that's going on--I really ought to be blogging more. But grad school and work demands are strong. And when they aren't demanding, someone else is.
After reading the article in Today's New York Times about the next big wave of the fiscal crisis hitting--that is the credit-card crisis. I can't help but feel a little validated. I've been writing letters to the editor, letters to Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, the Times, and an assortment of websites and blogs about this topic. I call it the Cell-Sell Phenomena.
I didn't buy my first cell-phone. My parents got it for me because they could never get a hold of me. Either I was in class, rehearsal, meetings, or just not returning their calls. You can see the allure, put the thing in the boy's pocket, and let maternal guilt do the rest. By and large it worked.
When I moved to the Big Apple two years later, I learned a most amazing thing. Verizon 'owed' me a phone. This was literally something for nothing. I couldn't believe it. I took the opportunity and got a fancy new phone. And signed up my parents for another three year contract at a higher rate. Ooops.
Even so, here in New York, I kept seeing people with fancy phones. Brand new phones. People I knew, had a new phone every six months or so. Some had purchased them off Amazon, or Craigslist, or eBay. But I never understood it. Unless you've been on your plan for at least six months, you have to pay outright for a new phone. $100 to $300 dollars. If your phone broke, they'd replace it. For free. So who needed to buy phones that often?
You see the same thing with the iPod. A new release per year. We all assume that the technogeeks go out and get the latest and greatest, but when I see the dishwasher at my old restaurant sporting an iPhone, I have to wonder what's going on? This is the Cell-Sell phenemenon. The likelihood, that you or someone you know, is buying new consumer goods for no other reason than to have the latest technology in your pocket. I try not to reproach the sexier half of the populace, but I think that they are equally responsibile for this alarming trend. Fashion is notorious for replacing perfectly good clothing every season. It's ridiculous. Furthermore, and I fully admit this is sexist, but the propensity of women talking on the phone certainly made the Cell-Sell revolution occur much quicker. But there was one other thing, and this unlike women, fashion and cell-phones, is fairly well documented: People are buying these luxury items on credit.
Here's the thing: When I grew up, you used a thing until it broke. If the cost of repairing it was significantly cheaper than the cost of buying a new one, then and only then did you buy it. Think about the refrigerator. That is not an item you replace every year. And it costs a lot. But as tech prices have come down, and technology is cheaper here in the States than it is almost everywhere else. So you don't need a new phone, but it's so easy to get one, so why not? For years I've felt like a cranky hermit, wearing my T-shirts until they're threadbare, keeping my CRT monitor until it felt like even the mice in my building had thinscreens.
Whose laughing now? Whose laughing now!!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
I Had my First Centrist Thought Today
And I got a chill...
So, as you know, I just finished reading the Power of the Vote by Doug Schoen. Doug Schoen, for those of you haven't been following along is the political pollster of Penn, Schoen & Berland, the Democratic political polling and strategy outfit that advised, Koch, Clinton, Corzine and Bloomberg.
He makes a lot of points in the closing chapter about how Democrats should position themselves in the 2008 race. This book was written before the race started, and makes no mention of Obama or HC. One of them that actually makes sense to me is this: Doug is a centrist. And he feels that one reason the Dems lost touch with the electorate is that they failed to appeal to the middle class. The Dems had considered their base the lowerclasses and so their messages had been spun toward them. In fact, he claims that the middle class does not identify with messages of public welfare at all. And why not, under the tax schematic of the last ten years, the middleclass has paid for the brunt of welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid. It doesn't matter that these services are there for them if they fall below the line. But I think that this will matter more now. For ten long years the Middle has strove to hang on, with wages actually slipping below the rate of inflation. And they've done it by living on good credit. With the mortgage meltdown--those turkeys are coming home to roost. Troubled banks are calling in their loans, trying to raise capital for their mistakes, forcing more and more people in the economic median to the edges. Regardless, the middleclass doesn't consider itself the lowerclass. In fact, they pride themselves on where they are. They're educated, extremely hardworking, and feel themselves to be positive roll models for their children. They don't want a handout, but they do want help. They want more of their own income. They want help repaying their loans--they don't like to be in debt and are not necessarily comfortable with it. So when Doug Schoen says the Dems have to position themselves for this, he makes a sound point. The Democrats have to be the party of fiscal responsibility. That means promising a balanced budget, but it doesn't mean wealth redistrubition.
That was my big centrist thought. When I read an article about the convention this morning, and I heard those sorts of ideas being bandied about, it suddenly occurred to me that the man is absolutely right. Look--I hate the fact that certain executives live in an entire different stratosphere from the rest of us. But can I really espouse taking their money away? Well--in some cases I can. The Bush tax cuts NEED to go. And the Clinton tax, needs to be made stronger to help the middle and not shield the uberrich. However, in general, I want to make money too. It's a betting against the house, I know, but in every American there is that seed of hope that one day, they might make it to that top 1%. People revere Warren Beatty, and Mike Bloomberg like they're some sort of god. This is the convoluted logic that the Republicans have relied on for years. You and your spouse can bring in under 50Gs together, but if you work hard, and believe in the American Dream, you too can live like a King. And the unbelievable credit market showed that it could indeed happen to a guy like you. And now its gone.
The populist rhetoric is important to me--but appealing to the middleclass is of the highest importance for this race.
So, as you know, I just finished reading the Power of the Vote by Doug Schoen. Doug Schoen, for those of you haven't been following along is the political pollster of Penn, Schoen & Berland, the Democratic political polling and strategy outfit that advised, Koch, Clinton, Corzine and Bloomberg.
He makes a lot of points in the closing chapter about how Democrats should position themselves in the 2008 race. This book was written before the race started, and makes no mention of Obama or HC. One of them that actually makes sense to me is this: Doug is a centrist. And he feels that one reason the Dems lost touch with the electorate is that they failed to appeal to the middle class. The Dems had considered their base the lowerclasses and so their messages had been spun toward them. In fact, he claims that the middle class does not identify with messages of public welfare at all. And why not, under the tax schematic of the last ten years, the middleclass has paid for the brunt of welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid. It doesn't matter that these services are there for them if they fall below the line. But I think that this will matter more now. For ten long years the Middle has strove to hang on, with wages actually slipping below the rate of inflation. And they've done it by living on good credit. With the mortgage meltdown--those turkeys are coming home to roost. Troubled banks are calling in their loans, trying to raise capital for their mistakes, forcing more and more people in the economic median to the edges. Regardless, the middleclass doesn't consider itself the lowerclass. In fact, they pride themselves on where they are. They're educated, extremely hardworking, and feel themselves to be positive roll models for their children. They don't want a handout, but they do want help. They want more of their own income. They want help repaying their loans--they don't like to be in debt and are not necessarily comfortable with it. So when Doug Schoen says the Dems have to position themselves for this, he makes a sound point. The Democrats have to be the party of fiscal responsibility. That means promising a balanced budget, but it doesn't mean wealth redistrubition.
That was my big centrist thought. When I read an article about the convention this morning, and I heard those sorts of ideas being bandied about, it suddenly occurred to me that the man is absolutely right. Look--I hate the fact that certain executives live in an entire different stratosphere from the rest of us. But can I really espouse taking their money away? Well--in some cases I can. The Bush tax cuts NEED to go. And the Clinton tax, needs to be made stronger to help the middle and not shield the uberrich. However, in general, I want to make money too. It's a betting against the house, I know, but in every American there is that seed of hope that one day, they might make it to that top 1%. People revere Warren Beatty, and Mike Bloomberg like they're some sort of god. This is the convoluted logic that the Republicans have relied on for years. You and your spouse can bring in under 50Gs together, but if you work hard, and believe in the American Dream, you too can live like a King. And the unbelievable credit market showed that it could indeed happen to a guy like you. And now its gone.
The populist rhetoric is important to me--but appealing to the middleclass is of the highest importance for this race.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Accounting 101
So this will be the first blog about my new subject of education: Accounting. That's right, the Master's begins.
That's actually misleading, actual graded classes won't start until next week, but I started the precursor class.
Enough intro, to wit, I was inspired/disturbed by something I read in the intro papers. Something our teacher spent some time on as well. I guess I was pretty naive, because I thought that Accounting was something that one did, simply as a matter of course in business. You have a product, you need to sell it, you've sold it, you need to keep track of it. You paid X amount on it to get it off the ground, you want to determine if it was worth it. Weeeelll, that's part of it. But no--the line that struck me was the open admission that the purpose of tax accounting is to exploit the tax system. That simple.
I have to admit, I was a bit horrified. Sure I know the drill, people do all sorts of things, usually harmless to avoid paying taxes. But that tax accounting says it, openly and unapologeticly, struck me as rather frightening. If the accounters aren't making honest accountants, than who is being honest?
Now, the professor made a point on this subject that in my naivety, helped shed a little light on the predicament. Remember, that when Moses came off Mount Sinai, he wasn't carrying a tax code. These things didn't come out of thin air. Nor do they come from basic economic principles. They came from the government and the people. So the rules are already sort of busted. I mean, clearly the government looks out for its own interest, the people theirs, and no one really gives a shit about the big picture. And from this constant warfare of 250 million interests plus however many corporations are out there, a tax code is hacked into shape.
So if you think about it, exploting the code is really the only way to gain fair treatment. I thought about trying to change the wording. If exploiting is in its commonality, a rather gross term, then maybe learning the code would be better. But no. Because it just doesn't make the point. The system is a crazy, controvercial, often conflicting set of rules, that no average person could ever navigate without extensive training. And lets face it--is Joe Average going to do that? Hell no! My office mate goes to H&R block every year. They do her taxes. I use Turbotax. My girlfriend is the only one I know who actually sits through the damn thing and calculates it herself.
So I'm okay with "exploiting the tax code" now. It isn't exploting like how the diamond merchants exploit the Congo, it's maneuvering, completely legally, and completely justly, to maximize your gain. Plain and simple.
That's actually misleading, actual graded classes won't start until next week, but I started the precursor class.
Enough intro, to wit, I was inspired/disturbed by something I read in the intro papers. Something our teacher spent some time on as well. I guess I was pretty naive, because I thought that Accounting was something that one did, simply as a matter of course in business. You have a product, you need to sell it, you've sold it, you need to keep track of it. You paid X amount on it to get it off the ground, you want to determine if it was worth it. Weeeelll, that's part of it. But no--the line that struck me was the open admission that the purpose of tax accounting is to exploit the tax system. That simple.
I have to admit, I was a bit horrified. Sure I know the drill, people do all sorts of things, usually harmless to avoid paying taxes. But that tax accounting says it, openly and unapologeticly, struck me as rather frightening. If the accounters aren't making honest accountants, than who is being honest?
Now, the professor made a point on this subject that in my naivety, helped shed a little light on the predicament. Remember, that when Moses came off Mount Sinai, he wasn't carrying a tax code. These things didn't come out of thin air. Nor do they come from basic economic principles. They came from the government and the people. So the rules are already sort of busted. I mean, clearly the government looks out for its own interest, the people theirs, and no one really gives a shit about the big picture. And from this constant warfare of 250 million interests plus however many corporations are out there, a tax code is hacked into shape.
So if you think about it, exploting the code is really the only way to gain fair treatment. I thought about trying to change the wording. If exploiting is in its commonality, a rather gross term, then maybe learning the code would be better. But no. Because it just doesn't make the point. The system is a crazy, controvercial, often conflicting set of rules, that no average person could ever navigate without extensive training. And lets face it--is Joe Average going to do that? Hell no! My office mate goes to H&R block every year. They do her taxes. I use Turbotax. My girlfriend is the only one I know who actually sits through the damn thing and calculates it herself.
So I'm okay with "exploiting the tax code" now. It isn't exploting like how the diamond merchants exploit the Congo, it's maneuvering, completely legally, and completely justly, to maximize your gain. Plain and simple.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Doug Schoen-Business Consultant
So I was struck in the head today by an idea that is in no way novel--but the implications of which had not really occurred to me.
So get this--Doug Schoen, the Democratic political consultant who helped Clinton get reelected in 1994 had worked with Dick Morris. Everyone knows that. Dick Morris also helped Clinton get elected as governor, and for his first term. Everyone knows that too. What I don't think we all knew was that Dick Morris worked on the 1994 campaign--while at the same time working for some very important Republicans in the Congressional run that same year!
All of which goes to prove what Doug was talking about in the preceding chapter of his book, The Power of the Vote, that advertising campaigns are political campaigns. They're not just similar, sort of passing likenesses. With the one immediate distinction that advertising decisions are rarely made on the fly. But sometimes they are too.
We all know that politics is a business. But are we all really prepared to accept that Democrat and Republican are really just brand names? On the surface, it sounds pretty obvious. To the extent that the consumer, I mean the public, buys into the advertising of a political campaign, then yes, name recognition, slogans, party ideology, and the endgame "the vote," are all facets of the identity of "The Party." But isn't having an ideology more than simply being a consumer? I mean belonging to a party doesn't necessarily mean that you share all the tenets of a certain ideology--but it is inavoidable to commute some of those tenets to a person when they claim membership in one of those parties. So then, "liberty, equality and justice for all," really are quantifiable objects--to be bought, sold, traded, inflated, refined and all the other fantastic things we do with products. Again, a cynic would simply state, "well...duh," and I get that. But that isn't my point. The point is the language of the thing. For an idea to be an idea, it has to share a similarity with another term, and it has to have a distinction, however grey. If ideology, government, and democracy itself are really just facets of capitalism at large, then the parallels must hold true throughout history--not simply just
This topic needs to be refined, but I have to work.
So get this--Doug Schoen, the Democratic political consultant who helped Clinton get reelected in 1994 had worked with Dick Morris. Everyone knows that. Dick Morris also helped Clinton get elected as governor, and for his first term. Everyone knows that too. What I don't think we all knew was that Dick Morris worked on the 1994 campaign--while at the same time working for some very important Republicans in the Congressional run that same year!
All of which goes to prove what Doug was talking about in the preceding chapter of his book, The Power of the Vote, that advertising campaigns are political campaigns. They're not just similar, sort of passing likenesses. With the one immediate distinction that advertising decisions are rarely made on the fly. But sometimes they are too.
We all know that politics is a business. But are we all really prepared to accept that Democrat and Republican are really just brand names? On the surface, it sounds pretty obvious. To the extent that the consumer, I mean the public, buys into the advertising of a political campaign, then yes, name recognition, slogans, party ideology, and the endgame "the vote," are all facets of the identity of "The Party." But isn't having an ideology more than simply being a consumer? I mean belonging to a party doesn't necessarily mean that you share all the tenets of a certain ideology--but it is inavoidable to commute some of those tenets to a person when they claim membership in one of those parties. So then, "liberty, equality and justice for all," really are quantifiable objects--to be bought, sold, traded, inflated, refined and all the other fantastic things we do with products. Again, a cynic would simply state, "well...duh," and I get that. But that isn't my point. The point is the language of the thing. For an idea to be an idea, it has to share a similarity with another term, and it has to have a distinction, however grey. If ideology, government, and democracy itself are really just facets of capitalism at large, then the parallels must hold true throughout history--not simply just
This topic needs to be refined, but I have to work.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Iraqi War Coverage Sucks Purple Toes
I wrote this letter to the Washington Post Ombudsman
Two U.S. Soldiers Killed as Iraqi Council Member Opens Fire After Meeting
By Ernesto LondoñoWashington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 24, 2008; Page A08
Please look into this story. I have several complaints with it. First of all, the story isn't on just this one incidence of violence. About half-way down through the story, it turns about to be a hodgepodge of news of violence over the last few days. While I certainly have no problem with this type of story, (obviously there is enough violence to go around) I tuned into the story because the headline makes it sound like a city council member shot U.S. soldiers. If Christine Quinn went on a killing rampage, it would be a full story, not a news blurb. Obviously, New York and Baghdad are in no way comparable but the story does not purport to answer any of the basic questions. In fact, the story is terribly written. None of the paragraphs follow and it seems, that the author might just be mad if this is his idea of a narrative.
The lead is straight forward enough: "BAGHDAD, June 23 -- Two U.S. soldiers were killed and three were wounded Monday when a council member opened fire on them after a meeting in a small town south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said." But the sentence uses the term "council member" to denote...what? A City Council member? Do they even have such things in Baghdad? The story NEVER reports on this, instead going off on a aimless meandering trail of blood and gore throughout the Iraq. I had to go to the CNN report to find out more information, only to find out that their own reporting is actually worse http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.main/index.html. The Post story does say that the council member was local tribal leader, but it says nothing about the distinction between the two. It is entirely likely that local religious, ethnic groups have put people on the city council, but then the story should indicate upfront, that the council is a farce, and that council members are often AK-47 wielding madmen (freedom fighters) out for vengeance. I read the story expecting to hear outrage from Maliki, and the U.S. government. Admittedly, it is silly of me to expect that City Council Members in Baghdad should be held to the same reporting standards as Council Members in Baghdad, but making the difference clear is the job of the reporter and the paper.
Instead the story goes on a three paragraph tear about a Canadian man who has nothing to do with the story at all. The very next sentence, made into a shiny new paragraph indicates that "The FBI sent a team of agents to Baghdad to investigate the shooting. None of the guards has been charged." Aside from the spectacular use of grammar (which I can't prove isn't correct, but seems highly unnecessary regardless) the sentence doesn't tell us which shooting! The shooting in the headline would be nice--but I think he's actually talking about a Blackwater shooting in September.
The last few paragraphs of the story are verbal diarhea of random reports and statements that have NOTHING to do with the headline. Or if they do--it certainly isn't explained. I mean, maybe I've critically misunderstood the issue. Maybe somewhere it's clear that this is not a news story, but that's also not my fault. I am a young man of average intelligence, with the documents to prove it, if I can't read this story, then there's something wrong.
I feel for your reporters there, really I do, but its your name in "Journalism" at issue -- and journalism that ain't. Fortunately for you most people don't read anything about the Iraq war. However, this story was picked up by several bloggers, and passed around. All announcing the same bizarre half-baked headline.
For your information the CNN report is worse, they spend less then fifty words describing the headline
"Officials: Iraqi councilman kills U.S. soldiers"
then launch into a mortar attack that occurred on Sunday. What's worse is that this event killed 10 Awakening Council members. A quick read of their story would indicate that it was one of these Awakening Council members who shot the U.S. soldiers. However, it's an entirely different attack. They might be linked but the reporter certainly doesn't say. The point is--I think that this is not a news story: It's a disbatch. So bill it that way. Eliminate the headline, make it News at the front. Put large bullet points between each one so that the reader can easily ascertain that the items are not connected.
Two U.S. Soldiers Killed as Iraqi Council Member Opens Fire After Meeting
By Ernesto LondoñoWashington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 24, 2008; Page A08
Please look into this story. I have several complaints with it. First of all, the story isn't on just this one incidence of violence. About half-way down through the story, it turns about to be a hodgepodge of news of violence over the last few days. While I certainly have no problem with this type of story, (obviously there is enough violence to go around) I tuned into the story because the headline makes it sound like a city council member shot U.S. soldiers. If Christine Quinn went on a killing rampage, it would be a full story, not a news blurb. Obviously, New York and Baghdad are in no way comparable but the story does not purport to answer any of the basic questions. In fact, the story is terribly written. None of the paragraphs follow and it seems, that the author might just be mad if this is his idea of a narrative.
The lead is straight forward enough: "BAGHDAD, June 23 -- Two U.S. soldiers were killed and three were wounded Monday when a council member opened fire on them after a meeting in a small town south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said." But the sentence uses the term "council member" to denote...what? A City Council member? Do they even have such things in Baghdad? The story NEVER reports on this, instead going off on a aimless meandering trail of blood and gore throughout the Iraq. I had to go to the CNN report to find out more information, only to find out that their own reporting is actually worse http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.main/index.html. The Post story does say that the council member was local tribal leader, but it says nothing about the distinction between the two. It is entirely likely that local religious, ethnic groups have put people on the city council, but then the story should indicate upfront, that the council is a farce, and that council members are often AK-47 wielding madmen (freedom fighters) out for vengeance. I read the story expecting to hear outrage from Maliki, and the U.S. government. Admittedly, it is silly of me to expect that City Council Members in Baghdad should be held to the same reporting standards as Council Members in Baghdad, but making the difference clear is the job of the reporter and the paper.
Instead the story goes on a three paragraph tear about a Canadian man who has nothing to do with the story at all. The very next sentence, made into a shiny new paragraph indicates that "The FBI sent a team of agents to Baghdad to investigate the shooting. None of the guards has been charged." Aside from the spectacular use of grammar (which I can't prove isn't correct, but seems highly unnecessary regardless) the sentence doesn't tell us which shooting! The shooting in the headline would be nice--but I think he's actually talking about a Blackwater shooting in September.
The last few paragraphs of the story are verbal diarhea of random reports and statements that have NOTHING to do with the headline. Or if they do--it certainly isn't explained. I mean, maybe I've critically misunderstood the issue. Maybe somewhere it's clear that this is not a news story, but that's also not my fault. I am a young man of average intelligence, with the documents to prove it, if I can't read this story, then there's something wrong.
I feel for your reporters there, really I do, but its your name in "Journalism" at issue -- and journalism that ain't. Fortunately for you most people don't read anything about the Iraq war. However, this story was picked up by several bloggers, and passed around. All announcing the same bizarre half-baked headline.
For your information the CNN report is worse, they spend less then fifty words describing the headline
"Officials: Iraqi councilman kills U.S. soldiers"
then launch into a mortar attack that occurred on Sunday. What's worse is that this event killed 10 Awakening Council members. A quick read of their story would indicate that it was one of these Awakening Council members who shot the U.S. soldiers. However, it's an entirely different attack. They might be linked but the reporter certainly doesn't say. The point is--I think that this is not a news story: It's a disbatch. So bill it that way. Eliminate the headline, make it News at the front. Put large bullet points between each one so that the reader can easily ascertain that the items are not connected.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Happy Nuptials Jenna
I find myself weirdly happy for George Bush today, as the New York Times reports on his daughter's nuptials. I don't like the man, he is dangerously delusional. But I can't help but feel sympathy for the man. He's been a fuck up his entire life, and being a president hasn't changed that. I have no doubt that when his impressive array of handlers leave his side as he exits the office, that he'll find some other impressive way to fuck up. However, he's like Homer Simpson that way, the only good thing he ever really did was bring children into the world. I don't like Jenna, and I know that she and her hubby are going to spawn Bushies that will continue to plague the earth for generations to come, but for now? It's a wedding. Throw your glass back and shout huzzah!
Friday, April 18, 2008
Closing the Book on State of Denial
So I finished Bob Woodward's State of Denial a couple days ago. Time to sum up. The book did change certain views I have on the Iraq War. But more importantly, it affixed blame for the Iraq fiasco on the shoulders of three individuals, Rumsfeld, Feith, and Bush himself. Though there are many people who took a lot of blame for poor decisions, it is clear what Woodward himself thinks. And the title itself applies unquestionably to those three in particular.
So where does that leave Darth Cheney. Well...not explicitly anywhere. Woodward makes a couple of references to him, and his power--but since the Man of Darkness lives behind shut doors, no light is ever cast on him. He does not interview. And when he does, he only interviews on shows that ask him softball questions, or won't or can't hold him down when he squirms. The man is iron hard, and his rhetorical skills, though often blunt, run rings around the idiots that interview him. All of this makes him extremely hard to pin down. It is clear, however, that Rumsfeld and Feith are HIS MEN. Rumsfeld is no subordinate to the Cheneymonster, but he was proposed by him. Feith, certainly a toadie, was under direct control. Wolfowitz...again, here Woodward really leaves a gap. Paul Wolfowitz really ought to have his feet held to the fire. He's a Cheney Man through and through--and you just don't see his handprints where they rightfully ought to be.
Regardless, I was hardcore anti-War before I read the book. I am no longer as certain. The case for going in was, and remains ridiculous. But the case for leaving...is no longer as clean cut. My gf believes in the "you break it you bought it" school. And I might be coming around. The fact is, I think Iraq is bankrupting the U.S.. I think this will be made abundantly clear in the coming recession. When the government reaches into its coffers to bail out the banks, and finds nothing...well then it might be a total collapse. Right now, I'm just waiting to hear for JP Morgan to post losses. Then the Fed will have to fork over 30bn and then things will start falling fast. I'm getting far afield. There are many great reasons to leave--but are they responsible reasons? The potential for wholesale slaughter is potentially very high if the U.S. leaves. Woodward makes that pretty clear. This is even now more true since Moqtada Al-Sadr's militia seems more powerful then the Iraqi government. The second we pull out, the government, already corrupt, will either collapse, or elect the man PM. Depending on how nuts he is, you could see mass religious killings of the entire sect. Worse, it is abundantly clear now that Iran is funding the insurgency in some part. Woodward talks about IED's and how they are becoming increasingly complex. Made with materials that aren't household--and can puncture through the armor of an Abrams tank. The interesting thing is that this actually constitutes an act of war. And there seems to be a lot of evidence for this--not just WMD sort of evidence, but real evidence. Why would the neo-cons not want to go to war with Iraq? They do--but the administration absolutely can't. Which leads me to my next point.
The big surprise for me was that the liberal cry of "occupation" actually was wrong. Rumsfeld himself never wanted to occupy the country! Completely the contrary, if he could have gotten the U.S. out two days later he would have. He's famous for saying, it's "time to take the training wheels off." He said this repeatedly, by which he meant, time for them to pedal on their own. The problem with Rumsfeld isn't that he wanted an occupation, but that he never planned for one. All of his work, and all of his measures were aimed at a speedy exit. Which, of course, was why it failed so dramatically.
The other thing that jumps out at me, and I've commented on this before, is that the management was and remains so staggeringly bad. Every couple of months, an exasperated Rice would send someone over to Iraq, almost always someone new, someone "fresh" to give her an accurate assessment of what was going on. They always came back with the same information. No electricity, no security, no communication between the branches of the military and the civilians who ran the American agency which ran the country. All the time the same information, and they'd hold meetings with everyone. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Wolfowitz. Even Gingrich! And still--nothing ever got done. Nothing ever changed. Still nothing has changed! To me it smacks of the Business school ethic of outside consultants. They charge an arm and a leg, make a lot of grandiose promises, and mostly they annoy and complicate procedures for their trouble.
All in all, I need to read a lot more on the subject. Some questions:
1) What happened after? State of Denial leaves off while Rumsfeld was still in office. What has happened in James Baker's watch?
2) What about the torture? Woodward barely mentions it. Maybe he didn't have a problem with it, I don't know, but it hardly figures at all in the book. Who knew? When? What did they do then? What are they doing now? How many people have been prosecuted? Who hasn't?
3) The military. A lot of this book talks about the relationship between Rumsfeld and the military. I'd like to know what was the overal state of the military before the invasion, including moral, recruitment, and finances, and what is it like now?
4) The pentagon. Woodward talks a lot about Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. Rumsfeld was reforming it. Well it's pretty clear that he was a shitty manager. What did he do? Can it be undone? Should it be undone? This is the administration of loose ends. Where are they, and who will tie them up?
5) Cheney...at some point, we have to know about the man. History demands it. I'm sure he has deleted his correspondence, but there have to be records out there. Even if it's ten years from now--we need to know. Woodward makes one comment that alludes to him toward the last fifty pages of the book that is particularly illuminating. He asked Rumsfeld what role Cheney had (I'm paraphrasing here) and Rumsfeld replied, "Oh, minimal, its not like he ever tried to upstage the president or back him into a corner." Woodward wonders...what kind of VP could even conceivably back the Chief Executive into a corner? It begs the question--you don't need to rule with an iron fist to not be in control. For that matter, the neocons all say that Cheney backed off in the second term. What does that mean? Is it true?
6) Feith. Someone needs to document the immense failures of the guy that General Franks called a fucking idot. Someone has, rather. I just need to read it.
So where does that leave Darth Cheney. Well...not explicitly anywhere. Woodward makes a couple of references to him, and his power--but since the Man of Darkness lives behind shut doors, no light is ever cast on him. He does not interview. And when he does, he only interviews on shows that ask him softball questions, or won't or can't hold him down when he squirms. The man is iron hard, and his rhetorical skills, though often blunt, run rings around the idiots that interview him. All of this makes him extremely hard to pin down. It is clear, however, that Rumsfeld and Feith are HIS MEN. Rumsfeld is no subordinate to the Cheneymonster, but he was proposed by him. Feith, certainly a toadie, was under direct control. Wolfowitz...again, here Woodward really leaves a gap. Paul Wolfowitz really ought to have his feet held to the fire. He's a Cheney Man through and through--and you just don't see his handprints where they rightfully ought to be.
Regardless, I was hardcore anti-War before I read the book. I am no longer as certain. The case for going in was, and remains ridiculous. But the case for leaving...is no longer as clean cut. My gf believes in the "you break it you bought it" school. And I might be coming around. The fact is, I think Iraq is bankrupting the U.S.. I think this will be made abundantly clear in the coming recession. When the government reaches into its coffers to bail out the banks, and finds nothing...well then it might be a total collapse. Right now, I'm just waiting to hear for JP Morgan to post losses. Then the Fed will have to fork over 30bn and then things will start falling fast. I'm getting far afield. There are many great reasons to leave--but are they responsible reasons? The potential for wholesale slaughter is potentially very high if the U.S. leaves. Woodward makes that pretty clear. This is even now more true since Moqtada Al-Sadr's militia seems more powerful then the Iraqi government. The second we pull out, the government, already corrupt, will either collapse, or elect the man PM. Depending on how nuts he is, you could see mass religious killings of the entire sect. Worse, it is abundantly clear now that Iran is funding the insurgency in some part. Woodward talks about IED's and how they are becoming increasingly complex. Made with materials that aren't household--and can puncture through the armor of an Abrams tank. The interesting thing is that this actually constitutes an act of war. And there seems to be a lot of evidence for this--not just WMD sort of evidence, but real evidence. Why would the neo-cons not want to go to war with Iraq? They do--but the administration absolutely can't. Which leads me to my next point.
The big surprise for me was that the liberal cry of "occupation" actually was wrong. Rumsfeld himself never wanted to occupy the country! Completely the contrary, if he could have gotten the U.S. out two days later he would have. He's famous for saying, it's "time to take the training wheels off." He said this repeatedly, by which he meant, time for them to pedal on their own. The problem with Rumsfeld isn't that he wanted an occupation, but that he never planned for one. All of his work, and all of his measures were aimed at a speedy exit. Which, of course, was why it failed so dramatically.
The other thing that jumps out at me, and I've commented on this before, is that the management was and remains so staggeringly bad. Every couple of months, an exasperated Rice would send someone over to Iraq, almost always someone new, someone "fresh" to give her an accurate assessment of what was going on. They always came back with the same information. No electricity, no security, no communication between the branches of the military and the civilians who ran the American agency which ran the country. All the time the same information, and they'd hold meetings with everyone. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Wolfowitz. Even Gingrich! And still--nothing ever got done. Nothing ever changed. Still nothing has changed! To me it smacks of the Business school ethic of outside consultants. They charge an arm and a leg, make a lot of grandiose promises, and mostly they annoy and complicate procedures for their trouble.
All in all, I need to read a lot more on the subject. Some questions:
1) What happened after? State of Denial leaves off while Rumsfeld was still in office. What has happened in James Baker's watch?
2) What about the torture? Woodward barely mentions it. Maybe he didn't have a problem with it, I don't know, but it hardly figures at all in the book. Who knew? When? What did they do then? What are they doing now? How many people have been prosecuted? Who hasn't?
3) The military. A lot of this book talks about the relationship between Rumsfeld and the military. I'd like to know what was the overal state of the military before the invasion, including moral, recruitment, and finances, and what is it like now?
4) The pentagon. Woodward talks a lot about Rumsfeld and the Pentagon. Rumsfeld was reforming it. Well it's pretty clear that he was a shitty manager. What did he do? Can it be undone? Should it be undone? This is the administration of loose ends. Where are they, and who will tie them up?
5) Cheney...at some point, we have to know about the man. History demands it. I'm sure he has deleted his correspondence, but there have to be records out there. Even if it's ten years from now--we need to know. Woodward makes one comment that alludes to him toward the last fifty pages of the book that is particularly illuminating. He asked Rumsfeld what role Cheney had (I'm paraphrasing here) and Rumsfeld replied, "Oh, minimal, its not like he ever tried to upstage the president or back him into a corner." Woodward wonders...what kind of VP could even conceivably back the Chief Executive into a corner? It begs the question--you don't need to rule with an iron fist to not be in control. For that matter, the neocons all say that Cheney backed off in the second term. What does that mean? Is it true?
6) Feith. Someone needs to document the immense failures of the guy that General Franks called a fucking idot. Someone has, rather. I just need to read it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)