The tortoise and the hare

“Seahawks Shock Patriots” declares the Boston Globe. “A goal line interception, an intentional grounding that wiped away a chance for a score at the end of the first half, and another intentional grounding that forced the New England Patriots to punt at a critical point in the fourth quarter led to the Patriots' 24-23 loss to the Seattle Seahawks Sunday, quarterback Tom Brady said.” Brady, intercepted once all season, saw two passes picked off that ended scoring opportunities, and that intentional grounding that foiled another opportunity. "I think we just got to do a better job when it counts," he was quoted. “A lot of guys are making plays. You have opportunities to score points, we had an interception. And then you lose by one point, a lot of things that we could have done better so we're not in that situation." At several points in this game, the Patriots seemed to operate on the notion that they only had to play their “C” game to win, and it was almost enough. But in the end it was a variant of the old fable of the tortoise and the hare—except that while the hare arrogantly dawdled, the tortoise made-up ground by being catapulted in the air over the head of the dumbfounded hare, landing first at the finish line.

I’m not a Seahawk fan and I’m not jumping on the Russell Wilson bandwagon. I watched this game and I just saw one team beat-up the other between the Twenties for most of the day—gaining 475 total yards, nearly double what the Seahawks number-one ranked defense was allowing per game—and at one point the Patriots did not punt for eight consecutive possessions. But this did not show-up on the scoreboard. In six opportunities in the red zone, the Patriots converted only once. On the other hand, after passing for 131 yards and a touchdown in the first quarter, Wilson was a meager 4 of 10 for 46 yards in the second and third quarters, as the Seahawks offense went into hibernation; this has been the MO of the team all season: Look good during the scripted plays, then seemingly lost when their quarterback is off-script—before somehow pulling miracle plays out of a hat when the opposing team’s defenders think he’s been beaten into submission and can’t get off the mat. What other explanation can there be when Wilson looks so bad for half the game, and then suddenly throws up fifty yard passes that leave opponents “stunned”?  It’s like a lame Kirk Gibson hitting that homerun against the A’s in the 1988 World Series. As a two touchdown fourth quarter lead was being squandered, Brady looked like James Remar in the film “48 Hours” after he is shot by Nick Nolte: “I don’t believe it. I got shot.” 

But I’m a Packer fan, and the good news is that Green Bay’s offense finally found some life, on the road against the unbeaten Houston Texans. Aaron Rodgers erased some of the embarrassment of watching his understudy Matt Flynn passing for a team record six touchdowns in a single game last season by accomplishing the same feat himself in a 42-24 victory over the Texans.

Far-right film fest just in time to expose their own stupidity before the election

The entertainment industry has frequently been accused of being “liberal,” although you can hardly tell it by the “product” that is actually released for public consumption. The so-called “conservative” 1950s was actually a surprisingly socially and politically-conscious decade in regard to motion pictures, and the Sixties and Seventies continued the trend toward trenchant and penetrating exploration into the darker aspects of the human condition—especially in regard to bigotry, political and personal corruption, and jingoism. Today, there is none of that; it doesn’t “sell.” Perhaps the exception is the occasional Michael Moore documentary. Moore hasn’t made a documentary in a while; he certainly could have made a timely one in regard to the Tea Party and its extreme bigoted, nationalistic, and nativist roots—paid for and orchestrated by right-wing billionaires with their own agenda. 

Instead, what we have seen recently are the release of a “documentary” and film by the far-right, portraying Barack Obama and his “socialist” agenda as both dangerous and disastrous. Of course, we have heard this propaganda since Obama first entered the presidential race, but the release of these films coincidentally are timed to give “substance” to their arguments just before the election. Whether they convince anyone but the true believers is another question.

First on the board was India-born far-right “academic” Dinesh D’Souza’s so-called documentary “2016: Obama’s America.” D’Souza is perhaps most “famous” for coining the term “rational discrimination,” which infers that bigoted white folks and their “model minority” stooges (who are even more racist) are “justified” in expressing their racism, even when their assumed stereotypes about the “others” do not apply; racists must not be inconvenienced with having to actually find out if their hatred toward an individual person of a “despised” race  is justified. D’Souza has also made a “point” of suggesting that Indians have demonstrated their superiority as a race over Africans because India has been successful in the post-Colonial period. Now, most people from India in this country are decent, intelligent, hard-working people; it is too bad that the ones getting the media play (Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley and  D'Souza) have chosen to hitch their wagon to the racist right. So with talk like this, you should expect to reap what you sow; what D'Souza neglects to mention is that depending on the Indian government’s constantly changing definition of what constitutes poverty in that country, up to 77 percent of the population of over one billion lives below the poverty line—quite a shocking statistic for such an “advanced” society. In fact, India is still rent by the discriminatory caste system, even though it was technically abolished; D’Souza’s self-conscious sense of “superiority” over someone comes from this cultural milieu. It always seems that those conscious of their dark-skin try to "fit-in" by out-doing the bigots in their bigotry; Michelle Malkin, Clarence Thomas and D'Souza are all examples of this, and far from giving them "credibility," it only "enhances" their lacking in self-respect.

Anyways, “Obama’s America” predicts—among other things—that by 2016 an Obama second term will transform the country into the “America of Islam.” I’m not kidding. According to D’Souza, Obama has this “dream” of “avenging colonialism” and “downsizing America.” We could probably stop right there, because you get the general drift of the documentary; it is also probably useful to note that Hindus and Muslims have a violent history in India, so it isn’t hard to understand D’Souza’s paranoia. However, if you do choose to watch this (what for?—you can listen to this garbage every day on Fox News), it is useful to remember that D’Souza deliberately misinterprets Obama’s “dreams,” continually juxtaposes imagery of impoverished Africa and violence in the Middle East with white boy scouts on parade, concerned “decent” white folks, capitalist America, and his own mealy-mouthed mug. Does it matter that D’Souza infers characteristics on Obama that simply have no basis in fact save in the paranoid minds of the right? It should, but that’s only because I’m paying attention.

Next on the agenda is the film adaptation of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”—Part II. You missed Part I? So did I. It “bombed” at the box office even in miniscule release, and film critics with a reputation to protect judged it dull, boring, philosophical bull shit and generally inane and anachronistic. However, a majority of viewers actually “liked” it, which probably means nothing other than the fact that most people who did see this film are probably fans of Rand, or at least heard of her. I won’t discuss who Rand is, except that she was a Russian émigré to the U.S., was an uber-capitalist, and she propounded the “philosophy” of “objectivism”—which can be boiled down to the following: An extreme-reactionary philosophy that supports the idea of an “elite” class of society whose achievements are due solely to their individual capacity, and that any effort to control their selfishness and recognize the role of the working people in creating their largesse is a Judeo-Christian shibboleth—and humanism, philanthropy, selflessness, compassion, empathy and other like concepts to advance  the “common good” and “civil society” are nothing but “delusions” of the “left.” Of course, Randians and libertarians can pretty it up all they desire, but that is basically what “objectivism” de facto accomplishes—a “Lord of the Flies” bestiality.

 “Atlas Shugged: Part II,” out this week in “wide” release, has also received universally negative reviews, save from right-wing wing-nuts like Michael (Weiner) Savage and Sean Hannity. While the era in which Rand wrote her novel allows the setting to make “sense,” the film’s effort to remain “true” to the source makes its premise absurd today. The “heroine,” Dagny Taggart, who inherited a railroad business than actually build it herself (ironically, nullifying her as a true example of objectivism), although she at least deports herself with plenty of pomposity. Taggart is having an affair with a married man who happens to be a steel magnate who has created a “magic metal” that competitors want off the market, and the evil government has passed a regulation to do just that. This movie looks “futuristic,” but plays like a weird kind of time capsule. Today the train and steel magnates have very little impact on the economy as they did back in the day, when they certainly deserved their appellation of “robber barons.” The anti-government, anti-tax and anti-anything speeches in the film remind one of the lack of simple human decency of many on the right, and is right-off the presses of the latest Tea Party paranoid propaganda sheet. 

 There are quite a few other head-scratching ideas floated about in this movie, like the “creators” and other “superior” beings taking their toys and going home rather than be forced to “share.” The “mystery man” behind all of this “John Galt.” Who is John Galt? Let’s hope that selfish assholes like this don’t ever really appear on the scene (like Paul Ryan, an objectivism fanatic?). “Part III” of this trilogy will no doubt reveal that Galt has been “recruiting” all those disappearing superior beings in some secret paradise where their “genius” will be withheld from the civilized world, because they don’t like being forced to “share”—the result of which will be the collapse of the universe, unless the government agrees to wipe-out all regulations and laws that offend the rich and powerful. The supreme irony and stupidity of this is manifest when you realize that being a “superior” being means absolutely nothing if you exist only among other “superior” beings, and being “superior” equally means nothing if there is no one to “appreciate” it—especially by “common” people who you force to live in poverty, who despise you for it and only perceive you as the oppressive  organ of tyranny that you claim to be fighting against.  

In foreign policy he interpose, Romney gets a bloody nose

As discussed last week, who is the “real” Mitt Romney is not exactly clear. Is he the Romney who spoke candidly at a rich donor fundraiser, or the man who deceives viewers about the reality of his economic and tax plan, which benefits no one save his own wealthy class? Having basked in his debate “victory,” Romney is now attempting to “toughen up” his foreign policy “credentials,” which if we recall his remarks in that secret fundraiser, included his belief that there was no two-state solution in Palestine—which would be practical only if Israel and the Palestinians agreed to a combined state based on mutual benefice, and that seems highly unlikely given the attitude of Hamas and hardline Zionists; Romney’s mindset is that the Palestinians do not want peace and are culturally “inferior,” and that the best “solution” is to simply allow time to sort things out as it may. Of course, this has very much been the case for the pasr 60 years, with no end in sight. This is not “visionary” foreign policy, and if Barack Obama and his predecessors have not succeeded in brokering a peace agreement, simply giving up does nothing to move the process forward. Romney has “modified” his opinion on the matter since he was exposed, but it should be clear that whatever he says now flies in the face of his true beliefs.

Romney has criticized Obama’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq, stating that he should have left a token force there. Romney’s naïveté in this matter is stunning. Forgetting the cost of retaining such a presence, one should remember that the history of the U.S. occupying any Middle East country has been far from “peaceful” or productive in the long term.  Examples of this are the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia—the stated reason of Osama Bin Laden for turning from an “ally” against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, to a blood enemy—and helping to initiate the return to tribal and ethnic violence which characterized Iraqi society in the post-colonial period, and engulf U.S. forces in it. If the U.S. had convince the current Iraqi government to an indefinite presence of U.S. forces in the country, there would have been little incentive for insurgents and al-Qaeda to discontinue targeting U.S. forces—just as they have shown little interest in a peaceful transition to democracy today, with an average of 20 attacks a day. Continued occupation of the country would only have led to more U.S. casualties to little positive result, especially since the Iraqi “government” would continue to lose credibility if it was propped-up by the U.S.—and we have seen the results of this when the pro-West Shah was deposed and replaced by the current anti-West regime in Iran. 

In other examples of Romney’s “expertise,” he accused Obama of playing footsy with Iran. He says that he wants “tougher sanctions” against Iran, although he has not stated how far beyond the current sanctions he would go. Romney has criticized Obama’s “leading from behind” in the Libyan uprising; but that is the kind of right-wing, chest-beating posturing that has cost this country dearly in money and blood. It was lesson we could have learned in Iraq—without having to deceive the public and the world why we were there. In regard to Egypt, Romney has said he would continue  economic and military assistance  so long as it abides by the peace treaty with Israel; we should be glad to hear that he actually supports the current law that makes that a condition for aid.

Romney is also telling us that he supports seeking out and arming Syrian opposition groups that are our “friends.” The problem, of course, is that if such groups that conform to our wishes actually exist, they tend to be somewhat less enthusiastic in the use of guns and explosives—unlike, say, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ahrar al-Sham, Salafists and other Islamic jihadist groups from inside and outside the country, which have essentially hi-jacked the “revolution” even though they supposedly comprise the minority of those engaged in the uprising. These groups have always been opposed to the secular nature of the current regime, and they desire nothing less than the kind of ultraconservatism of  “originalism” we currently see on the U.S. Supreme Court—outdated, anti-modernist and completely reactionary and oppressive. While it is believed that al-Qaeda has a minimal presence currently in Syria, their influence on affairs is greater than their numbers; al-Qaeda operatives are known to be engaged in bomb-making and providing training in insurgent techniques. There is no doubt that this “assistance” will go far in expanding al-Qaeda’s influence in the country, and is just another example of how in the Middle East, “regime change” tends to be an exchange between two evils; the problem is that we are not dealing with right-wing Latin American murder regimes who will do the bidding of the U.S.. 

The reality is that Romney’s policy assertions mean little in practical terms, let alone substantial terms. Obama’s policy outside of Afghanistan (a war he did not initiate) reflects the truism enunciated by British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, when the subject of intervening on the side of the Confederacy during the American Civil War arose: “He who in quarrels interpose, will often get a bloody nose”—and no place is this more true than in the Middle East today. And of course Romney has found time to criticize Obama’s 2014 timetable of evacuating Afghanistan  as a "politically timed retreat"—which, of course, he has not only not offered an alternative vision, but admittedly supports the time table.

Meanwhile, it was only after several embarrassing gaffes on his recent “foreign policy” trip and of accusing Obama of essentially being an Islamic jihadist because he “supported” the attackers of the U.S. consulate in Libya who killed the U.S. ambassador, that sore loser John McCain suggested that Romney offer a “clear vision” of his foreign policy goals. What is “clear” is that Romney has not offered a “clear” alternative that makes sense—just one that sounds “different” only in his lame efforts to find fault with Obama.

First debate shows Romney has future as infomercial snake-oil salesman

I suppose I was one of those odd-balls who thought that Barack Obama “won” the first presidential debate with Mitt Romney. Why? Because going into it I knew that Romney was a slimy snake-oil salesman with all his lines down pat, and that is exactly how I perceived his “performance.” According to a CNN poll, two-thirds of viewers might as well have been watching one of those infomercials where some Slick Rick tries to convince people that they can become “rich” without spending a single dime of their own money. You know—put another mortgage on your home, use the proceeds to “buy” another property, and then turn around and resell it to make a quick profit. Maybe. Or maybe you lose your home, the property, and your shirt; the only person who actually gets rich is the salesman who sold you those DVDs and handbooks. 

We should remember a few things when listening to Romney. He is a man born into wealth, in a religion where class distinction and white “purity” provides him the validation of his self-superiority over the “47 percent”—“mistake” or not, he still believes it. We must remember that Romney did not start his own business that created jobs in this country; he started out as little more than a broker who invested however and wherever he could make a quick buck so he would be free to pursue his other goals—like become president and lord over the common minions he has in the past regarded in condescending terms. When he quoted people who asked him if he could give him or her a job, Romney might as well have advised them to move to China and other foreign lands where he has invested in job creation for years. Did he mention how he admired a Chinese factory he invested in, which was fenced in to keep people out rather than in? Did he mention that a technology company owned by Bain had just closed its doors in Freeport, Illinois, and sent almost 200 jobs to China?

Romney doesn’t care how he makes his money, as long as he made it; much if not most of his income comes from investments not in this country, but overseas. That is how much “faith” he has in America; he makes those people at his campaign stops shouting “USA!” look like fools who don’t know it. His economic “plan”—long on superficial pronouncements, but short on those “details” that some people claimed to have “heard” at the debate—was nothing more than his well-rehearsed stump speech. I was left thinking “OK. So where is the beef?” It was like those McDonalds ads where someone is holding a burger so big he needs two hands to hold it—when the reality is that the “real” thing being sold is much more diminutive in size and a complete rip-off. Take, for example, Romney’s jobs record while governor of Massachusetts; as I wrote about before, the state during Romney’s tenure was third from the bottom in the nation in GDP and job creation. Why Obama didn’t mention this in the debate mystifies me. Romney only knows how to make money for himself; he can’t identify with working people, and throughout his career has thought only to maximize his benefit at the expense of jobs for average Americans. That is the substance of his “experience.”

During the debate, Romney kept insisting that Obama was “lying” about his tax plan, how it would cut a grotesque $5 trillion in taxes over the next ten years, mostly for the benefit of his class. But it is Romney who is lying. Remember, his tax “plan” envisions spreading the tax burden more “evenly” among all income groups, meaning lowering the top marginal rate to 28 percent, eliminate or  reduce  the alternative minimum tax, the  estate and capital gains taxes—all of which are heavily skewed toward the wealthy. The recent study released by the Tax Policy Center noted that Romney’s plan will create a $360 billion dollar revenue shortfall in its first year of implementation—and that number will only increase as the untaxed  largess of millionaires and billionaires grows over time. Romney claims that his “plan” will eliminate certain tax exemptions, but he has not indicated what they will be; but the Tax Policy Center noted that it is likely that some of these eliminations will constitute a de facto tax increase for lower-income households. 

Romney makes a great many assumptions about what corporations, small businesses and the wealthy will do with increased revenue. Will they invest in American jobs? Why should we believe that from past experience? “Invest” in tax havens like Switzerland, as Romney has? Invest in companies in China and other foreign lands? The man who has a record of closing companies in the U.S. and shipping them to places like China, like that technology company Illinois? Romney doesn’t care if you personally have a job or not; he only cares if he and his friends have theirs. If elected president (God forbid), he will run this country like a business that benefits only his class. He will tell you his wealthy class must be happy before you can be made happy. And some of you will believe that line.

The Center noted that the assumption of economic growth that Romney’s plan claimed based on his tax plan was “implausible,” because “revenue neutrality would still require large reductions in tax expenditures and would likely result in a net tax increase for lower- and middle-income households and tax cuts for high-income households.” Since lower-to-middle income households are the principle drivers of a consumer economy, the reduction (among other things) in their spending capacity can only have negative effects on the economy—and that is before we even talk about how the reductions in government spending will cost millions of jobs in education and infrastructure that are unlikely to be replaced by the private sector.

Robert Samuelson, a Washington Post columnist who has been writing on economic issues for 35 years, recently wrote that “The political damage from this lopsided tax plan transcends its details. The central appeal of the Romney candidacy is that he would bring a competence to economic policy that would inspire the confidence needed to reinvigorate the recovery. The idea is to present a compelling contrast to Obama, whose low understanding of and meager sympathy for business seem plain and have arguably hobbled economic expansion.” Apparently Romney did give that impression to the media and a majority of Americans during the first debate; but as we can plainly see, Romney has some working people actually believing that what has been good for him personally has relevance in their own lives. But like the infomercial salesman, Romney seeks to make him and his “class” better off by selling gullible people a load of bovine scatology.

To reiterate for the hard of head and easily manipulated, the Tax Policy Center study concluded that “a revenue-neutral individual income tax change that incorporates the features Governor Romney has proposed – including reducing marginal tax rates substantially, eliminating the individual alternative minimum tax (AMT) and maintaining all tax breaks for saving and investment – would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers. This is true even when we bias our assumptions about which and whose tax expenditures are reduced to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible. For instance, even when we assume that tax breaks – like the charitable deduction, mortgage interest deduction, and the exclusion for health insurance – are completely eliminated for higher-income households first, and only then reduced as necessary for other households to achieve overall revenue-neutrality– the net effect of the plan would be a tax cut for high-income households coupled with a tax increase for middle-income households.”

The Center determined that Romney’s tax plan would see persons making ((not necessarily earning) $1 million or more increasing their income by 8.3 percent—while those earning less than $30,000 would actually see a decrease in income by 0.9 percent. Why? “Because taxpayers above $200,000 as a group have received a net tax cut, revenue neutrality requires that taxpayers below $200,000—about 95 percent of the population—experience a tax increase.” The lower your income, the less disposable income you will have under the Romney plan. This is “good?” Romney calls this “base-broadening”—you know, the “47 percent” who allegedly don’t pay taxes. But the Center points out that this “base-broadening” will be nowhere near enough to address the huge imbalances the Romney plan entails. In order to “balance” the huge revenue shortfalls the “plan” will lead to—far more irresponsible and debilitating than the Bush tax cuts—it would require an “unprecedented” reduction in expenditures in public welfare and other programs like the EITC and child tax credits that benefit low and middle-income families, programs which apparently are “expendable” because the wealthy have no need of them. Based on just the first year that the Romney plan would theoretically go into effect, “in order to offset $360 billion in cuts, one must eliminate 65 percent of all of the available $551 billion in tax expenditures.” 

Do you people who were enamored with Romney’s “performance” understand what this means? Will you allow him to pull the wool over your eyes with his lies and deceptions? And for what? “Furthermore,” notes the Center study, “estimates indicate that the effects of tax rate reductions on the macroeconomy are likely to be small or even negative, at least, over the typical 10-year budget window.” The only people who benefit, as we have said over and over again, are the wealthiest Americans. Those are the only people Republicans and the Tea Party really care about. For the rest of us, we must say clearly on Election Day that lies and deception that work against the public good will not sway us.