The Broad View

It's the end of the world as we know it...

... and I don't feel fine. I feel queasy.

If anyone was wondering what issue would galvanize the electorate this time around, today's events erase all doubt. Is there any middle class person with a 401K or stock investments or a house who isn't nearing panic as he watches a lifetime of asset building get torn down dollar by dollar, day by day.

Wall Street is melting down today, and Main Street knows it can't avoid the storm. "Big Shitpile" (© Atrios) will not be contained and the toxic cloud it's spawned has wiped out Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch. The Dow Jones opened 300 points lower and the European exchanges are even worse.

This isn't academic. It's visceral. And it's now Obama's job to tie this disaster directly to Bush-onomics and its biggest fan, John McCain. McCain's camp is already out there with this ad:

"Our economy is in crisis," the narrator says before declaring: "Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it. Tougher rules on Wall Street to protect your life savings. No special-interest giveaways. Lower taxes to create new jobs. Offshore drilling to reduce gas prices. McCain-Palin. Leadership, experience, for the change we need."

The Republicans, who in large part created this crisis, will hammer the public repeatedly with these lies until the average idiot 'Murican believes every word.

There's more to the story of what we're seeing, though. Truth be told, greed and tunnel vision aren't wholly-owned by the Republicans. The dismantling of the regulatory regime that allowed a shadow banking system to arise -- a system that operated for decades with scant oversight to check its lunatic excesses -- was endorsed by Democrats too.

Why? Because the Democrats were afraid of being tarred with all the usual right-wing labels. Because the rapacious Republicans tirelessly sold their ideology of unfettered capitalism and the pipedream that any slob can get rich if he votes Republican. But ultimately, we're here because Democrats forgot how to be Democrats.

The Times' Floyd Norris is liveblogging today's action. Before dawn he had this to say:

Those who were complaining, only months ago, that excessive regulation was making American markets uncompetitive, had it exactly wrong. It was a lack of regulation of the shadow financial system and its players that allowed this to happen. The regulators might not have gotten it right if they had tried to put limits on leverage, or assure that it was clear what risks were being taken, in the world of derivatives and securitizations. But deciding not to even try, and assuming that risks traded secretly would somehow end up in the hands of those most able to bear them, reflected ideology, not analysis.

Andrew Leonard, who writes Salon's "How the World Works" column, was equally blunt:

Tracking Monday's developments alone will be a full-time job for the entire global financial press. But as we wait for Monday's opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange, let us remind ourselves, once again, of the most important lesson that economists, investors and voters should be taking from this carnage.

Over the past three decades Wall Street sought, and received, a climate of deregulation and minimal oversight that allowed it to create new markets at will, permitted investment banks and commercial banks to commingle their activities, and exempted critical new innovative financial products from any meaningful government restraint.

Now, we are staring at the kind of mess you get when you give 2-year-olds a few buckets of paint and tell the baby-sitter to take the day off. Cleanup is going to be a bitch.

Chronicles of America in the 21st Century

Another step taken down the road to quivering paranoia, thanks to a State Dept. run by Bush men afraid of bushmen:

Three West African bushmen recruited to build a mud-hut village at the Frontier Culture Museum of Virginia have been denied visas because officials say the men were poor, didn't speak English and failed to convince them that their visit only would be temporary.

Museum director John Avoli said museum officials were heartbroken.

"They were denied because they were considered poor dirt farmers who lived in mud huts and can't speak English and supposedly have no business in America," Avoli said.

"No business in America." That would seem to be the new slogan of Fortress America, land of the spied-upon and home of the pissing in their pants over the darkies.

The U.S. consular official in Nigeria, Debra Heien, explained that not only were two of the bushmen "not able to make a living," but that one "couldn't properly explain the building project" and one didn't fill out his visa forms properly. 

Imagine that. I wonder if Ms. Heien would be able to make a living if she landed in an Igbo village. Never mind. The State Dept. obviously considers the bushmen a little too authentic to land in Virginia, unless it's the Virginia of 1808 and the men are in shackles.

Ms. Heien did offer this hope in a letter to Sen. John Warner (R-Va), whose staff had attempted to get the ruling reversed:

"Should the applicants decide to apply again, they must make appointments using our on-line appointment system."

Do the Igbo have WiFi?

"This was the moment..."

I think it behooves us as Democrats and Americans to reflect on the meaning and impact of Barack Obama's speech last night in St. Paul.

Hillary Clinton has oft belittled Obama's political bona fides as consisting of the talent to make speeches.

I would submit that that is no small thing. Sure, one can twist arms, make deals and play hardball in the back rooms, but that doesn't mobilize the people. The ability to do that comes from inspiring rhetoric. FDR, Churchill and JFK knew that.

Last February I wrote:

Obama may sometimes seem to be leading a tent revival meeting, but in a strange way he's taking a leaf from Bush's playbook. Unless pressed, he's airily short on details in order to focus on what Americans like most: to feel good and virtuous about themselves. Season that with some Camelot sentimentality, and you've got the recipe for electoral success.

Americans are suckers for Hope. "It's morning in America!" Obama understands what many Dems don't. This shit works. We want to believe.

Bill Clinton understood it; that's why his '92 campaign dug up the video of young Bill shaking JFK's hand and waxed lyrical about "A Man from a Place Called Hope."

Obama is a master at rousing his audience's emotions. Witness his victory speech on Tuesday night. He painted a vision of America the Good and swept his listeners there on a magic carpet ride.

And though I voted for Hillary in the primary, I am convinced that Obama has a better chance of winning against McCain in November. Picture the contrast between them: Obama, young and vibrant, exhorting us to answer the better angels in our nature; McCain, old and pinched, promising a Hundred Years of War and, by the way, the jobs ain't coming back.

Last night, Obama was generous in victory. He was an American leader. And he was leaving Clinton in a dusty past as the meaning and emotion of his words reached a crescendo:

And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union, and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines, the women who shattered glass ceilings, the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better and kinder and more just.

And so it must be for us. 

America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past...

... our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge -- I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless... 

... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal... 

... this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. 

This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

Thank you, Minnesota. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

It simple, actually. Clinton kept telling us how she would fight for us. Obama tells us that we have the power to fight for change ourselves.

More than anything, this reminds me of JFK's "Ask not what your country can do for you..." speech. I'm old enough to remember JFK's campaign and brief presidency. I saw him at a rally on Kings Highway in Brooklyn, in front of the old Dubrow's Cafeteria by the elevated subway station at East 16th St. I remember the thrill of his Inaugural speech. I wanted more than anything to join the Peace Corps when I came of age. Then I'd apply to become an astronaut because we were going to the moon! I think our best hopes and aspirations as Americans were blighted with Kennedy's death. For the first time in forty-eight years, I feel that same fresh breeze across the political landscape.

It doesn't matter if Obama is not the perfect vessel for our hopes and ideals. Neither were JFK or FDR, as we learned long afterward. What matters is that these flawed politicians speak to our hearts as well as our minds.

I'm a pretty cynical old curmudgeon. I hate emotional manipulation. Perhaps Obama is a false prophet and the same old thing in a shiny new package. But I would like to believe that this is our moment. If not now, then when? If not Obama, then who? McCain?

The dreaded $4 gallon hits town

It's popping up all over Santa Barbara, and soon will be the norm.

Are we all panicking now?

While on the Financial Times site for my previous post, I couldn't miss the headlines on the FT home page. Here's a snapshot right now:

Emergency Funding for Bear
Wall St sinks on Bear Stearns news
Dollar drops to fresh lows
Asian markets fail to hold early gains
Currency surge adds to Japan's woes
Investors get jitters over forced selling

The only less-than-totally-bleak headline was Threat from US inflation eases, due to flat consumer prices in February. Whoop-di-doo.

The Wall Street Journal is leading with "Bear Stearns in Free Fall."

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is 11911.85, down 233.89 so far today.

The Times has this: "Fed Chief Warns Anew on Foreclosures." Plus Krugman is on the op-ed page today and he's shrill:

[...] I’m sure that Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues are frantically considering other actions that they can take, but there’s only so much the Fed — whose resources are limited, and whose mandate doesn’t extend to rescuing the whole financial system — can do when faced with what looks increasingly like one of history’s great financial crises.

I'm officially panicked now, thank you.

Magic Carpet Ride

"...at some point the oratorical "change" trope got old."

Ellen describes her reaction to Obama's rallying cry, to which I say, "It's nine months to the election and it's all old to me by now." I swear, if I hear Hillary intone that she's "ready from Day One" just one more time, my head will explode.

I also voted for Hillary, despite vowing that I'd never vote for her. Just call me a flip-flopper. But I wasn't happy with the vote.

Obama may sometimes seem to be leading a tent revival meeting, but in a strange way he's taking a leaf from Bush's playbook. Unless pressed, he's airily short on details in order to focus on what Americans like most: to feel good and virtuous about themselves. Season that with some Camelot sentimentality, and you've got the recipe for electoral success.

Americans are suckers for Hope. "It's morning in America!" Obama understands what many Dems don't. This shit works. We want to believe.

Bill Clinton understood it; that's why his '92 campaign dug up the video of young Bill shaking JFK's hand and waxed lyrical about "A Man from a Place Called Hope."

Obama is a master at rousing his audience's emotions. Witness his victory speech on Tuesday night. He painted a vision of America the Good and swept his listeners there on a magic carpet ride.

And though I voted for Hillary in the primary, I am convinced that Obama has a better chance of winning against McCain in November. Picture the contrast between them: Obama, young and vibrant, exhorting us to answer the better angels in our nature; McCain, old and pinched, promising a Hundred Years of War and, by the way, the jobs ain't coming back.

Obama is demonstrating that he's the candidate who can neutralize McCain's ability to draw independent voters. With Teddy and Caroline by his side, Obama is pushing the comparison with JFK, another young and relatively inexperienced president. (We're not supposed to think that maybe we were lucky with JFK, just as we were profoundly unlucky with the callow Bush.)

I believe Clinton can win against McCain, but it's a harder proposition. I think we'd have another 50+1 presidency, but Hillary wouldn't be able to get away with the brazen agenda that Bush set under the guise of a "mandate". Democrats, even the Clintons, rarely have that kind of in-your-face chutzpah. I feel Obama, on the other hand, has a good chance to win a sweeping victory that would really give him a mandate for change.

If...he doesn't get utterly Swiftboated by the Thugs.

If...Bush and Cheney don't engineer a nasty October Surprise involving terrorist threats, or Iran, or military surges or withdrawals, etc. etc.

If...he's not afraid to stand his ground against McCain in any debates and show us what real straight talk is all about.

I like to dream yes, yes, right between my sound machine
On a cloud of sound I drift in the night
Any place it goes is right
Goes far, flies near, to the stars away from here

Well, you don't know what we can find
Why don't you come with me little girl
On a magic carpet ride
You don't know what we can see
Why don't you tell your dreams to me
Fantasy will set you free
Close your eyes girl
Look inside girl
Let the sound take you away

Last night I held Aladdin's lamp
And so I wished that I could stay
Before the thing could answer me
Well, someone came and took the lamp away
I looked around, a lousy candle's all I found

Well, you don't know what we can find
Why don't you come with me little girl
On a magic carpet ride
Well, you don't know what we can see
Why don't you tell your dreams to me
Fantasy will set you free
Close your eyes girl
Look inside girl
Let the sound take you away

Steppenwolf,  "Magic Carpet Ride"

"These drooling retards"

This was my belly-laugh of the week.

John Cole explains to David Brooks why he, along with so many others, is no longer a Republican, and it's not because he's forgotten his Burkean roots:

For starters, people got tired of being associated with these drooling retards [Jonah Goldberg, et al]. Then, when they realized that these drooling retards had ideological allies running the show in the Bush administration and then began to experience their idiotic policies, they moved from disgusted to outright hostile.

Like me. It had nothing to do with Burke, and everything to do with what the party had become. A bunch of bedwetting, loudmouth, corrupt, hypocritical, and incompetent boobs with a mean streak a mile long and no sense of fair play or proportion.

It gets better:

Seriously- what does the current Republican party stand for? Permanent war, fear, the nanny state, big spending, torture, execution on demand, complete paranoia regarding the media, control over your body, denial of evolution and outright rejection of science, AND ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA MAKE US WEAR BURKHAS, all the while demanding that in order to be a good American I have to spend most of every damned day condemning half my fellow Americans as terrorist appeasers.
[...]

That is why the Republican party is in shambles. The majority of us have decided that the movers and shakers in the GOP and the blogospheric right are certified lunatics who, in a decent and sane society, we would have in controlled environments in rocking chairs under shade trees for most of the day, wheeled in at night for tapioca pudding and some karaoke.

It's what we've been sayin' for years...

[h/t Glenn Greenwald]

Question I'd like the Corporate Media to ask

...John McCain

"You recently were quoted as saying that MoveOn.org should be thrown out of this country for attacking the name and reputation of General Petraeus. You felt that it was disgraceful for people to attack those who have or are currently serving the country in uniform. Do you then, Senator, want members of this administration, including the President, thrown out of the country for dragging your name through the mud by suggesting in phone calls to voters that you had sired an illegitimate black child?"

The public and the private

Rivers of ink and pixels and cubic miles of hot air have had already been devoted to the tragic events at Virginia Tech, including wild and repetitive speculation about the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui.

Today the worst sort of fuel was added to the fire: NBC received a package mailed by Cho, apparently during the two-hour interval between the first murders in a dormitory and the larger murder spree across campus. Cho enclosed what's being described as a "multi-media manifesto" that includes rambling video rants filled with profanity and menace, posed still photos of Cho brandishing various weapons and a 23-page written manifesto that, by all accounts, are the ravings of a profoundly insane individual.

I learned this tonight, when I came into the living room during Olbermann's "Countdown" and was regaled with repeated loops of clips from the video and slide shows of Cho's photos. All the while, we were assured that NBC acted immediately to turn the package over to the FBI -- as soon as copies were made, of course.

NBC News President Steve Capus made his second public statement in little more than a week. The last we heard, he was telling us how sensitive NBC was to complaints both internal and external over Imus and that NBC would forget the ordinary concerns of commerce and profit and do the right thing by canceling the racist rogue. Capus neglected to mention that sponsors were dropping out at an accelerating pace.

When we heard from Capus tonight, he was assuring us that NBC had thought long and hard before airing a totally wacko killer's publicity kit. NBC carefully balanced the public's right to know with concerns that I presume carried less weight and no profit -- namely, the danger of providing yet another anti-hero role model for other psychotic young men and the total lack of sensitivity to the families and friends of the victims. Although some material was withheld, enough was considered appropriate for broadcast to provide the slavering audience with a creepy montage of madness.

This is just a long-winded way of saying NBC doesn't give a rat's ass about reporting real news that, as in the Times' quaint motto, is "fit to print." NBC management cares about using any advantage to flog a sensational story to gain ratings and increase profits. I have no doubt that despite the outraged sensibilities of Capus' employees, Imus would be returning in a week if his sponsors hadn't bolted.

I expect that any request to withhold broadcast of Cho's wretched and horrifying ravings would have been refused on the grounds of freedom of the press and the public's right to know. At the very top of this blog is a quotation from Justice William O. Douglas: "Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions." Quite so. And yet...

Despite the scale of the violence -- and we are reminded every few minutes that this was the largest mass shooting in American history -- this is still a local, even private, story.

There really is very little to be learned that we don't already know from a history that has repeated itself far too often. As Bob Herbert writes in today's Times:

In case after case, decade after decade, the killers have been shown to be young men riddled with shame and humiliation, often bitterly misogynistic and homophobic, who have decided that the way to assert their faltering sense of manhood and get the respect they have been denied is to go out and shoot somebody.

Exactly. This is ultimately an unremarkable story wherein a terribly sick and unstable young man finally snapped and in consequence a lot of innocent people senselessly lost their lives. It is huge and life-altering for the survivors and Virginia Tech's neighbors. But for me in New York, or someone in Seattle or Chicago or Albuquerque, this story has the slimy feeling of voyeurism. It's merely grist for all us chickens to cluck over, 24/7, until the next peep show explodes, masquerading as news.

We didn't need to see Cho's video or hear his rants or see his guerrilla stylings in a slide show. There is no point in speculating about his motives or his feelings. They would be utterly opaque to anyone living in the real world. The only thing to be learned from this tragedy is that we must find better ways of helping young people who are so obviously sick and headed for a crackup. Cho was flagged numerous times but the system was inadequate to stop him.

It seems to me that the decision of whether or not to air this stuff is a matter of social responsibility. Free speech should also be responsible speech when it's being called "news" and coming over the public airways. As soon as I saw that video and photos of Cho, I was concerned about copycats taking their cues from him. Cho himself referenced the Columbine killers in his disjointed manifesto.

Psychotics like Cho seek validation through publicity and recognition of their power. The next Cho-in-waiting has seen that it works: Make the videos and the world will acknowledge your power, even if you personally are dead. The networks will give you all the attention and post-mortem publicity you could desire.

And minutes after that passed through my head, Olbermann interviewed a profiler who said much the same thing. He confirmed to Keith that it would ultimately be wiser to report receipt of such a package, but not to air its contents.

Will we ever learn? Will we ever demand better from our media? With all the attention on Virginia Tech and one pathetic lost soul, there was scant mention of the news that truly does affect us all as a nation.

At least 171 people were killed by bombings in Baghdad yesterday. It was the deadliest day since Glorious Leader's Surge started surging two months ago. And yesterday was preceded by many, many other deadly days. There will undoubtedly be more to follow. This miserable bleeding is draining us as a nation -- of lives, treasure, moral authority, security. And it's not helping Iraq one whit. It's the most expensive and futile game of whack-a-mole ever devised.

The tragic slaughter at Virginia Tech will recede into a troubling memory and campus life will eventually return to normal. The public, ever ready to devour the latest scandal or horror show, will move on. And NBC and its brethren will compete once again to serve up sensationalism with fancy graphics and blow-dried commentary. Bread and circuses for everyone!

Awash with guns

Monday's mass shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech will undoubtedly lead, as so many tragedies do, to a search for answers, for those measures that will ensure that something like the massacre in Blacksburg never happens again. And that search will almost inevitably lead, as it has in the past, to a discussion of gun control.

So reads the lede in "Why Democrats dumped gun control," currently in Salon.

It's all too drearily familiar by now. Horrific gun massacre occurs and dominates the headlines for a week. During that time, numerous liberal, urban Democrats decry the easy availability of handguns and assault weapons while platoons of conservative Republicans and Democrats repeat the tired formulations about liberty, the Second Amendment and how "it's not guns that kill people, it's people who blah, blah, blah...." Much tossing of anecdotes and statistics by both sides ensues.

It wasn't so long ago when a congresswoman near me got elected riding on the emotions of such events: Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband and son were victims in the Long Island Rail Road Massacre. Her loss changed her life and her politics and turned a reflexively Republican district into a Democratic one.

But times have changed since Bush took office and gun control will stay in the background as long as Democrats find renewed strength in western states or look to extend their victories in purple districts where hunting and gun ownership are the norm. Gun control is not a winning plank in the Democrats' platform these days, especially since there are a whole bunch of Democrats who own guns. As the piece in Salon points out:

Today, a substantial portion of the party's new standard-bearers are pro-gun, or at least anti-gun control. Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who now heads the Democratic National Committee and is the favorite of the new party power base emerging from the Internet, has long been an opponent of gun control. So has Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., the man whose squeaker victory in November gave Democrats control of the Senate and who was selected to give the party's response to President Bush's State of the Union address this year. Last month, one of Webb's aides was arrested on his way in to a Senate building with one of Webb's guns in his possession. Webb responded with a spirited defense of his right and need to bear arms. Even Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the new Senate majority leader, is pro-gun.

After that, check out Meteor Blades posting at DKos:

Like most Kossacks, I have strong opinions on the subject of gun control. 

Specifically, I firmly believe that self-defense is an inherent right (included as number one in the Declaration of Independence - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). I own guns - both antique and modern - and I believe that getting a permit to carry one concealed should not be difficult. I do not believe that such permits lead to higher rates of gun crime. Indeed, during the past 15 years, 23 states have passed  concealed-carry laws, joining the 16 that already had them. In the same period, gun murders have plummeted by 31% in the United States.

Meteor Blades is one of the most passionately liberal and genuinely humane people around. At the end of his post he includes a poll on gun ownership in the DKos community. As of this writing, fully 50% have never owned a gun and never will. Another 23% have never owned a gun although they have considered owning one.

Frankly, I fall somewhere in the middle of all this. I don't think the Second Amendment says that no restrictions or control can ever be placed on gun ownership. On the other hand, as long as there is a patchwork of state laws it is practically futile to try to tighten up restrictions much past where they are now. The country is awash in firearms and those who wish to get them will find a way sooner or later, somewhere or other.

There may be more success in some of the more novel approaches to control, i.e., bans on certain types of ammunition and restrictions on ammunition purchases. It will all be fought tooth and nail by the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for legislators.

No, I think we've got to go back to first causes. We've got to disenthrall ourselves. As a nation, we've got to get over our love affair with guns. Bit by bit, we must nibble away at the normative status of gun ownership. It's just too socially acceptable to own a gun, especially when you describe yourself as a "collector" or a hunter. In my world, unless you're a subsistance hunter, a soldier or a police officer, gun ownership is for fetishists or criminals, or maybe people living in remote cabins.

Will gun murders go down with restriction? Perhaps not, but certainly accidental gun deaths will go down. And despite Blades' statistic citation, I wonder if the decrease in gun murders has more to do with the general prosperity of the Clinton years than the deterrent value of concealed guns among the general populace.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, gun advocates are trying to make the case that had more students been packing guns, the shooter would have been stopped almost immediately.

Can we just ask what planet these people are living on? They've been watching too many episodes of "The Unit" if they actually believe that a campus of young college students will act like anything other than a stampeding herd when confronted with such unnerving and unthinkable events. I can't imagine a better way to boost the death toll than to have untold numbers of panicked students pulling out guns and blazing away.

Can we really just consider guns with a cold, sober eye? Guns are instruments for killing at long range. It is far easier to stand across a room or across a field and pull a trigger than it is to actually come to grips with someone who will fight back.

It will be the work of generations to wean ourselves from the false security of guns, from the romance of guns, from the frisson of imagined power with guns. But it's really time we, as a nation, grew up. Most of us aren't living on the frontier anymore. We won't starve if we don't kill the rabbit or the buck. If we're invaded by a foreign army, or extra-terrestrials, or there's a coup by the black helicopter crowd, we're not going to hold it all off with our little home arsenals.

Until we figure this out, we should hardly be lecturing the world about our superior culture and lifestyle.