I Will Gladly Pay You Tuesday for a Hamburger Today

Earlier this month, we Pittsburghers learned that local Health Insurance golaith Highmark was issuing gift cards to "cover out-of-pocket expenses related to personal health and wellness," and it turned out that they were, in fact, nothing other than unrestricted, prepaid debit cards, with which a fellow could buy a pack of smokes or a girlie mag, whatever his heart desired, so long as his heart's desire was located in a reputable local retailer.

Somehow this story seems newly germane as the President announces a hunnert an forty billion bucks to be spent "restoring consumer confidence"; i.e., throwing cash at people in amounts insufficient for investment or meaninful savings but totally adequate for making precisely the sorts of non-essential purchases that apparently constitute the sum total of the non-moribund American economy. Even I'll admit that an extra $800 makes me a pretty fucking confident consumer, yet I can't quite fathom how my eagerness at the Best Buy will resolve itself into a solution to the larger ailments of the American economy, most especially the fact that the average household consumer debt for Americans with one or more credit cards is somewhere between eight and ten thousand dollars, on which they're making minimum payments while they try to figure out how to manage the upward-adjusting rate of their other debt, the mortgage, as their mortgage lender tries to squeeze the last blood from the remaining stones before the whole country gives up and collectively defaults.

Eh. Why Not?

One-time tax rebates! Oh, awesome. Let me tell you, a few hundred bucks is going to restore my confidence like a clock-eating drive late in the 3rd Quarter. So what if our entire economy is a landfill of unrecoverable debt sitting on top of a lot of second-rate infrastructure with an energy crisis looming on the near horizon? Blood under the bridge, baby. I'm a-gonna buy me some consumer electronics and save America!

And Then We'll Spend an Hour-and-a-Half on Breathing

Given my support for the abolition of education, I haven't got any rousing defense of the Montgomery County School Board's right to teach the kidz that fagz walk among us. That said, a line in the lined article rather, um, rose to my attention:

Tenth-grade students get those lessons, plus 45 minutes on the correct use of a condom.

Forty-five minutes! Since the basic principle here is the same as, say, putting on a pair of socks, I've got to wonder just how stupid they're raisin' 'em in Maryland these days.

Dude, It's a Fertility Symbol

Governor Huckabee understands that all the average guy with a swastika on his pickup truck is saying is: He's proud of his Aryan heritage.

Discipline and Therapy

For the U.S. as a whole, the number of people serving life without parole for offenses committed as minors is 2,225. According to an editorial in yesterday's LA Times (which is, I think, far surpassing its rival the NYT in terms of quality of opinion page content), not only have these kids received lifetime sentences for crimes they committed when they were under the age of 17, but they were also sentenced without the possibility of parole. Which means there is absolutely zero possibility that theyw ill leave prison alive.

As should not be surprising given the US's record of human rights violations through incarceration (and given the numbers quoted at the top of this post), we are an outlier on this issue. Waaaaaay outlier.

And it's yet further proof that the idea of prison as rehabilitation remains a cruel joke.

-Bean at LG&M

I readily agree that American penal policy is among the most vicious in the world, and although I'm suspicious about the arbitrary moral demarcation between imprisoning an 18-year-old "adult" forever versus a 17-year-old "kid," the fact is that we do make age-based distinctions about personal and moral agency, and if our society marks the first 17 years of life as childhood and deprives those children of the full rights of adulthood, then it is neither right nor just by our own chosen moral order to throw kids into the oubliette.

That said, I'm puzzled--maybe dismayed is a better word--by the phrasing of that last sentence, for it includes a "remains" where an "is" ought to be. That might just be infelicitous phrasing, so I'm not going to attribute the idea directly to the author. It seems to me to be perfectly self-evident that the idea of penal imprisonment--whether judicial or administrative in nature--as a component of "rehabilitation" has always been and will always remain precisely a "cruel joke." Surveiller et punir and all that. The very existence of lifelong imprisonment explicitly undermines the argument that imprisonment is a component of personal rehabilitation or reform. Life sentences and capital punishment are ultimately of the same origin: both are predicated on the idea that some crimes are beyond redemption, that they deserve an irrevocable punishment. Yet in the case of life imprisonment, the irrevocable punishment is the exact same mechanism as the punishment that, in limited durations, is meant to be rehabilitory. This is an irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of the teleology of the modern prison regime.

One Fish Two Fish

So. The US "conducted more than five times as many airstrikes in Iraq last year as it did in 2006, targeting al-Qaeda safe houses, insurgent bombmaking facilities and weapons stockpiles in an aggressive strategy aimed at supporting the U.S. troop increase by overwhelming enemies with air power." Get that? Troop increases necessitated increased bombings.

"The core reason why we see the increase in strikes is the offensive strategy taken by General [David H.] Petraeus," said Air Force Col. Gary Crowder, commander of the 609th Combined Air Operations Center in Southwest Asia. Because the United States has sent more troops into areas rife with insurgent activity, he said, "we integrated more airstrikes into those operations."

Makes perfect sense. More ground operations means more air support. Got it. Check. Cool.

So. Oddly:

Colin Kahl, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University who studies the Iraq war, said airstrikes rose in 2007 because of a combination of increased U.S. operations and a realization that air power can have a strong psychological effect on the enemy.

"Part of this is announcing our presence to the adversary," said Kahl, who recently returned from a trip to the air operations center. "Across this calendar year you will see a reduction in U.S. forces, so there will be fewer troops to support Iraqi forces. One would expect a continued level of airstrikes because of offensive operations, and as U.S. forces begin to draw down you may see even more airstrikes."

More bombs if we do, more bombs if we don't. The Occupation is becoming positively Seussical.

Evening in America

Oh, no! Oh, lord. Barack Obama is saying nice things about Ronald Reagan. Digby is awful worried. Tristero disects a plain plaudit and reassembles it as a Frankenstein monster of rhetorical legerdemain.

Since this will be the most important elections ever in our lifetimes ever, and since the odds on Obama carrying the banner for the Donk remain short, Progglespheria will quickly commence Operation Project Runway, to remake their lithe Reaganite in the mold of Saint Bobby Kennedy. That Obama might in fact see himself as a figure of cultural restoration in precisely the mold of Ronnie R.--why, perish the thought.

What's the matter with Kansas, y'all? The Progressives, always one stunning victory away from total defeat, have been taken in again. Whatever happens between now and the convention, they're going to get a hawkish, "centrist," DLC, Foreign-Affairs, soft Imperialist. And though this person represents everything to which they claim to be ideologically and morally opposed; though this person will represent a continuation of the Occupation, a continuation of the domestic surveillance state, a continuation of the Terror War and the Drug War; they will rally behind her and rail at the Naderite spoilers who conspire to deny them their Restoration.

Under What Conditions Would You Vote for a Candidate In November, IOZ?

If the popular and electoral vote were tied, and my vote alone would tip the balance, and one of the contenders was Hillary Clinton, and Andrew Sullivan was standing beside me, eyes wide, fingers a-trembling, heart palpatating wildly, sweaty little head sweating, eyes tearing up, mouth drawn into a tight line, knees knocking, begging me, begging me, begging me not to do it, then and only then would I walk into the booth and pull her lever.

And I'd smile.

Martha Graham in the Study with a Candlestick

I once studied with a poet who told a workshop, "Unless you're Whitman, stop. Actually, even if you're Whitman, stop." At some point, you can't change it anymore. It's done. It says what it says. Poor Jonah Goldberg could really, really use that advice. He achieved his purpose: to drive liberals absolutely mad. Quit while you're ahead, bubbaloo. Now he devotes his days to elaborating an ad hominem. It's like a kid with an exegesical MySpace blog devoted to his decision to tell some other kid that he fucked yo mama. I dare you to follow the link and see how many times Jonah G. uses the phrase "serious critique," as in the thing that he hopes to see but has not seen yet. He really should have been a mediocre artist with a mildly profitable but critically unheralded career, for he is full of the sentiment that "they just don't get me."

Today, I found an hilarious email reproduced there:

I’m enjoying the book (I’m to the village of Hallmarkcardia), but wonder a bit on your characterization of Hegel. From the book I would understand Hegel as one of the more important philosophical advocates of a total state. But while I’m no scholar my impression from other readings is that Hegel is using state not in the sense of political entity but in a more abstract sense of everything that comprises a nation, its culture, morality, history, etc. Freedom by being in sync with the state is more like being in harmony. Cary Grant at a party is in the Hegelian sense free.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the very poet who gave me that good advice once wrote a poem in the maner of Celan that began:

Cary Grant
at a party is
in the Hegelian sense
free.

Which is really quite lovely when you pause for the line breaks, giving each the value of half a comma as Denise Levertov once instructed.

If the Mountain Won't Come to Mohammed

I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.

-The Huck!

Now, first of all, the idea that the Constitution represents "some contemporary view" is pretty goddamn funny--you'll pardon the expression--given the date on the document. I know it's been amended an shit, but day-amn, that shit is fucked up.

En tout cas, as they say in atheistic communistic Europe, what the hell does it mean to "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"? Are we seriously going to adopt the 613 commandments as itemized amendments to, or are we just getting rid of the establishment clause? Will we crack down on Catholic idolatry or violations of kashrut? On which days or evenings will we legally enforce the Sabbath? Shall I really suffer the penalty of death for telling Dad he's a jackass for thinking that the Steeler's running game is better served without Willy Parker, even if I agree that Parker is overrated?

Fortunately, neither Huckster nor his congregants has the slightest idea what they're talking about. The bible, to them, is a series of soft-focus tableaux vivants interspersed with an occasional bout of bloodletting to ease the boredom. I can't imagine a rebirth of stocks and stoning under a Huck administration, should such a horror ever come to pass. I'm pretty sure that the only thing he's actually talking about here is an amendment to ban gay marriage. An oldie, as they say, but a goodie.

No finance, no romance / is how she told me goodbye

The Siftung Strauss is good on the ongoing insanity of our financial institutions. Oh, what a double-entendre that last word's become! It's probably worth mentioning, for shits and giggles, that the real issue here is not that some folks have lost their homes and credit ratings. That's the human interest angle, and even the chipper fascisti on NPRs marketplace are hopped-up on the tearjerking.

What's at stake here is ultimately the entire post-industrial American consumer economy. I'm gonna get all Jim Kunstler on ya, so bear with me. An economy is a lot like a ecosystem, and like any food chain the big hungry fuckers at the top depend on the little hungry fuckers down at the bottom.

The expansion of the American economy--and by that, let's be honest, we mean the generation of vast financial fortunes for a few multinationals--required that far away in the deep, cold, krill-infested depths, you and I and the Joneses buy things. Simple enough. Take your wages, fill your house with the basic necessities of live, indulge in a few frivolities. You win. Sanford Weill wins. But what happens when most people have most of the things that they need? What happens when the capacity of a person to earn a living and the cost of living reach a rough equilibrium--where, in other words, man and wife and 2.3 kids and dog reach a point where they are, in the anachronistic phrase, simply living within their means? When their purchases are driven by necessity mostly and where luxury is actually a luxury? Well I'll tell you one thing that happens. A lot of billionaires become hundred-millionaires. And that, needless to say, cannot occur.

So how do you get me and you and the Joneses to buy way more stuff than we can actually afford? Well, first you make it easier to acquire credit. A lot of credit. And since creditors insist on some kind of collateral when making big loans, you've got to give your future debtors some kind of asset. A big one. Like a house. What you do, you see, is you remove the obstacles to making such a large purchase. No more down payments. Low-low introductory offers. And then you convince me that my house is not in fact a debt but a great big asset that I can borrow against. And here's the great part. I'm borrowing against it from the very same financiers who already own it. There is nothing so lovely as a well-executed ponzi scheme.

For quite some time this pumps credit to consumers, and when faced with a surplus of wealth as they percieve it, they go out and buy more things. And that makes Citigroup very, very happy, for it makes money when you buy shit and when you borrow money to buy shit. It makes money at every point and transaction. It is a vast, cosmic, self-perpetuating, self-financing ouroboros.

And now it's finished with its tail and its tongue has tasted its own motherfucking heart. Should be interesting.

Casey Jones

[Rep. Thomas M.] "Davis denied that lawmakers are merely 'grandstanding' on the issue." The issue in question being the use of steroids and Human Growth Hormone in baseball. Now, the professionalization of sports naturally led to a situation where a collection of superhuman genetic freaks perform feats of unimagineable speed and strength for our amusement. Better, I suppose, than a world of warring vigilante factions. Anyway, the fact that a man who is already a far outlier on the curve of human physical development wishes to shrink his balls and grow his boobs in order to swat a ball farther and with more frequency troubles me not in the least. The arena for old-fashioned sportsmanship and skill-through-hard-work-alone is called high school, and the concessionaire is cheaper too.

That Congress is involved . . . yoy. On the one hand, it really is just ridiculous grandstanding, and I don't want to make too much of it. On the other hand, though, it is a window in the average lawmaker's withered, statist soul. There really is no item or action or eventuality into which they won't peer, hoping to extend their purview. "Something must be done" are truly the four most terrifying words in the lexicon, at least when arranged in that order.

Ravel Piano Trio

I. Modéré


II. Pantoum: Assez vif


III. Passacaille: Très large


IV. Final: Animé

It's all just a little bit of history repeating

Now imagine if on 9/12/2001 the Times could have mustered itself to write:

WASHINGTON — The United States' premier intelligence agency has lost control of some of the networks of Afghani and Arab militants it has nurtured since the 1980s, and is now suffering the violent blowback of that policy, two former senior intelligence officials and other officials close to the agency say.

Halo 3

Evidently the US Navy is totally pwnd! "You will explode in . . . minutes!" I'll tell ya, service ain't what it used to be.

Hymietown

This Richard Cohen column reminds me of one of my favorite bits of dialogue from Bullworth:

HOLLYWOOD BIG-SHOT: Just between us, Senator, do you think it's advisable to schedule campaign stops with industry leaders when you have such a low opinion of their product?

BULLWORTH: My guys are not stupid. They always put the big Jews on my schedule. You're mostly Jews, right? Three out of four of you? [brandishes speech] I bet Murphy put something bad about Farrakhan in here for you!

Donny, you're out of your element.

[INT. Fade in. An elegant Middle-Eastern residence. Several men in traditional garb and several in Western business attire sit in a half-circle around George W. Bush and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.]

BUSH: See, ah. The price ah oil's high. It's hurtin' the economy. In other words, it's bad for the economy. See, ah. When people buy things, they need money. In other words, they make purchases. That's why we call em consumers. Because they buy. But if they're buyin oil an it's expensive, then it hurts the economy.

ABDULLAH: What the fuck are you talking about?

Insofar as our government is meant to represent and concretize the will of the people, George W. Bush is really the best man for the job after all. He's so American it hurts. Here he is yakking to a bunch of Saudis about how high oil prices are tough on the American economy? You know what the Saudis are thinking? Not tough enough to make anyone quit buying it, dick.

On a perhaps more substantive note, the King of Saudi Arabia has got about as much ability to reverse or even substantially retard the long-term rise in petroleum prices as I do. There's only so much of it in the ground; there's only so much capacity to pump it out of the ground; and everybody wants it. The Chinese want it. The Indians want it. America wants it. The Europeans? Yes, they want it to. Not only for our cars, but for our plastics and our computers and our cell phones and our pharmaceuticals and our industrial products and processes and just about everything else we do, move, or make. Prices are high because demand is expanding at a faster rate than production. The King of Saudi Arabia could peel off the crust of the earth and pump the shit out with a sump pump the size of the moon and still prices would go up after a momentary levelling off.

Tough on the economy. Just you wait.

OMG LOL Do0D

We're having a dinner tonight, so no blogging today. I tried earlier, but I got dough under the space bar. You'll all just have to hate America without me today.

Incidentally, I would support Barack Obama if he was currently using cocaine. Frankly, no one likes a quitter.

Iran Iran Iran Iran Iran

What's with the phrase, "state sponsor of terror," anyway? It makes it sound like a bake sale or something. "This act of terrorism brought to you by the Forest Hills High School Girls Basketball Boosters Association."

Along similar lines, what does it mean to "confront Iran before it's too late"? Too late for what?

In Dreams Come Responsibilities

So in making the case for "preventive detention," John Farmer manages to choose two not-terrorists whose cosmic ineptitude and total lack of any material capacity to carry out an act of terrorism without--get this!--the willful collusion of the United States Government.

Imagine what might have happened had the government not detained Mr. Padilla back in 2002 — if he had carried out a large-scale bombing, killing thousands[.]

You'd have to imagine it, because the scenario is imaginary!