Month: September 2014

I had not realized that a couple of morons had forced the Princeton University administration to permanently remove the Nassau Hall bell clapper. I left Princeton in 1989 and the tradition of freshmen stealing the bell clapper was still going strong.

But, shortly afterwards, things got hairy.

In 1991, one student sprained an ankle while scaling Nassau Hall; another dropped the clapper from the roof, narrowly missing students on the ground. At that point, the administration had the bell clapper removed. The next year, officers of the freshman Class of 1995 assured the administration that the clapper could safely be restored. The University complied, but the clapper’s allure was too strong. In April 1992, Geoffrey MacArthur, a member of the Class of 1995, was injured when he fell 40 feet from the third story of Nassau Hall in pursuit of the clapper, which was then permanently removed. So that the campus would not be completely bereft of bell ringing, a recording of its peals was broadcast over speakers.

Now the Nassau Hall bell rings for only a few University events every year: the P-rade, Baccalaureate, Class Day and Commencement. Technicians reinstall the clapper for these occasions, and remain in the bell tower while it is in use.

And thus ended a 130 year tradition dating back to the last year of the Civil War.

The Nude Olympics were still going strong when I left Princeton, too, but that is now banned.

They still have Cane Spree but it’s been bled of all its ferocity. How can you get a proper education if you can’t beat a freshman senseless for having the effrontery of using a walking stick?

Well, the Senate is back in session but it hasn’t changed its ways. The Republicans voted unanimously against the confirmation of Henry Aaron to serve on the advisory board for Social Security for a term that ends in 18 days.

I am not certain why they all opposed Mr. Aaron, but I assume it is just a temper tantrum related to Harry Reid using the nuclear option.

I wish the American people better understood the degree of childishness that the Republicans demonstrate on a daily basis.

Booman wrote a piece today about Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon and its ramifications as a precedent both in his life and in the life of this country. Rick Perlstein is Making Sense

This all really goes to “morality.”

In a comment here recently on my article (The Problem(s) of Centrism) I tried to make a point about the value of a “moral” quotient in any approach to government. I used FDR as an example of how a moral aspect can be successfully applied to practical politics and contrasted his approach with that of Barack Obama, but I might as well have contrasted it with LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Ford,  Bush I + II and Clinton. (I leave out Ford and Carter because Ford was too stupid to be blamed and Carter was too innocent to possibly survive in office.)

I wrote:

[FDR] ran on moral grounds. What he decided to do tactically once elected was determined by specific political, social and economic conditions in the country at the time, but the overall strategic goals that he set were based on what would be best for the common man. And…unlike our quite possibly well-meaning current president…he stuck to his guns and he ran a tight ship.

I included two FDR quotations:

Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence… The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

Read on for more.

Now of course the concept of “morality” can be debated ad infinitum, but I hold with the jist of Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart’s famous statement regarding pornography.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…

I know morality when I see it. So do you unless you are a total sociopath. Bet on it.

Back to Nixon:

Richard Nixon was by all accounts a very talented poker player. At its highest level poker is a game of lies, a game of bluffs and deceits the only goal of which is to win by any means possible, including cheating if you can manage not to get caught. It is by no means a game of morality. Nixon’s style of governance was totally lacking in any moral sense. It was simply about winning by any means necessary…it was driven by a poker player’s worldview only instead of chips or money the stakes were human lives. Stupid, narrowly focused academics have labeled this approach Realpolitik. It is really just short term politics. In the long term Martin Luther King’s “arc of the moral universe” does tend towards justice. Bet on that as well, and bet against it at the risk of your long-term mortal ass and/or your (really long-term) immortal soul.

Booman’s post states this case in a different way. He writes:

The Ford pardon was actually my introduction to politics, as it made my father so angry that my little almost-five year-old brain needed to understand what had happened. The president of the United States had just committed a grave injustice by demonstrating that our laws only apply to regular folks. Our former president had broken the law repeatedly and lied about it to everyone’s face. He had obstructed justice. And nothing was going to be done about it. Nixon got a pass.

His father’s outrage over this was morally based, and it made a lasting impression on the young Booman. He follows with a list of other not-so-morality-based acts by our federal government.

…when the Iran-Contra Affair hit, that I felt it was so vitally important that there be no repeat of pardons. But there was a repeat of pardons, on Christmas Eve 1992. And the man issuing the pardons was the man who was probably most responsible for the crimes.

Standards eroded over time. During Reagan’s presidency, his administration set a record for people resigning in disgrace. By the time Dubya was in office, no one ever resigned no matter how obvious their corruption, criminality, or conflict of interest. They resigned under Reagan because he was operating in an environment with pre-existing expectations. Public servants who were exposed as unethical were expected to resign.

That’s no longer the case. At all. Witness Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

Curiously (not really), he only mentions Republicans. This “pardoning” thing is a Permanent Government problem, not a Republican one. It has only been further refined by the Democrats. If one does not proceed with an investigation there is no “pardon” necessary…witness the utter criminality of the people who engineered the financial collapse of this country during the first decade of this century and their continuing revolving door status regarding private enterprise and public office. The list is nearly endless in both directions. Legal crooks like Timothy Geithner pivot smartly back and forth between the so-called “private” sector and the (OH-so-secretive)” public” sector with ease, while the other direction is smartly carried out by so-called public servants like Eric Cantor. All of this occurs regularly under Democratic as well as Republican regimes.

The problem is endemic to this now broken system, and only someone from outside of the system will be able to change it. Unfortunately, the GMC (Government Media System) continues to maintain its power to cloud men’s minds. Who knows how to stop this insidious problem?

Only The Shadow knows!!!! Mwwahhhh hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!!!

But seriously, folks…how long are we going to stand for this thoroughly embedded, bipartisan criminality in our government?

How long?

Booman dates its rise from after Nixon was removed from office. I believe it predates that time, all the way back to the JFK coup. Once it was established that the power of a fully controlled media could successfully put over any story on an appreciable majority of the American public no matter how cracked the story might appear on rational investigation, that was all she wrote. After that? The other political assassinations, followed by Watergate, Iran Contra, the myth of Ronald Reagan as anything other than a second-rate actor verging on senility while propped up in the Oval Office, The Bush I Blood For Oil War, the whole NAFTA debacle, the political ruination of a sitting president by honey-trapping tactics, the rigged Bush II (s)elections, the rancid set of backstories regarding 9/11, the rush to Bush II’s Iraq War, the (s)election of Barack Obama by the media, the free pass that he has gotten as far as not prosecuting the economic and war criminals from previous administrations, etc., etc., etc. right up to the next (s)election of whomever most promises to be a good boy or girl to the controllers.

How long must we wait, people?

How long?

Until the whole structure topples of its own rot?

Let us pray not.

Let us pray.

All we can do now is refuse to cooperate, refuse to approve of such actions because of partisan politics. If both sides are rotten, then partisanship is equally rotten.

Take that to the bank!!!

Later…

AG

The World Meteorological Organization’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin has some unhappy news for we earthlings. Last year saw the largest increase in greenhouse gas concentrations since 1984. Most people focus on the increased energy (temperature) in the atmosphere, but what has me most worried is actually the acidification of the oceans.

The WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin reports on atmospheric concentrations – and not emissions – of greenhouse gases. Emissions represent what goes into the atmosphere. Concentrations represent what remains in the atmosphere after the complex system of interactions between the atmosphere, biosphere and the oceans. About a quarter of the total emissions are taken up by the oceans and another quarter by the biosphere, reducing in this way the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The ocean cushions the increase in CO2 that would otherwise occur in the atmosphere, but with far-reaching impacts. The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, according to an analysis in the report.

“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”

“Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer. Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” said Mr Jarraud.

I can foresee ways to adapt to rising ocean levels or even to a world with more powerful storms and a changing climate. But I don’t know how to adapt to a world where our oceans are so acidic that that most life forms can’t survive.

Maybe its because we don’t live in our oceans that we don’t focus on this part of climate change as much as we should, but I think it’s the biggest danger that we face.

I am sorry to report that Jonathan Capehart has lost his damn mind. While I totally agree that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is incompetent and should be replaced, there is no way in hell that I would entrust the job to Condoleezza Rice.

I am not going to detail her record of ineptitude nor am I going to list her many moral failings. This should be unnecessary.

If you don’t know how horrible her track record is, there is no hope for you.

For those who’ve watched his public career over the years, the three–part essay just published by the Boston Globe on the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, and the importance of America’s role in achieving that peaceful resolution, is classic George Mitchell.

He begins by acknowledging the complexity of the situation and the legitimacy of the deeply felt emotions experienced by all parties.

Conflicts in the Middle East are many and overlapping: Arabs and Jews; Israelis and Palestinians; Persians and Arabs; Sunni and Shiite Muslims; fundamentalists and moderates; Sunni-led governments and Sunni opposition groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. In this highly complex and volatile region, what should the United States do? What can we do?

See what he did there?  Having acknowledged the complexity and seeming intractability of the problem, Mitchell immediately frames the discussion in terms of his own country’s moral and pragmatic responses, and responsibilities.  He’s intensely interested in dealing with the world as it is…but always in the context of thinking about the world as it should be.<!–more–>

He then devotes the rest of his first column to a history of the conflict in Palestine, beginning with its origins in World War I as European powers (specifically, Britain and France) maneuvered for advantage.  It’s a masterful and characteristically modest (“No doubt this severe condensation leaves out many important events…“) summary of how we arrived at the present-day situation.  (College students taking survey courses on the contemporary Middle East might want to bookmark Mitchell’s article for use as study notes; finals are only 12 weeks away.)

Part two is devoted to making the case for why, despite this summer’s war between Israel and Gaza,”it is in the best interest of both Israelis and Palestinians to renew hope and to see that peace does prevail. And it is in the United States’ best interest to help them succeed.“

The focus on the parties’ self-interests is also characteristic of Mitchell’s approach to politics, negotiation and compromise.  Yes, by definition a compromise means no party gets everything it wants.  But the alternative, he argues, is worse—for you, and especially for your children and grandchildren.

Mitchell’s closing argument is directed at his own country, its people and its leaders.  He begins by asserting his unwavering optimism about America and its role in the world.

The reality, of course, is that the United States’ ability to control events in the world is limited. Many pundits and analysts, citing that reality, see the country in decline. I disagree. Though it may not be able to control events, the United States does have unequalled power to influence them. And, in the coming decades, that power will grow, not wane.

And that power, as Mitchell defines it, is only secondarily about military might and economic clout:

“…our ideals have been and are the primary basis of American influence in the world. They’re not easily summarized, but surely they include: The sovereignty of the people; the primacy of individual liberty; opportunity for every member of society; an independent judiciary; and the rule of law, applied equally to all citizens and to the government itself.

We must never forget that the United States was a great nation long before it was a great economic or military power.”

After assessing, and giving his considered judgments on, the likely prospects for nations like Russia, China and India as global powers in the coming decades, Mitchell reiterates his conclusion—deeply rooted in the immigrant experience of his own family—that the United States will remain uniquely positioned in global affairs for at least the next several decades and concludes with a call to recommit ourselves to helping Israelis and Palestinians achieve peace.

What’s not clear is why Mitchell—at an age when a man can sit back and receive the honors due him after a long life of distinguished public service—is writing 8,000 word essays on US foreign policy and world affairs.  It could be that this is something of a swan song, a closing chapter for his country to remember him by.  What seems more likely, given the way Mitchell has conducted himself over the past few decades, is that this essay is part of some larger effort by him (and others?) to “make a way out of no way“, and actually accomplish what currently seems impossible: a negotiated two-state peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.

Mitchell is fond of describing his work as a mediator in Northern Ireland as “700 days of failure, followed by one day of success“.  It’s a revealing anecdote—not just about the Northern Ireland peace process but about the man himself.  He doesn’t give up easily.

Crossposted at: http://masscommons.wordpress.com/

The New York Times wouldn’t run Rick Perlstein’s op-ed on the lasting damage from Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon because they said it didn’t make sense to them, but Salon ran it. And Perlstein’s argument makes perfect sense to me.

The Ford pardon was actually my introduction to politics, as it made my father so angry that my little almost-five year-old brain needed to understand what had happened. The president of the United States had just committed a grave injustice by demonstrating that our laws only apply to regular folks. Our former president had broken the law repeatedly and lied about it to everyone’s face. He had obstructed justice. And nothing was going to be done about it. Nixon got a pass.

That this incensed my father so, was an important building block to my own moral sensibilities. It’s why, twelve years later, when the Iran-Contra Affair hit, that I felt it was so vitally important that there be no repeat of pardons. But there was a repeat of pardons, on Christmas Eve 1992. And the man issuing the pardons was the man who was probably most responsible for the crimes.

Standards eroded over time. During Reagan’s presidency, his administration set a record for people resigning in disgrace. By the time Dubya was in office, no one ever resigned no matter how obvious their corruption, criminality, or conflict of interest. They resigned under Reagan because he was operating in an environment with pre-existing expectations. Public servants who were exposed as unethical were expected to resign.

That’s no longer the case. At all. Witness Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

What set this all in motion was Ford’s decision to spare Nixon from justice. When Nixon was removed from office, it proved that the system worked. Too bad it was the last time it would work.

I have a lot of mixed feelings over the Ray Rice matter. First of all, I am really disappointed in Ray Rice. Because he went to Rutgers University in my home state of New Jersey, I always followed Ray Rice. I liked how he played the game and I liked how he conducted himself. He gave me no warning that he might be the kind of person to knock his girlfriend unconscious with a savage left hook.

The release of the video is controversial, and I guess it contradicts with what Ray and Janay say happened in that elevator. To that extent, the video tells the truth and is valuable. But the release is also going to be traumatizing to Janay Rice, and very few people seem to care about that.

The NFL has suspended Rice indefinitely and the Baltimore Ravens have released him. Again, I assume this double jeopardy is a result of the video contradicting the Rices’ account of what happened. In other words, it’s not just that he hit her (we knew that), but that they lied about the details.

To whatever small degree her lying adds to her shame, she mostly doesn’t deserve this. And don’t forget that they are now a married couple, so this is some strange justice. Her family loses its main source of income, perhaps forever, and this is supposed to vindicate her right not to be abused.

But, of course, this isn’t all about her. It’s also about every spouse or girlfriend of a professional athlete, and every woman everywhere. And every man.

Still, the whole spectacle is demoralizing on so many levels.

It’s interesting to reflect on the possibility that the outcome of the baseball season could have some minor impact on the political future of the country. At least, as far as how media buyers devise their strategies, it matters a lot whether certain teams do or do not make the playoffs.

The reason? People still watch sporting events live, which means that they are much more likely to actually sit through the accompanying advertising than they are when watching ordinary network or cable television.

So, for example, media buyers will be able to buys ads that people will watch in the Kansas City market because the Royals are going to the playoffs, but they won’t be able to buy them in Denver market because the Rockies are terrible.

And, assuming advertising is effective at all, this will have some small impact on who does or does not win elections.

I understand that Abdullah Abdullah is really named just “Abdullah” but he got tired of the media always asking him for a last name so he became Abdullah Abdullah, which is pretty awesome.

In any case, Abdullah Abdullah thinks he was robbed in the Afghan presidential election and he’s basically writing off the results of an independent audit. I’m not sure what this is going to mean, but it probably won’t be any anything good.

His opponent, former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, is Pashtun, while Abdullah Abdullah is of mixed heritage with Tajik and Pashtun ancestry.

Tomorrow is the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the former leader of the Northern Alliance. Supporters of Abdullah Abdullah will be feeling some strong emotions and they’ll be angry about Abdullah Abdullah’s fate.

In the longer term, Afghanistan needs a president and it could really use one that has widespread internal legitimacy. But, I guess that’s out of the question now.