web analytics

Somehow I didn’t realize that, last year, the Australian Labor Party’s rank-and-file gave an overwhelming win to the left-leaning progressive Anthony Albanese to run their party, but they were effectively overruled by the elected members of Parliament, who gave it to the much more conservative Bill Shorten. That’s a pretty bizarre system, though you have to wonder why they even bothered to implement it if they were simply going to ignore it. Granted, in America, the more left party routinely just ignores its base and activists, and its elites oftentimes even seem angry about the need to deal with them, rather than sitting in a conference room negotiating away the Great Society for some pittance of tax increases (that they’d never get). But this would be like if Obama had won a half-dozen more primaries in 2008, but the superdelegates gave it to Hillary anyway. Which is to say, very difficult to imagine.

Major fail, Australian Labor Party. First, you govern so incompetently that the rest of the world has to deal with a blithering fool like Tony Abbott. Then this. You once produced the late Gough Whitlam. Please. Do better.

Lev filed this under:  

Over at Balloon Juice, mistermix has a funny post making fun of right-wingers tendencies to reduce everything to a WWII analogy. It’s a good point. Why is it always WWII for these people? I think the answer is basically that a huge portion of the right really, really wants to fight another WWII. They want to do it for our sake. After all, couldn’t we use one? America is deeply divided domestically. You know when that wasn’t the case? Back when we were fighting Hitler. American power has grown steadily weaker over the past few decades. You know when we were strongest? Back when we were fighting Hitler, and right after that, as a (possibly Divine) reward for fighting Hitler. And you know when we all last agreed on the moral correctness of a great cause? Yep, Hitler. This is what the endless “appeasement” talk is about, it’s what the endless hyperventilation over second-rate dictators ranting against America (Who else did that?), and of course the biggest one, the Iraq War was supposed to be the long-awaited sequel to WWII. No more of this wimp-ass containment, no more liberal “nation-building” bull, no more “holding at the 48th parallel” or whatever. This time, we were going to kick ass like Patton. It was all over the sales job. Remember “Axis of Evil,” the silliest non-sequitur historical reference in memory? Try as he might, Bush couldn’t quite recreate the magic. It takes more than spin to turn a third-rate dictator into a real threat to the world, and you can’t change centuries of culture by putting a bunch of conservative hacks on the case.

The basic problem is that, while much of the GOP’s elderly base remembers the war (or think they do), the romantic, innocent narrative they’ve constructed of the war (like what they construct about just about everything) misses a lot of key facts that would make trying to give us another WWII an obviously bad idea. And I say this all as someone who has no doubt that fighting the war was unquestionably the right thing to do, but also someone that understands that no war is won without doing things that make stomachs churn, the point the song makes. Anyway, you know the narrative about WWII. Appeasement, Chamberlain, Pearl Harbor, Women making munitions at home, D-Day, Victory, Reflections on the sacrifice, Greatest Generation. It doesn’t include the Eastern Front at all. Too messy, no real good guys to root for. It ignores the atomic bombs, the firebombing of Dresden, the self-confessed war crimes of people like Curtis LeMay. It ignores how soldiers actually felt about the war as they were fighting it–something like Eugene Sledge’s With The Old Breed with its heavy ambivalence and soldiers who don’t understand why they’re fighting and don’t really care, would be incomprehensible to these folks; or the fact that the troops who survived came home to a broken economy and an atmosphere of suspicion, darkness, and betrayal, who might reasonably wonder who actually won the war or why they fought it. How else could they feel? They’d given more than any other generation ever had, and they came back to a domestic situation that presented nothing but more confusion and more challenge. All that “moral certitude” stuff was projected onto them by the same Baby Boomer morons who would later call them “The Greatest Generation” and wanted to convert all that distasteful realness into a narrative that could make them feel better about themselves. Their parents had beaten Hitler, goddamn it! And they all but said “shucks” after it. How dare they not celebrate themselves for it, and if they won’t, we will, since it reflects onto us by extension! Well, they want to feel better again. Problem is that they don’t realize just how inaccurate this story they told themselves truly is. A read of history would show that political divisiveness is a near-constant byproduct of war, that the “victors” of big wars often wind up feeling as though they’ve lost after the fact (as Niall Ferguson brilliantly showed of Britain, the “winner” of World War I, in The Pity of War). WWI was more typical, where Woodrow Wilson used the war to batter his conservative, Republican critics, to such an extent that they’d be moved ultimately to destroy him and his cause, creating a new era of polarization. And if you look hard enough, you see it in WWII, where Democrats’ isolationist epithets would do much the same thing, with Republicans seeking payback with the Red Scare.

An innocent war is such an obvious oxymoron that Oliver Stone deflated it three decades ago with a movie tagline, but the longer and bigger the war is, the more sunk cost logic sets in, and combatants will undergo ever more desperate acts in order to win. This is why another WWII is not in the cards. I’m not sure which I even find more bothersome anymore: the “splendid, innocent war” types or the “more in sorrow than in anger” types, who barely put a face on the tedious undulations of a failing quasi-empire. Today, probably the latter.

Lev filed this under: ,  
  • This is a pretty good postmortem on the election fiasco. Given that Udall only lost his race by about two points, while most of the red state Democratic senators were wiped out, it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that delaying the immigration reform EO was indeed a major blunder, based on Democrats fancifully hoping to save Pryor and Landrieu (and Walsh, prior to his collapse), instead of having a much more sensible Colorado/Iowa/North Carolina-first strategy.
  • It probably doesn’t matter all that much that Chris Christie isn’t actually a very good governor. If the Republican money men decide he’s their guy, they have no shortage of people who can make it take whatever shape they want it to with the media. Christie’s bigger problem is that the base will have legitimate choices in 2016, so it’ll be hard for those folks to force him on a party that dislikes him. If I were them, I’d build up Cruz to some extent in order to scare the moderate/less conservative Republicans who choose these things into going for Christie, that’s a double game that could work. But damn if that’s not a dangerous one.
  • Much as I love David Cross, his albums are largely just not built to last (and arguably are not intended to, given how topical they are). Last time I took a trip through Shut Up, You Fucking Baby, I found myself rapidly skipping anything with political content because I’m worked up enough about present-day politics, who really still cares about John Ashcroft! But this actually has aged extremely well. If you’re a Prime person, it’s free.
  • Hillary Clinton can win the coveted Library Grape endorsement for President in exchange for one small thing: pledge not to give a job to Samantha Power. That’s all we ask, and believe me, you’ll be better off without John Bolton’s doppelganger.
{ 1 comment }


Shia militias acting with Iraqi government cover are leading the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Iraqis, sharply increasing their risk of death or exile, a report has found.

The role of the militias has added a new layer of danger to the country’s vulnerable LGBT community, which was already among the least protected groups in Iraqi society, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Association and the women’s human rights group, Madre said on Wednesday.

Given that the stated rationale of the ISIS war is in part to preserve the Iraqi government, perhaps the Obama Administration might kindly ask them to knock this shit off. Or, better yet, to simply call off this misconceived, panicked reaction called the ISIS war, though I very much doubt that will be considered.

At the moment we’re trying to preserve stability and human rights in the Middle East. Last time it was about democracy. Before that it was curbing aggression. US policymakers always find reasons to intervene in the region, though the longer I watch this, the less of an idea I have as to why. I don’t even think it’s entirely about oil–eliminating all sanctions would get that flowing smoothly, after all, and nobody seems to be advocating that. Christian fundamentalists may account for why Republican presidents love wars in this region, less so for why Democrats provide nearly as many. But of course this is merely facetious: I do know the answer. It is at this point a fully-fledged imperial enterprise that touches too many interests to simply be abandoned. Don’t get me wrong, America’s not an empire–more like a bunch of missionaries with machine guns, which is stupider and worse–but this is all too familiar. Even though, according to Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History, the American public soured on the imperial adventure in the Philippines very quickly, it continued for four decades. It took the New Deal sweeping out the entire political order that cared about such things, ultimately, to end it. Getting the hell out would make eminently more sense, though it seems as far off as ever.

Lev filed this under: ,  

This month, Democrats managed to get badly defeated at the polls, losing ground pretty much across the board, in some areas dramatically. However, in California, Republicans failed to win a single statewide contest and actually dropped a U.S. House seat (though they did win a small number of state legislature and local races). Why did my state avoid the Republican wave again? The good folks over at the Field Poll organization have an explanation:

First, even in low turnout elections, the California electorate includes proportionately more ethnic voters than does the U.S. electorate. This benefits Democratic candidates across the state. However, its net effect in low turnout non-presidential election years is much less than in presidential election years.

In this year’s election, an even larger force underpinning the differences in statewide election outcomes here to those across the country was the voting preferences of white non-Hispanic voters. According to the exit polls, whites nationally voted for Republican candidates over Democratic candidates in House races by 24 points (62% to 38%). An identical result was observed in the 2010 mid-term election, which also saw the GOP dominating at the polls. Both were significantly wider margins than observed in mid-term elections prior to Obama’s presidency. […]

[California’s] white non-Hispanic voters were evenly divided in their preferences between the Democrat and Republican candidates across the six down-ballot races, with each party’s candidates averaging about 44% of the voting preferences. This is in stark contrast to the 24-percentage point advantage that Republicans held over the Democrats in House races across the country.

Thus, one of the major factors underlying the very different election outcomes nationally and in California relates to the voting preferences of white non-Hispanics.

So, essentially, our white people are more liberal. Good to know. There’s also a bit about how strong Democrats have become in coastal counties that is interesting. Perhaps over here we’re used to being a white minority and realize it’s really not all that bad?

The upshot is that Californians are in a position to really dominate the Democratic House caucus, given their relative size and that apparently they’re the only ones assured of not getting wiped out in a midterm, and can therefore build up considerable seniority much more quickly. This seems to me like a generally good thing from the point of view of progressive politics. Generally speaking, though there are a few exceptions (cough, cough).

Lev filed this under: , ,  

Fortunate Son is not really an anti-war song, it’s a song about people like Dick Cheney who cheer-led the war and then didn’t go, made no sacrifices for it, then congratulated themselves for their patriotism. It’s a condemnation for that sort of thing more than a critical evaluation of war or politics.

Born In The USA is also not really an anti-war song, so much as it’s a portrait of an America crumbling on every level, a theme carried forward on every other song on the album of the same name (as well as on his prior album, Nebraska, for which the song was originally intended). It’s those goddamn synth organ noises that make it seem bombastic. But overall it’s amazingly despairing for a pop album that sold roughly eighteen trillion copies, though perhaps it’s hardly amazing it sold so well because everything on the album was spot-on and is still all too relevant.

This, on the other hand, is an anti-war song:

Lev filed this under: ,  

The movie remake of The A-Team would seem to have been the hardest ever thing to screw up. The show was basically like any B-grade generic action film, only it was on television and featured Mr. T. So, literally any kind of bare-bones ’80s-style actioner would have lived up to the legacy, such as it is, of the show. Dust off an unmade script from the time, insert the characters’ catchphrases, and go. Instead, they put out what this review accurately describes as “cartoon bullshit,” complete with silly origin stories, a lame romantic plot to lure another “quadrant” to the theaters, and the worst physics this side of a Star Wars prequel, practically guaranteed to keep you from investing anything into the movie.

Honestly, the Expendables films are the real heirs to the tradition of sub-par ’80s action films that The A-Team also belongs to. And after the novelty of the first one wore off, it became once again obvious that those films were terrible, and not in need of revival. Not that that group of movies was a total loss–Commando remains a hell of a time–but the ultimate effect of retro is to deflate nostalgia by removing your rose-colored glasses about how things used to be.

Lev filed this under: ,