Across the Great Divide

About Dithering.

If I google the word "dither," I get 238,000 hits. If I search within those results for "dither Obama," I somehow get about 597,00 hits.

And who says there's a right wing echo chamber?

Our glorious hardass ex-vice president, whose administration essentially ignored Afghanistan for eight years, now accuses Pres. Obama of "dithering" over the decision to commit more U.S. troops there.

Saying Mr. Other Priorities turns my stomach is the most even-tempered thing I can come up with right now.

Bill Moyers recently played recordings of President Lyndon Johnson as he was "dithering" over committing more American troops to Vietnam. Johnson — who inherited the commitment from the previous administration, who wanted to focus on domestic policy, who was hounded by right wing opponents who wanted to bomb North Vietnam back to the stone age, and who had the example of the French failure before him — had countless advisors tell him what an unwinnable mess he had on his hands.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: What do you think about this Vietnam thing? What, what, I'd like to hear you talk a little bit.

[Senate Armed Services Chairman] RICHARD RUSSELL: Frankly, Mr. President, if you were to tell me that I was authorized to settle it as I saw fit, I would respectfully decline and not take it.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: [chuckles]

RICHARD RUSSELL: It's a, it's a, it's the damn worst mess I ever saw, and I don't like to brag. I never have been right many times in my life. But I knew we were going to get into this sort of mess when we went in there. And I don't see how we're going ever to get out without fighting a major war with the Chinese and all of them down there in those rice paddies and jungles [...] I just don't know what to do.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Well, that's the way that I've been feeling for six months.

RICHARD RUSSELL: It appears our position is deteriorating. And it looks like the more we try to do for them, the less that they're willing to do for themselves [...] It's a hell, a hell of a situation. It's a mess. And it's going to get worse. And I don't know what to do. I don't think that the American people are quite ready for us to send our troops in there to do the fighting. And if it came down to an option of just sending the Americans in there to do the fighting, which will, of course, eventually lead into a ground war and a conventional war with China [...] If it got down to that or just pulling out, I'd get out. But then I don't know. There's undoubtedly some middle ground somewhere [...]

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: How important is it to us?

RICHARD RUSSELL: It isn't important a damn bit, with all these new missile systems.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Well, I guess it's important to us-

RICHARD RUSSELL: From a psychological standpoint.                          

[...]

RICHARD RUSSELL: Of course you'd look pretty good, I guess, going in there with all the troops and sending them all in there, but I tell you it'll be the most expensive venture this country ever went into.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: I just haven't got the nerve to do it, and I don't see any other way out of it.

RICHARD RUSSELL: It's one of these things where "heads I win, tails you lose."

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Well, think about it and I'll talk to you again. I hate to bother you, but I just-

RICHARD RUSSELL: I wish I could help you. God knows I do 'cause it's a, it's a terrific quandary that we're in over there. We're just in the quicksand up to our very necks. And I just don't know what the hell is the best way to do about it.

In another conversation with Russell

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: But they say that, well a fellow like A.W. Moursund said to me last night, -damn, there's not anything that'll destroy you as quick as pulling out, pulling up stakes and running, that America wants by God, prestige and power. And they don't want-I said, yeah, but I don't want to-I don't want to kill these folks. He said, I don't give a damn. He said, I didn't want to kill 'em in Korea, but said, if you don't stand up for America, there's nothing that a fellow in Johnson City-or Georgia or any other place-they'll forgive you for everything except being weak.

RICHARD RUSSELL: Well there's a lot in that. There's a whole lot in that.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: Goldwater and all of 'em raising hell about go on, let's hot pursuit. Let's go in and bomb them [...]

RICHARD RUSSELL: It'd take a half million men. They'd be bogged down in there for ten years. And oh hell no.

LYNDON B. JOHNSON: We never did clean Korea up yet.

RICHARD RUSSELL: No it ain't clean yet. We're right where we started [...] I didn't ever want to get messed up down there. I do not agree with those brain trusters who say that this thing has got tremendous strategic and economic value and that we'll lose everything in Southeast, in Asia if we lose Vietnam. I don't think that's true. But I think as a practical matter, we're in there and I don't know how the hell you can tell the American people you're coming out. There's just no way to do it. They'll think that you've just been whipped, you've been ruined, you're scared. And, it'd be disastrous.

It wasn't Johnson's dithering that killed more than 50,000 Americans. And it isn't Dick Cheney's bravery on the talk shows that is going to accomplish what he could not do in power.

You could take the Moyers transcript and change the names, and we'd be heading back to the same damn place, only drier.

Big Pharma Gives in 2010 What it Takes in 2009.

I loved this quote from a Pharma industry association exec justifying drug industry price hikes (occurring coincidentally!!) in advance of health care reform:

"In AARP's skewed view of the world, medicines are always looked at as a cost and never seen as a savings -- even though medicines often reduce unnecessary hospitalization, help avoid costly medical procedures, and increase productivity through better prevention and management of chronic diseases."

This "medicines as a savings" argument justifying higher prices seems new. And it also seems all-purpose. For example:

Defense spending is always looked at as a cost and never seen as a savings -- even though new weapon systems often reduce unnecessary deployment of troops, help avoid costly homeland defense and ground attacks on civilians, and increase productivity through better utilization of ground troops.

Or maybe:

Buying food is always looked at as a cost and never seen as a savings -- even though packaged food products often reduce unnecessary hunting and gathering, help avoid costly rickets, scurvy and starvation, and increase productivity through shorter gutting, skinning and cooking times.

Another spokester at Merck echoed that "Price adjustments for our products have no connection to health care reform."

Of course not! We know drug companies must raise prices to maintain profits so they can invest in research and development of new drugs as patents on old ones expire. But that is an ongoing, structural issue that you'd think the industry might have solved by now.

It appears they have, but plead poverty anyway.

Merck raised its prices about 8.9 percent in the last year, and in 2008 reported profits of 32.7%, up from 13.5% in 2007. Merck did spend about 20% of sales in R&D that year, but remember, profit is left after spending on operations.

The other top three U.S. drug companies reported 2008 profits ranking from 16.5% to 20.3% and R&D spending from 10% to 15% of revenues. In 2007 these companies were more profitable than the largest banks and in 2008, more profitable than the largest oil companies.

What — besides the fact that a very profitable industry agreed to make some price concessions in the new health care bill — would really account for the need to jack up prices when almost every other industry is lowering them?

Is This Why Bachmann's Top Communicator Left?

Michelle Marston, a top aide to Rep. Michelle Bachmann, said she was leaving the job the day before Bachmann's latest and greatest media stunt — a "house call" on Congress to protest the health care bill.

Marston declined to state a reason for leaving, but it's possible the stress of keeping Bachmann before the microphones and cameras had caused a slip-up in the office that left her boss furious.

An email blast from Bachmann sent yesterday afternoon may provide a clue. Apparently an earlier draft had to be heavily edited. We don't know whether this was because an inexperienced underling was assigned the job or someone on the way out the door decided to speak the truth for a change.

Here's the draft, with cuts and rewrites highlighted.

Dear Campaign Fund Supporter Patriot,

As I write this note, thousands of everyday Americans who can drop everything to come to Washington on the spur of the moment have come to Washington to speak their mind about the misguided health care bill that Speaker Pelosi and President Obama are pushing through Congress.

What an awe-inspiring sight! These people paid high last-minute airline fares came by plane, jumped on the Metro from K Street by train, drove all the way from Bethesda  by car and took 40 buses chartered by Americans for Prosperity by bus .

A couple of them They drove overnight and they left their jigsaw puzzles unfinished gave up their precious free time to share one message with the mainstream media this Congress: I am not a kook! Keep your hands off my health care!

Less than one week from when Americans for Prosperity and the insurance companies pitched this idea to me I put out the call to the American people to come to Washington and pay this emergency house call on Congress, they're here and they're ready to wander the halls disrupting work stand up for their freedoms.

But, even as I stand here with these thousands of American people - moms, dads, grandparents and my countless foster children all united by an irrational fear of anything that might benefit anyone but themselves a love of what makes America great - the Democrats are attempting to expand health care coverage to people who don't have it setting their sights on me.

In fact, it is because I stand with you and these other camera-hungry misfits great Americans that the liberals are doing all they can to demean all my appearances on Glenn Beck, etc. my work in Congress.

And, that's why I need your help. They'll come at me with both guns, putting facts millions of dollars into public information campaigns spreading lies about me and ridiculing my quest for more radio and TV time my work here in Congress. Can you help me with your most generous contribution today?

Here's what the Democratic National Committee (DNC) had to say about the ludicrous spectacle awesome power of the American people as they harassed the police providing security at gathered on the West lawn of the U.S. Capitol today:

"If the Republican party wants to make Michele Bachmann the voice of the party, that's more than fine with us. We'll help circulate the petition. ... It's their extreme right-wing, rigid ideological agenda that has Americans leaving the Republican Party in droves - and so, if displays like today are what they think is a smart political strategy, all we can say is: go for it."

Bingo! They still don't get it. Today wasn't about me — but you can bet I will be talking about it on Fox News for the next week. And, it wasn't about any extreme agenda because an agenda would be too much like actual work. It was about the people Fox News has whipped into a frenzy American people and what the extreme right wing mainstream America believes and supports and wants from their Congress. I need your help to raise my national profile stay in Congress fighting for you.

The Falcon and the Snowmen: Facing Reality.

 

[Photo Left: Lisa James, Merced Sun-Star Virgin of Guadalupe appears in a stone. Photo Right: Dorothea Lange, Colonist to Alaska from Minnesota]

The northern Plains were drying up and blowing away. As successive plagues descended on the Dakotas, residents thought they might be witnessing the end of the world. The New York Times printed a photograph with a caption that could have run in The Onion: “Cattle Invade a State Capitol. A herd driven from the drought area contentedly grazes on the Capitol grounds at Bismarck, N. D.” It provoked a storm of protest — first that the photo was faked, and then that its caption led to a false inference.

If one can imagine the political animosity that would have been generated if, as part of the current stimulus package, President Obama introduced a national documentary photography program, then it is possible to understand the opposition that the F.S.A. faced. Fiscal conservatives did not want to see their hard-earned tax dollars spent on relief, let alone a government photography program, of all things. And in Arthur Rothstein’s photograph of a sun-bleached cow skull, Roosevelt’s opponents had found their proof of government waste, duplicity and fraud.

Filmmaker Errol Morris continues his series about what contemporary observers can learn from the photography of the Great Depression.

What makes these accusations of photo-fakery utterly perverse is the claim that they unfairly portrayed a drought. The photographs led the viewer to infer that the Dakotas were experiencing a drought. But the Dakotas were experiencing a drought. One of the worst droughts in American history. Was the real issue that the cow had died of old age rather than drought? Or that the cow skull had been moved less than 10 feet, as Rothstein later claimed? Or had been moved at all? Or that multiple photographs had been taken? Or was it merely an attempt to shift the nature of the debate from the agricultural problems facing the country to an argument about photography and propaganda?

What makes an image not true? When does an art-directed photo move from documentary art to propaganda? How does the viewer's suppositions about the reality portrayed affect the response to a photo?

The Virgin of Guadalupe appears in California orchard stones, turtle shells and burned pancakes because of what a person of faith perceives in some random arrangement of contrasting colors and shapes. Here, the photo is unvarnished representation — any meaning or trickery is all in the mind of the beholder.

The meaning and emotional content of Lange's photo of the Alaska-bound Minnesotan depend greatly on its artful lighting and composition — and also on its context — but not upon any information conveyed intrinsically within the frame. 

Today, it seems evident that Lange's heroic images were carefully directed and shot. Surely no impoverished immigrant boarded a Depression-era steamship in such natty duds or paused so pensively before gaze-paralleling rivets. We could place him in GQ unretouched, and he could sell us every article of his clothing: the newsboy cap and the wool shirt with its collar jutting just so out of the stippled leather jacket. Instead of a young man heading for an uncertain future in Alaska, we might see a hunk who helped give Sarah Palin her accent.

The truth is that most images we see are manipulations — maybe not as fraudulent as the footage of the Boy in the Balloon — but altered all the same, with lighting, framing, lenses, wind machines, make up, point of view, safety pins, glycerine, PhotoShop, cropping, captions and editorial selection from perhaps hundreds of variations. Finally, these are submitted for examination through the filters of our own prejudices and desires.

A balloon goes aloft and transfixes a nation because of a made-up story. An unseen drought becomes real to the rest of the country because of a cow skull arranged in a landscape. A hog farm becomes a presidential ranch because a Texas front man puts on a cowboy hat.

Holy Virgin of Guadalupe, deliver us!

Cognitive Dissonance.

This pickup is not the only vehicle driving around the country with anti-Obama displays.

Near KARE 11 yesterday, my DP saw a version of this One Big Ass Mistake America message, rolled up with Biden: The Real Village Idiot and Pelosi/Reed/Oprah = Pure Evil filling the back window of a SmartCar.

*****

And let's hear it for stumble-able streets. Bill Lindeke draws urban design lessons from the Zombie Pub Crawl.

Confessions of a Mole.

It's time to tell the truth.

Yes, I'm a mole.

For five years, I have worked, mostly diligently, to convince you that some conservatives were indeed interested in building a decent world. Now that we've won and the first all-Minnesota presidential ticket is destined for the White House in 2012 — if not sooner — I might as well stop living a lie.

I left a cushy job creating marketing messages for corporate America to become a fake liberal blogger. This job was even cushier — fewer client meetings and working at home — and I took a nice salary bump.

There were drawbacks, of course. I had to quit the golf club. I had to sell the Jag and bike everywhere, even in the winter. Distasteful as it was, I disrespected my political heroes and said some very harsh things about certain political operatives. Now that they run the party, I hope they will remember my mission and treat me kindly. A communications directorship would be nice, with maybe a little side job as an election judge.

I had to attend Drinking Liberally, at least until I seriously relapsed and my bosses put me in rehab. I called it "Colorado." When it appeared my cover might be blown late last year, I started volunteering in homeless shelters.

All that was miserable, but I pressed on for the greater — though not necessarily majority — good.

My only real friend through all this was Jeff, who kept my spirit company here. He did a masterful job of walking the line between a reasonable conservative, an annoying libertarian and the whacko that all of you fear and detest.

Then Wilford Wicklund outed me. Oh, he was sly and I tried to respond with an equally sly comment. But I don't think I was that convincing. Finally, I should start being honest with myself again.

I have a meeting with my handlers this morning. I'm going to tell them my plan to come clean — that I'll lay everything out here. There may be water boarding, to make sure I wasn't a double mole. If they don't let me out alive, no matter.

I've already time-posted the story, and it will appear here, while I either head for the mountains or begin eternity with my savior.

We Need No More Evidence.

"ACORN could be eligible for as much as $10 billion in federal funds and that's simply unacceptable! We need no more evidence that the organization is either unable or unwilling to live up to the ethical standards that the American people demand."

– According to attorney and US Rep. Michele Bachmann

Here is a bulletin, Rep. Bachmann. You can edit videotape. You can delete material that doesn't support your story.  And when the editor is also the shooter and star of the show who happens to have an agenda, there's a wee possibility that the video is not an accurate representation of how the ACORN entrapment mission played out.

ACORN, at least in Minnesota, is hardly the powerful demon organization portrayed by the right. (When it isn't keeping appointments with junior ace reporters wearing gramma's fur coat, it's doing stuff like this.) It is not a complete paragon of virtue and non-profit effectiveness, but to claim ACORN is eligible for $10 billion in funding violates this American's ethical standard of speaking truthfully.

Dan Rather and CBS were disgraced over — though not necessarily wrong about — George W. Bush's National Guard Service because they didn't adequately vet some records used in their investigation. Of course, they couldn't, because originals had disappeared.

The ACORN videos don't remotely approach that standard of reporting. The crack journalists on the ACORN expose — a 25-year-old MBA student and the daughter of a right-wing radio personality — had far less supervision, a demonstrable bias and an expressed desire to bring down the organization. Yet their work is treated as conclusive evidence of corruption calling for immediate action by Congress.

Don't like the CBS/Bush comparison?

How about Blackwater?

Surely you remember the immediate action Congress took on an amendment to shut down funding for Blackwater after five Blackwater guards were charged with killing 14 Iraqi civilians. Don't 14 real dead people count as much for evidence as a dozen pretend illegal immigrants? 

Well, no. The ethically impaired but well-connected Blackwater, now calling itself Xe, is still working for the State Department.

Still no good?

Let's consider UBS, the Swiss-owned bank that has agreed to disclose information about the accounts of 4,450 wealthy American taxpayers — about 10% of its American clients. UBS didn't just provide some sketchy advice to a couple doofuses about their requirement to file tax returns. It actually solicited "wealth management" clients through its U.S. affiliates and helped them hide income to evade income taxes.

Its deal allows UBS to remain a "Qualified Intermediary,"  favorable treatment for a foreign bank in return for complying with certain reporting standards — the standards UBS violated. Congressional action against corrupt banks? I'll have to get back to you.

But for ACORN, an organization that serves low-income people, Rep. Bachmann and Congress have a different standard of evidence. All you need is surreptitious video starring Superflea and Bambi, and the howling jury represented by Strib commenters is ready to convict.

Nazi Party, SS, KGB, KKK, and now, ACORN.

For years, they've gotten away with murder.

If one isn't sickened and outraged over a group that was attempting to bring age 12-14 girls into this country for prostitition with our tax dollars, we have a very serious problem in this country. Acorn not only needs to be shut down, but there should be some long prison sentences for those involved.

Our Absentee Governor at Work.

Gov. Pawlenty, who has hardly been able to drag himself to Minnesota, let alone to his desk, unleashed a flurry of productivity yesterday, telling Management and Budget Commissioner Tom Hanson:

By this letter, I am directing you to stop all state funding to ACORN unless the state is legally obligated to provide such funding.

As Polinaut reports, however, ACORN and its affiliated organizations receive no funding from the state of Minnesota.

Look for future directives to stop all state funding to Cuba, the Dallas Cowboy's new stadium, Body Worlds, the Rolling Thirties Bloods, French health care, the Teamsters and Margaret Anderson Kelliher's gubernatorial campaign committee.

So Close, I Can Almost Smell It.

“The good news is we’re closer now to reform than we’ve ever been before.” 

If I drove to western South Dakota, I’d be closer to California than I’ve been in thirty years.

— Norwegianity live blogging Pres. Obama's Minneapolis speech

Oh, and it's "reform" like the MaxTax we may be getting closer to.

The MaxTax offers this one, giant, out for corporations.

A Medicaid-eligible individual can always choose to leave the employer’s coverage and enroll in Medicaid. In this circumstance, the employer is not required to pay a fee.

In other words, the one way--just about the only way--a large employer can dodge responsibility for paying something for its employees is if its employees happen to qualify for Medicaid. Under MaxTax, Medicaid eligibility will be determined by one thing: whether a person makes less than 133% of the poverty rate. And who has the most control over how much a particular person makes? Their employer!

Big Boxes and Brands Stretch the Meaning of "Local."

"Just so you know, buying local means any store in your community: mom-and-pop stores, national chains, big-box stores — you name it."

— Fresno, CA "Buy Local" campaign

Is buying local really that malleable? National brands and retailers would like us to think it is — especially as consumers seek fresher foods, more authentic experiences and a greater sense of community.

In Seattle, Starbucks has experimented with unbranding some of its stores, agribrands are buying up organic brands and then sourcing the product from China, and Hellman's is labeling its mayo "local" because most of the ingredients come from North America.

The New Rules Project has a good article that surveys "local-washing" practices across the country.

"Food is one of the biggest gateways, but we're seeing this idea of 'local' spread across other categories and sectors," said Michelle Barry, senior vice president of the Hartman Group. A report published by Hartman last year noted, "There is a belief that you can only be local if you are a small and authentic brand. This isn't necessarily true; big brands can use the notion of local to their advantage as well." Barry explains: "Big companies have to be much more creative in how they articulate local … It's a different way of thinking about local that is not quite as literal."

Right. I mean, Wal-Mart hires local people and pays local sales taxes. Cargill, that's a nice little local company. And a local distributor delivers your Budweiser. How's that any different from Surly, Summit or Brau Bros.?

Well, it is different. A study conducted by the firm Civic Economics and promoted by Orlando, FL, city officials found that, for every $100 spent locally, $45 stays in the community. But that was true only if the money was spent at a locally owned business. Spend $100 at a chain store, and only $13 stays.

Cities and their economic development agencies are likely to lean toward a broad definition of local, because the big boxes collect sales taxes just like mom & pop do, but

sales tax driven campaigns may well be doing more harm to local economies than good, according to Jeff Milchen, co-founder of the American Independent Business Alliance, a national organization that helps communities start and grow local business alliances [...] "If you encourage people to shop at a big-box store that takes sales away from an independent business, you're just funneling more dollars out of town, because, unlike chains, local businesses buy lots of goods and services, like accounting and printing, from other local businesses."

There's another wrinkle. Big chain stores know that consumers want to support companies they perceive to be acting responsibly, and

tossing around the word "local" is a far less expensive way to convey civic virtue than the alternatives. "Local is one of the lower-hanging fruits in terms of sustainability," explains Barry. "It's easier for companies to do than to improve how their employees are treated or adopt a specific sustainability practice around their carbon footprint, for example."