Month: October 2011

Saturday Painting Palooza Volume 324

Hello again painting fans.

This week I’ll be starting a new painting of, yes, another Cape May, New Jersey house. It is seen in the photo directly below.  I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a large, or what passes for large here at SPP, 12×12 inch canvas.

This is the Physick estate.  The building is perhaps the most famous house in Cape May, New Jersey.  It is built in the so-called stick style, a peculiar but distinctive architecture where structural elements appear at the building’s surface.  (Notice the horizontal and vertical elements.)  I took this photo on a recent trip to the area.  This one will present a tremendous challenge but I’m not backing away.  I’ve accomplished two personal milestones this year and I’m not going to stop now.  (50 lb weight loss/running and first acceptance into a juried art show.)

I began the piece with an outline of the house, painted in a light blue.  At this point, the outline is only partially complete.  I’ll have it finished for next week along with other progress.  I’ve added some of the blue to the sky for contrast with the outline.  (Yes, the perspective is a bit off!)

   

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

That’s about it for now. Next week I’ll have more progress to show you. See you then. As always, feel free to add photos of your own work in the comments section below.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.

Romney is Unbelievable

I don’t even want to discuss U.S.-Israeli relations or what it would mean for us to relocate our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That’s all beside the point. What’s important is what Mitt Romney had to say when he was asked about whether we should move our embassy to Jerusalem:

ROMNEY: The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.

I have to admit that I have never been able to finish the Book of Mormon. I just can’t plod my way through it. Maybe there is something in that book that might explain why Mitt Romney wants to turn over our foreign policy decision making to Israel. It’s completely mystifying to me.

If we were talking about some Soviet satellite state like Romania saying some time in the 1950’s that they would defer to their allies in Moscow, I might understand it. If we were talking about some country like Qatar that is dependent on the U.S. for their security, I’d understand them saying that they’d defer to our judgment.

But why on Earth would the United States of America let a small country like Israel tell us what to do?

Yes, they are our allies and we care a lot about what they want and what they think. But our interests and their interests do not always coincide. We can’t just defer to their judgment in all matters. That’s crazy.

And what’s truly amazing is that Romney wants to abdicate our leadership role in brokering a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. He wants us to just support Israel in that conflict and not to really advise them in any way. We just listen and then support.

What happened to American Exceptionalism?

How long before Romney flip-flops on this and takes the exact opposite position?

Weekend Thread

Anyone else looking forward to first World Series Game Seven since 2002? What else is on your mind? Doing anything fun this weekend? Dressing up in costumes?

On My Ambivalence

This is an excellent piece by Gordon Lafer. And I think it perfectly explains my ambivalence about the Occupy Movement. Mr. Lafer, who spent last year working as a senior staffer on the House Labor Committee, sees things about exactly how I see things. The OWS protests are a direct result of the inability of Washington DC to tackle our biggest problems, but also a sign of exasperation on the left about our ability to ever succeed legislatively. Let’s take a look at two parts of Mr. Lafer’s argument.

The protests are also in large part a response to the disappointments of the Obama administration. Indeed, almost every policy demand that OWS might possibly voice has already been proposed, debated and defeated—at a time when Democrats controlled all branches of government. Members of Congress considered but declined to enact proposals to impose a tax on Wall Street transactions; to limit executive compensation; to fund a mass WPA-style jobs program; to allow bankruptcy judges to mark underwater mortgages to market; to make it easier for Americans to form unions and bargain for better wages; to eliminate tax benefits for companies that transfer our jobs overseas; and to forswear any more NAFTA-style trade treaties. The OWS refusal to articulate policy demands reflects the conviction that any remedies that fit the scale of the problem are impossible to pass—not only in the current Congress but in any Congress we can realistically imagine.

In some ways, it’s the White House that pushed people to turn outside the system. The administration has long admonished the left not to expect too much. Former press secretary Robert Gibbs famously declared that “the professional left” needed to understand that things like “Canadian healthcare” are simply “not reality.” The president repeatedly asks that we appreciate his modest achievements as the high-water mark of what can come from such a limited system. For the OWS protesters to be coaxed back into the legislative game, they’d have to believe that Obama is lying when he says this is the best we can expect. The problem is that the protesters believe the president is telling the truth.

Now, for at least two years I have been almost a prophet of the “this is the best we can expect’ school of thought. The value of this line of argument is that it allows people so see things more clearly and, therefore, to assign blame where blame truly belongs. There are reasons that we cannot get a Canadian-style health care system created in the United States. There are a lot of reasons, actually, all with differing levels of responsibility. But the president’s refusal to push for such a system is not one of them. Similarly, there are several reasons why we haven’t been able to close Gitmo, but the president’s lack of desire to close the prison is not one of those reasons. There are reasons why we were not able to pass a Cap & Trade bill through the Senate, but the blame for that has nothing to do with the administration’s desire for a Cap & Trade bill. People who argue that Obama gets exactly the outcomes he desires are wrong. Likewise, the president would like to do another massive stimulus bill but cannot get one placed on his desk to sign. You should know who to blame for that. You should also know why he doesn’t bother to ask for it.

The Republicans are the main problem. They’re the ones who are using every procedural trick in the book to block progress on carbon emissions and job production. But they’re not the only problem. After the Citizens United ruling legalized unlimited and unaccountable corporate funding of campaigns, the Democrats are more beholden to Big Business than ever before. Then you have a Senate where Oklahoma has the same power as California and New York, and where you need 60% of the body to agree before anything can happen. On top of that you have a conservative monopoly of political speech on the radio, and a host of corporate funded media outlets and think tanks churning out utter bullshit that pollutes the public discourse and skews it in a conservative direction.

The result is that we can’t pursue truly progressive solutions through the legislative process. Not in the last Congress, certainly not in this Congress, and not in any foreseeable Congress. That’s what I meant the other day when I said that Mitch McConnell’s plan of complete obstruction was designed to thwart change and kill hope. Yet, he has many allies in that effort.

The OWS protests are a recognition that the way forward in Washington is blocked. Now, Mr. Lafer argues that OWS must transform itself if it is going to create any real changes.

OWS is clearly inspired by Tahrir Square. Yet Egyptians succeeded in toppling the Mubarak government not because they occupied the square but because their occupation exerted direct pressure on the country’s most powerful business interests. As SUNY Stonybrook sociologist Michael Schwartz has detailed, by shutting down the tourist industry, disrupting construction projects whose financing had already been committed and initiating general strike actions that threatened to shut the Suez Canal, the occupiers of Tahrir threatened the interests of the economic elite—and that is what brought down the regime.

Clearly, something similar—nonviolent action that directly challenges the economic elite—is required here if we’re to succeed in making serious change. It’s daunting, but there is a precedent. Before there were civil rights laws, people broke the back of Jim Crow by picketing, boycotting, getting beaten and arrested by the tens of thousands, in direct action against the most powerful forces of their society…

…This is the nightmare scenario for those at the top, and the promise of a new day for the rest of us. This is something that could get out of hand. This is Shays’ Rebellion without the guns.

Here’s the rub. Things are bad in our country, but they could be much, much worse. Whatever else happens, the reelection of President Obama is desperately important. And, yet, here we have a movement that is sucking up a huge amount of energy on the left and which, to be effective, must create a “nightmare scenario…that could get out of hand” for our elites.

How could I not feel ambivalent under these circumstances?

In the history of our country, left-wing civil disobedience has a tendency to create a reactionary backlash. What we’re banking on here is that the country will react to this unrest like they did in the 1930’s and not how they did in the 1960’s and 1970’s. But with the media dominance of the right and the lack of any meaningful campaign finance laws, is that really a safe bet?

It also concerns me that all this unrest is taking place in areas of the country that vote Democratic. Most of the country is already suspicious and afraid of what goes on in Oakland and Atlanta and Philadelphia and New York and DC. Yes, that is where our financial elites have their corporate headquarters, but it’s not where we’re getting the most resistance from members of Congress. How much pressure is this putting on suburban politicians?

I don’t have any easy answers. The one thing I know for certain is that we’re at risk of seeing the Republicans win back the White House, hold the House, and take over the Senate. And, if that happens, all the craziness we’ve been witnessing from Republicans will be weaponized. If that happens, we won’t recognize our country, and we’ll probably never recover.

Keeping It Together

I guess my timeline is slightly different from the Speaker’s, because I’d say that it’s been about six weeks since the president made it absolutely clear that he’s done trying to forge compromises with a party that won’t compromise. But let’s take a look at John Boehner’s thinking anyway.

“There is nothing that has disappointed me more over the last eight weeks than to watch the President of the United States basically give up on the economy, and give up on the American people, decide he’s going to quit governing, and spend his entire next 14 months campaigning,” Boehner said.

The lead Republican went on to say that the president should try to find more areas of agreement between the two parties. That notion has been one of contention, with the president maintaining that his jobs proposal consisted entirely of ideas previously supported by Republicans.

“If the president is serious, he ought to be up here working with us to find common ground to solve the issues that the American people want us to solve,” Boehner said.

What John Boehner means is that the Democratically-controlled U.S. Senate and the president of the United States should capitulate to whatever the House of Representatives wants to do, even if what the House wants to do has no relationship to what the Democrats promised their constituents they would fight for. What I find ironic, though, is that nothing has disappointed me more than how the activist left pushed Obama to stop compromising with the Republicans and take his case to the people, and then six weeks ago when the president decided to do exactly that, the activist left decided to pour all their energy into the Occupy Movement. I’ve discussed this before, and my thinking has been evolving. It feels like that the precise moment the president gave up on working with the Republicans, the activist left gave up on the congressional process. It’s like something snapped after the debt ceiling fiasco. I think it destroyed hope all around. And people are reacting differently to it depending on their situation.

The one positive thing I am feeling is that I have the sense that the Republican talking points and arguments seem a little more detached from reality and a little more irrelevant or impertinent than they did before the Occupy Movement got started. It’s just a feeling, but if it’s right it might mean that the debate is moving in a more favorable direction. And the movement gives people a way to stay politically involved instead falling into despondency. So, that’s good, too.

I just worry that the left is splintering at a dangerous time.

I feel compelled to remind you all again that a key component of the McConnell Plan of total obstruction is to frustrate the left so that it turns on itself.

It’s Time for Bachmann to Go

I’ve been busy with doctor appointments and other chores, but I thought you’d enjoy reading about this. Michele Bachmann never was a true tea partier, and now they’re asking her to get out of the presidential race.

In Bachmann’s case, it is clear that the campaign has become less about reform and more about her personal effort to stay relevant and sell books; a harsh commentary, but true. It’s not about tea party values or championing real plans to solve real problems. While other campaigns are diving into the substance, the supposed tea party candidate Bachmann is sticking to thin talking points and hanging on for dear life.

Every day the campaign flounders, it risks hurting the credibility of the movement. If she really is about the tea party, and making it successful, it’s time for the Congresswoman to move on. The Tea Party doesn’t have a spokesperson, and it’s certainly not Michele Bachmann.

Ouch.

Moussa Koussa, The Libyan Who Knew Too Much

.

Moussa Koussa’s defection surprises Libya – and maybe Britain too

(Guardian) March 31, 2011 – After leaving university, Koussa was sent to London to head the People’s Bureau in St James’s Square, London – in effect the country’s ambassador in the UK. The role meant he was in charge of security at all Libyan embassies in northern Europe, and he was known to be involved in buying weapons.

He was also charged by Gaddafi with liquidating what were called – in chilling Libyan officialese – “stray dogs” who betrayed the 1969 revolution.

…
Crucially, it remains unclear whether he was involved, as has often been rumoured, in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 or in an attack on a French plane over the Sahara the following year.

Koussa has denied knowledge of either atrocity, but the suspicions persisted, and were hardly dulled when in 1994 he was appointed head of Libya’s External Security Organisation, during a period in which the regime was constantly being linked to terrorist activity.

His rehabilitation – in diplomatic circles at least – began within days of 11 September, when US demands for intelligence outweighed its queasiness about dealing with the Gaddafi regime.

Koussa is said to have flown to London shortly after the atrocity, bringing with him files about known al-Qaida terrorists; he was also Gaddafi’s special envoy in the negotiations to give compensation to relatives of the 270 passengers and crew killed at Lockerbie.

…
Now part of Whitehall folklore, Koussa was a key figure in the secret meeting at the Travellers Club in Pall Mall – favourite haunt of spies – when the deal was done.

Britain’s chief interlocutor at the talks was Sir Mark Allen, a veteran Arabist who was deputy head of MI6. Steve Kappes, now deputy director of the CIA, was part of the circle of trust too.

After flying to and from Libya to lay the ground work for the deal, it was Allen who chaired the critical discussion with Koussa in London on 16 December 2003.

In a private room in the club, over a long lunch, the talks continued until 6pm until an agreement was reached – Libya to abandon its weapons programme, in return for sanctions being lifted.

Within a month, the US and the UK had resumed relations.

Sir Mark, having failed to secure the top job at the Secret Intelligence Service, went on to join BP as a special adviser, helping the company to win huge oil contracts with Gaddafi.

Koussa’s long-standing link with Britain’s intelligence service and the CIA continued, with Libya becoming an ever closer and valued ally in the US-led “war on terror” – a point Gaddafi peevishly reiterates as evidence of bad faith towards him.

CIA, MI6 helped Gaddafi on dissidents: rights group

Moussa Koussa’s departure to Doha angers Lockerbie campaigners

(Guardian) – Moussa Koussa is ‘a free individual who can travel to and from the UK as he wishes’, the Foreign Office said. Libya’s most high profile defector, foreign minister Moussa Koussa, flew out of the UK on Tuesday to take part in a critical peace conference amid anger from Lockerbie campaigners and accusations of “betrayal” levelled at the British government.

Koussa made his surprise departure to Doha after the Foreign Office said he was “a free individual, who can travel to and from the UK as he wishes”.

He was expected to “offer insights” in advance of the conference on Libya in the Qatari capital, being held with representatives from the Benghazi-based opposition. The UN, Arab League and EU will all be represented, as will France, Italy, Germany, Turkey and others.

But families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing accused the British government of “betrayal” for allowing the former minister to leave the country.

The Doha conference is being billed as a follow-up by the “contact group” formed after the London conference on Libya last month. Hague is co-hosting it with the Qatari prime minister, Hamed bin Jassem, but Hillary Clinton is staying away, perhaps signalling an attempt by the US to leave the heavy lifting to Europeans and Arabs.

Blowback for Qatar

(The Gulf Blog) – Moussa Koussa left the UK for Qatar in April. It was becoming far too difficult for him to stay in the UK given his murderous past. Now in Qatar he has, I am sure, proved exceedingly useful to the Qataris and thus indirectly to the NATO alliance in working out who is who in Libya, what Gaddafi is was likely to be up to and where he was most lilely to flee to. Plus a host of other bits and pieces that only long time close confidant of Gaddafi could know. This was the price for his residency in Qatar. Yet now – on the ball as ever – the BBC doorstepped him after after miraculously `tracking him down’ to the Four Seasons in Doha.

It is likely that there will be a sizable push to bring Koussa to some kind of justice, perhaps in Tripoli, perhaps in the Hague. This will put Qatar in a difficult position, as it will be difficult for Qatar to give up Koussa. Not only would such a notion go against deep-seated notions in this part of the world of hosting a guest (whomever that may be) but Qatar will not want to set a precedent of cow-towing to other powers to hand over someone with whom they have had dealings. Indeed, Qatar sees itself as something of a refuge for various international misfits ranging from one of Saddam Hussein’s wifes  to one of Osama Bin Laden’s sons.

Libyan spy chief tracked to Qatar

"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

People Don’t Trust Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney represents everything that people hate about the economy.

Officials believe Obama’s tour around the country to promote his jobs bill is paying dividends, but they continue to acknowledge the president has a tough battle ahead as he works to improve the economy and win reelection.

“We have a tough economy,” one official said. “The sun comes up in the morning, the sky is blue, the grass is green. We’ve got a tough economy. We’re going to have a tough election. That’s just the deal.”

But the official said that the choice next November will come down to “who do you trust” to fix the economy: Obama or someone like Mitt Romney who “represents everything the American people hate about the economy.”

It’s not just the economy. I wouldn’t trust Mitt Romney to protect the honor of his wife let alone stand up to foreign leaders or terrorists. He’s afraid to hunt anything bigger than a varmint. He’s afraid to take a position if it’s unpopular or the slightest bit inconvenient, and he doesn’t stick by his decisions once he makes them. You can’t rely on him in any way.