Norman Solomon on Guernica Magazine

"And henceforth," Albert Camus wrote, "the only honorable course will be to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions."

Read Norman Solomon's article about war, and how words are used to further our military state and mask the human costs of war.

This is Rich

Or sickening, or maddening, or just completely ridiculous...I can't even tell anymore.

An article in today's New York Times entitled "Bailout Is a Windfall to Banks, if Not to Borrowers" begins with this precious little bit:

At the Palm Beach Ritz-Carlton last November, John C. Hope III, the chairman of Whitney National Bank in New Orleans, stood before a ballroom full of Wall Street analysts and explained how his bank intended to use its $300 million in federal bailout money.

“Make more loans?” Mr. Hope said. “We’re not going to change our business model or our credit policies to accommodate the needs of the public sector as they see it to have us make more loans.”

You have to love this. As though it wasn't the business models and credit policies of banks that got us into this whole mess. This guy acts like the banking system has been a model of prudence, and maybe his bank was. But I doubt it. I have a friend who works at a small bank, as a lender, who did act responsibly before this whole fallout and he and his bank have gotten fucked from the business models and credit policies of other banks. And his bank hasn't seen a dime of TARP I.

For this John C. Hope III (It's like a name from a movie about a Depression) to act shocked that people would expect him and his bank to do with the money it received from the government what it was supposed to do (i.e. lend) is enough to make someone sick. I can't stand the hypocrisy in all of this.

Now, to amend what I just said. I used the word "supposed," but that probably isn't quite right, is it? Because, just as it did leading up to the Iraq invasion, Congress completely panicked on this one and didn't set up any checks and balances for how the money was to be used. Check out this precious bit from this story:

"Individually, banks that received some of the first $350 billion from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, have offered few public details about how they plan to spend the money, and they are not required to disclose what they do with it."

Why the hell aren't they required to do so! Why would you write a check to any institution whose business model and credit policies had sent a whole financial system into a free fall without putting in place the means to track how that check was being spent? I mean this is dumb getting dumber.

Because of Congress' lack of foresight we end up with this:

"A review of investor presentations and conference calls by executives of some two dozen banks around the country found that few cited lending as a priority. An overwhelming majority saw the bailout program as a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses or invest for the future."

I would be one to argue for a market-driven system, a survivor of the fittest kind of living, if the "fittest" weren't only that because of the support they are given. If banks and other financial institutions could actually keep their houses in order and everyone on Main Street were flailing about in their own financial crisis, then I'd say, we got ourselves into this, we have to get ourselves out. But, for the banks to be in such a bad way, receive loans (even though they themselves wouldn't have lent money to themselves, given that it would be such a bad investment), and then solely use it as though it is theirs to invest...and then to act as though they had some sort of inalienable right to it, as though it's a given that they should receive money while everyone else suffers, well, it's almost too much for one person to take.

For a more thorough analysis (and maybe less pissed off, or at least he doesn't swear in his analysis) of the financial crisis, follow Robert Reich's thoughts on Guernica, where three days before this story in the Times he already told us all of this when he wrote "But the easier and probably more correct argument is that American taxpayers wasted $350 billion. No one knows exactly where it went -- at least two recent reports reveal that the Treasury had no idea -- but we do know the money did not go to small businesses, struggling homeowners, students, or anyone else needing credit, which was the major public justification for the bailout."

Robert Reich on Guernica

If they're going to use the second $350 billion here are some suggestions how from Robert Reich.

And by the way is anyone else sick of hearing about how only a small percentage of the people in this country actually understand the inner workings of our financial systems and therefore those people have to stay in positions managing the money from these bailouts? They obviously don't understand it very well, otherwise wouldn't it follow that we wouldn't be in this mess? It's like if you took your car to a mechanic and he told you how everything in your car works, but then couldn't even change your battery. I don't care if you can tell me how it works. Make it work. Or change it completely and put people in charge who can actually make a new system work.

I've Been Writing

Hi all,

This is kind of a redundant post, as some of you may have already seen these elsewhere, but it's been kind of a nice week for me as far as writing goes. So.

I have a story up at mnartists.org here>>>

And I have my first ever post up at The Huffington Post (It's the same one as is on Guernica, but it's at the Huff Post, which is cool.) Read it here>>>

Anyway, thanks for reading my ramblings everyone, and for letting me know what you think. It warms the soul.

On "The Daily Show"

A while back New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani wrote of John Stewart and "The Daily Show":

"Mr. Stewart … and his writers have energetically tackled the big issues of the day -- ‘the stuff we find most interesting,’ as he said in an interview at the show’s Midtown Manhattan offices, the stuff that gives them the most ‘agita,’ the sometimes somber stories he refers to as his ‘morning cup of sadness.’ And they’ve done so in ways that straight news programs cannot: speaking truth to power in blunt, sometimes profane language, while using satire and playful looniness to ensure that their political analysis never becomes solemn or pretentious."

It's amazing that, in the pages of the New York Times the sentence "they’ve done so in ways that straight news programs cannot" can be written with seemingly little shame, apology, or call to action. Media critic Norman Solomon was perturbed by this praise in the pages of a "straight news" source as well, which led him to write this at Guernica in response:

"If -- as the New York Times soberly reported in the article -- 'straight news programs cannot' tackle the 'big issues of the day' while 'speaking truth to power,' we should ask a key question: Why not?"

Exactly. Why can't the New York Times and other "straight news programs" do this:



Forget about speaking truth to power, let's just speak truth to the people of this country whose memories are so short or whose lives are too comfortable to care that they are lied to repeatedly, over and over and over.

What to do About the Finacial Crisis: Some Ideas From Great Minds

I have been posting all of Robert Reich's blog posts about the issues on Wall Street lately at Guernica Mag. He was the secretary of labor under President Clinton and gives very clear explanations and solutions to the current woes. Read those here, here, here, here, and here.

And then there's this from Barack Obama late last night:

The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.

Congress and the President are debating a bailout of our financial institutions with a price tag of $700 billion or more in taxpayer dollars. We cannot underestimate our responsibility in taking such an enormous step.

Whatever shape our recovery plan takes, it must be guided by core principles of fairness, balance, and responsibility to one another.

Please sign on to show your support for an economic recovery plan based on the following:

• No Golden Parachutes -- Taxpayer dollars should not be used to reward the irresponsible Wall Street executives who helmed this disaster.

• Main Street, Not Just Wall Street -- Any bailout plan must include a payback strategy for taxpayers who are footing the bill and aid to innocent homeowners who are facing foreclosure.

• Bipartisan Oversight -- The staggering amount of taxpayer money involved demands a bipartisan board to ensure accountability and oversight.
Show your support and encourage your friends and family to join you:

http://my.barackobama.com/ourplan

The failed economic policies and the same corrupt culture that led us into this mess will not help get us out of it. We need to get to work immediately on reforming the broken government -- and the broken politics -- that allowed this crisis to happen in the first place.

And we have to understand that a recovery package is just the beginning. We have a plan that will guarantee our long-term prosperity -- including tax cuts for 95 percent of families, an economic stimulus package that creates millions of new jobs and leads us towards energy independence, and health care that is affordable to every American.

It won't be easy. The kind of change we're looking for never is.

But if we work together and stand by these principles, we can get through this crisis and emerge a stronger nation.

Thank you,

Barack

Some Things I Learned From the Speeches: The politicizing of issues that, apparently, should be too human for politics.

Last Monday as the Republican Party was supposed to be descending upon my little town of St. Paul, an opportunity arose for them to, finally after three years, play hero in the face of a storm. This whole week has been full of pleas to not politicize human events that are happening and could happen to any of us—hurricanes, military service, pregnancy, special-needs children, et al. It started with Gustav, and John McCain, instead of flying to St. Paul, flying to the Gulf Coast. Why exactly would an Arizona Senator need to be in Mississippi during a hurricane, other than for (as many, including Barack Obama have pointed out) a photo op? He is not president and he has never had anything to do with a state that must be concerned about hurricanes. I’ve been to Arizona once. Before I went I always thought it was a bit of hyperbole when people spoke of a “dry heat”—“Oh, it’s not that bad when it’s 110 in the shade, because it’s a dry heat.” Coming from a place that can reach 100 degrees with 85% humidity in the summer I just couldn’t believe it. After visiting, I realized that there was truth to the statement; indeed I realized just how dry a place could be. So, why was McCain in the Gulf Coast? The simple fact that he had a chance to look like he was doing something that his party failed so colossally to do three years ago when Katrina hit—to actually appear like he was a caring, compassionate human being.

In another bit of politicizing, we are all now, after watching the Republican nominee for vice president’s speech at the RNC, fully aware that Sarah Palin’s son is in the Army after she told us:

“[John McCain]'s a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.

Our son Track is 19.

And one week from tomorrow — Sept. 11 — he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.

My nephew Kasey also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.

My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform.”

Contrast this with Beau Biden’s speech, and his reference to his future service:

“I know my father will be a great vice president. As I mentioned, my dad has always been there for me, my brother and my sister, every day. But because of other duties, it won't be possible for me to be here this fall to stand by him the way he stood by me. So I have something to ask of you. Be there for my dad like he was for me.”

And add to that Joe Biden’s response to his son; he said only, “Beau, I love you. I am so proud of you. Proud of the son you are. Proud of the father you've become.”

There is no debating here which Party is using “service to this country” for its own political gain. One Party puts country first out of obligation to fellow citizens. One uses “country first” as a stepping-stone to another platform. And I’m not only talking about military service here. I’m talking about the larger call to serve that even John McCain called for in his acceptance speech at the RNC. He said:

“If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.”

Which brings me to perhaps the most infuriating part of what took place inside the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul over these last few days (Much time can be spent debating the most infuriating parts that happened outside of those walls, on the streets and bridges of this city). Even as the leader of their party planned to call each citizen to action in the final speech of the RNC, two of the most publicized members of his party openly mocked that call to action in their own speeches. Referring to Obama, Rudy Giuliani said the following:

“On the other hand, you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. He worked as a community organizer. What? He worked -- I said -- I said, OK, OK, maybe this is the first problem on the resume.

He worked as a community organizer. He immersed himself in Chicago machine politics.”

And the former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population roughly 5,000 when she was mayor) said, “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”

So much for “American hats.” When it comes to the level of importance of what John McCain called “serv[ing] a cause greater than yourself,” the Republican Party will be the judge.

And then there is the politicizing of the future grandchild of the Republican VP nominee. I will only say this about this issue: If you make it your position to make it so government can categorically go into the homes of families and would-be or would-not-be families, then do not expect people to stay out of yours when you’d like them to. The Republican Party’s policies already politicize this issue; it is, in fact, one of their absolutely necessary issues—one that has helped them feed their frenzied members and galvanized them to vote in huge numbers. Simply because you wish to spin the politicizing of such an issue so it will be seen in a positive light by your base (Read: at least no abortion), does not make it an issue that only you can politicize.

So here’s what I learned from the speeches and talk that came to my hometown this last week: There seems to be a turning in the way some are thinking about politics and a steadfastness in others to adhere to a view of politics that somehow became the norm. When did it become unfashionable to know about what is going on in our country? When did the political process become something that should be put to the side when more important human matters need to take center stage? Isn’t that process inherent in our country’s DNA (to steal another line from an RNC speech), in the words, “For the People, by the People”? It became abundantly clear this past week that the Republican Party is not averse to using anything and everything to gain a political leg-up. What did not become abundantly clear is why they claim to want to be separate from the political means towards their end, indeed from the process that makes this country what it is, or should be, or could be.

Crossposted at Guernica Magazine

Dustin L. Nelson: "I am Robin Gunningham" on Guernica

My writer/editor partner-in-crime Dustin wrote a cool little article about the artist Banksy, so I put it up on Guernica.

Check it out here>>>

New Post Up at Guernica

I have a new post up over at Guernica. Actually it's an introduction for a new blogger we have over there. She writes about the effectiveness of literature on politics, which is a topic I've brought up on this blog before. Here's my intro with a link to the rest:

If you click on the Guernica History link in the side bar you'll get the story behind this magazine. It began as a meeting place between arts and politics and to this day continues to focus on that crossroads. There is the Picasso painting of the same name invoking a brutal and unnecessary massacre in an historic Basque city during the Spanish Civil War, which, maybe as well as anything, captures the synchronicity of arts and politics.

The magazine also grew out of a poetry and fiction reading series that took place at a bar called Guernica.

The essence of this magazine is therefore cradled in the arms of arts and politics, and the magazine itself nurtures the notion that art and literature can have an immediate and lasting effect on the political sphere. Likewise, our current political state ("our current" meaning everyone, at any present moment) is reflected in the dialogue artists and writers attempt to have through their work.

Today on Guernica's blog we welcome a new voice that comes with a grand challenge for us--one that, if risen to, would surely have a positive effect on our current state. Here Jennifer Nix calls for a resurgence of a Gilded Age where Henry James, Mark Twain, William Thackeray and Joseph Conrad, among others, ran short stories and serialized novels in newspapers, offering the public an alternative to the world they saw in front of them. An alternative that, though written on the page, was every bit as real as their own.

How does literature do this? "Great literature creates a level of empathy for other people's lives," Jennifer writes, "with all its emotional, intellectual and philosophical complexities, in a way that no polemic or journalism, memoir or blogging can do."

Edward Abbey once wrote to Annie Dillard that he thought a novel could change the world, he just wasn't sure how long it would take. So he constantly called for people to take action in the present. Yet he could not keep himself from writing novels. Jennifer, like many of us over these last few years, has questioned whether literature can really do anything to change what we've seen in the Bush years. This is not new. Ed Abbey had to ask himself the same question in order to come to his conclusion. The key, as Jennifer points out here, is this: There is no need to choose between the two. A great novel will open a reader's mind, forcing her to see the world anew, and, seeing anew, she will react differently to the world. That is why we need literature to permeate the political scene. To allow for that "level of empathy for other people's lives." To make it so the "reality makers" don't overshadow the "reality interpreters" and show us only the reality they want us to see.

How best to do this? Jennifer has an idea of how to bring about a new Gilded Age.

As always, thanks for reading.

- David Doody

Click here for the rest of this post.

Bush's Impact Will Be Felt Long After He Is Gone

Ignoring the facts that opening up offshore areas to oil drilling will do nothing in the near term and little over the long term to solve high gas prices, and that the oil industry does not even have the equipment to extract the oil, the Bush administration pushes forward in its attempts to let the oil industry profit hugely:

Story on Guernica's blog.

In his book The Court and the Cross, Frederick Lane points out how long after a President is out of office his impact can possibly be felt by the lifetime tenures of the Supreme Court Justices he has appointed (three decades is becoming less and less an anomaly). Here we have another attempt by President Bush to make his presence felt in this country long after he is gone.

The House is pursuing legislation that would make oil companies dig for oil on acres of land where they already have leases. The opposing argument is that those leases don't come with treasure maps with X marking the spot where they can dig. It takes time and research to find and extract the oil. What this means is those companies aren't even producing crude oil to help the current gas crisis. Therefore, more leases will do nothing for the short term, because, as the companies have pointed out, it takes time, research, and resources to act on those leases.

So, what we have here is an attempt by this administration to continue to let big oil companies profit long after the presidential election this November has come and gone. If given more leases these companies will be allowed to continue to figure out where the oil is on their current leases (or not), as the new ones wait in the wings to go through the same process in the future. All the while making huge profits.

And then when the time comes (if the time comes) to switch to alternative energy, the same companies profiting now will be the ones to profit in the future.

But let's worry about the profits to be made off of oil before we think about the profits to be made elsewhere.

Some Cool Things Happened Tonight

So, as pretty much everyone knows Barack Obama was in St. Paul tonight. I was supposed to go, but had a scheduling mix up, so had to watch it online. Before I give that link, though, a little self-promotion. Check out this new magazine I'm involved with. My current title at Intentionally Urban magazine (in|ur, pronounced "in yer") is the music|film section editor (in|ur eyes n' ears). The thing is gorgeous; really exceeded any expectations I had and I'm really proud to be a part of it. I think it has an important goal at its center.

Anyway, here it is (I had trouble opening it with Firefox on my Mac. This could just be me, because despite working for/on three online magazines and numerous blogs, I am still kind of an idiot when it comes to the interweb sometimes. If you have trouble switch to Safari and all should be fine). Hope you enjoy and check back on it from time to time (along with InDigest and Guernica. I'm shameless.)

in|ur Magazine

And, then there's Barack Obama. I think you should be able to watch here>>>

Links, Links, and more Links

I didn't used to like blogs that did this, but since I look at all kinds of different blogs for various jobs, I thought I'd do a link round-up or a quick links post or whatever the hell you want to call it. Here goes:

This first one centers around the idea that big companies constantly get to play big-stakes gambling games with little to no risk because the government is constantly there to bail them out: passing laws to protect them; changing laws to protect them; coughing up large sums of money to get them out of a jam -- money that, because it is provided by the government, is actually provided by us...or at least "us" 50 years from now; etc. (There is a book called Free Lunch that addresses these issues and gives many examples (I haven't read it, but I heard the author on Bill Moyers).) All in the name of protecting the economy. One argument goes that if these companies go under it'll be too devastating to our economy. So no matter how moronic their business practices and dealings are, they essentially get a free pass. They get to play big: win big if they win, lose little if they lose. Meanwhile the joe-nine-to-five gets completely screwed for trying to better his existence by buying a house. The average joe loses everything because he was swindled by people whose job it is to know better. Sure, the people getting stuck right now in the housing market and with credit card debt should have known better, but so should the people who gave out the loans, who made the numbers work, whose job it is to examine markets and know that all of that couldn't have lasted. But none of them care, because they're not the ones getting the complete shaft. They're getting bailed out. Well Mr. Average Guy is now renting a one bedroom apartment with his wife and two kids.

Why are we sympathetic to the wrong people?

Anyway, here are some links from people who actually know what they're talking about:

Robert Reich. And another one at Guernica.

Tom Philpot at Grist.org

Becker and Posner blog: some lawyer types who have this site where they go back and forth at each other.


The New York Times today