Hypocrisy alert: Tony the Pony on TPM

A nonleftist, neolib former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, appears on a nonleftist, neolib blog, Talking Points Memo, to advise a nonleftist, neolib president, Barack Obama, whom TPM calls "left-leaning."

Man, Josh Marshall and his minions go more in the tank for Obama every day.

Want more proof? David Kurtz swallows Obama's PR line on not privatizing Social Security with a puff piece blog quote of him without any comment.

I told him:

If you really believe what he said today, you’re gullible. It’s his commission, and he stacked it with a mix of conservatives and neolibs who want to whack Social Security.

Sure, Obama may say he opposes **privatizing** it, and just maybe he does. But, not a word out of him about trimming benefits, raising the retirement age to 70, etc.

Don’t give him a puff blog post for a puff comment.

Peter Orzag: Just another neolib Dem

Who wants to extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich, albeit on grounds that it might be necessary to extend his tax cuts for the not-so-rich. Oh, and he wants to "adjust" Social Security, too. Bastard.

New Amazon nonfiction book reviews up

Is "Water" all that it's cracked up to be by some, or is it all wet? Find out my thoughts on it and others. Are things really "Poorly Made in China"? What is "The Miracle" (if any) of modern Asia's wealth? (And, yes, I posted a review on a Rodney Stark book I haven't read. "Civilization clashers" and Christian fundamentalists can just deal with it.)

Douthat half-right on equal opportunity nuttery

Ross Douthat punches somewhat above his weight to note that, in the wake of the James Lee hostage-taking at Discovery's offices, that it's not Greens or Libertarians or LaRouchies alone who hold conspiratorial beliefs.

But, he only punches somewhat above his weight. A comment like this undercuts his insightfulness:
If we understand those paranoias to be symbolic beliefs, rather than real convictions — an attention-grabbing way of saying, “I consider Obama phony, dishonest and un-American” — then conservative behavior makes a lot more sense.
How can he say that without in-depth polling? Let's look at some issues.

The "Socialist" claim, especially if it comes from the same people who want government to take its hands off their Medicare? Nope, real belief. Out of huge ignorance.

The "Muslim" claim? Well, those Muslims are often A-rab "dune coons," etc. C'mon, Ross, it's code-word racism. At least in a fair percentage of the cases. (And, the refusal of America's first black president to engage with that isn't helpful.)

But Douthat partially redeems himself:

Such beliefs can still be dangerous. The line between what’s symbolic and what’s real isn’t always clear, and a determined demagogue can exploit symbolic beliefs as well as real ones.

He concludes by noting the folly of political establishments, though Obama's is one of political will and political chess-playing, while Bush's was one of arrogance and ... yes, since he didn't deny the claims he had been chosen by God ... conspiracy.

Sorry, Ross, they're not equivalent.

Happy Labor Day

First, a serious thanks to the public safety folks, the hospital folks, etc., who are working today and need to.

Second, sadly, if you're in retail or similar, this is no holiday for you. But, even if you're working today, you may still not get 40 hours this week.

And, this trend doesn't bode well for the future. (As if many of us need to hear that.)

OK, a rhetorical question ... will Obama take part in any traditional Democratic Labor Day activities?

'Freedom' is just another novel for Obama not to get

Jonathan Franzen's "Freedom" soared in sales after President Barack Obama was reported to have received an advance copy at a Martha's Vineyard bookstore.

Well, per the title of this post, Frank Rich pointedly says "Freedom" is our equivalent of "The Great Gatsby" or "Bonfire of the Vanities" and that Obama just doesn't get it, or his most recent speech, the "end of Iraq comment" Oval Office vomitoria, wouldn't have been the limp dishwater that it was.

Rich fires both barrels:

What was so grievously missing from Obama’s address was any feeling for what has happened to our country during the seven-and-a-half-year war whose “end” he was marking. That legacy of anger and grief is what “Freedom” mainlines to its readers. ... The other American casualties of Iraq include the credibility of both political parties, neither of which strenuously questioned the rush to war. ... And yet here we are, slouching toward yet another 9/11 anniversary, still waiting for a correction, with even our president, an eloquent Iraq war opponent, slipping into denial.

It's well worth a read.

Who's more conservative: Obama or Reagan?

As President Kumbaya, to riff on Yeats, continues to "slouch toward Republicanism," here's food for thought.

Jimmy Wales gives Jay Rosen types a media smackdown

Jay Rosen needs to talk to Jimmy Wales. Wikipedia's founder is bullish on news media, even old-fashioned print. AND, contra Mr. Jay, he says micropayments CAN work, especially with modern mobile apps. (Oh, BTW, there was a story about 2 weeks ago on how PayPal has regeared itself for easier acceptance of micropayments.

Rupert Murdoch: Spying on Her Majesty's secret sons

In case you missed it, News of the World, a Murdoch tabloid, hacked Prince William's and Harry's cell phones. At question is not only that, but Scotland Yard's investigation. Or, lack thereof to remain cozy with the sleazy Chez Murdoch British media empire, as the NYT Magazine amply documents:

“There was simply no enthusiasm among Scotland Yard to go beyond the cases involving Mulcaire and Goodman,” said John Whittingdale, the chairman of a parliamentary committee that has twice investigated the phone hacking. “To start exposing widespread tawdry practices in that newsroom was a heavy stone that they didn’t want to try to lift.” Several investigators said in interviews that Scotland Yard was reluctant to conduct a wider inquiry in part because of its close relationship with News of the World.

How serious is this?

Murdoch has already paid $1.6M on settling suits on this.

All while fighting to keep the settlements secret.

And, News of the World's chief lying about the whole affair, as The Guardian continues to smack down the Murdoch empire.

So, what is Fox News doing in the US?

China: Engage or confront?

The Nation has a very good article on China's future economic development and how we should act and react to it.

Confrontation or acceptance? While there's shades of gray in the middle, nonetheless, I think we can confront more. Sure, China holds a lot of government debt, but it's still less than a majority, or even close to it. And, our debt is like a Tar Baby to China; there's only so much they can do at once in response, anyway.

So, I agree with James Mann, referenced on page 3:

The bible for many of those who believe that China isn't about to change is James Mann's 2007 book The China Fantasy. Mann, a former Los Angeles Times reporter now at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, argues that China is unlikely to disintegrate or democratize. Instead, he says, it's most likely that decades from now China will be both superrich and undemocratic, and he says those who believe in the possibility of democratization are "hopelessly gullible." China, he says, "is still a Leninist regime, run by a Communist Party governed, in hierarchical ascending circles, by a Central Committee, a Politburo, and a Standing Committee of the Politburo."

I'm not sure about decades in the plural, but a decade from now? I'm sure Mann will be right on the continuing undemocratic nature of a still-unified China. Now, given that the Uighurs of the far west probably pay little attention to the state's one-child policy, disintegration may happen at some future point, true.

As for strikes at Foxconn and elsewhere? If not government-condoned, and therefore government-controlled, they wouldn't be happening. So, let's not claim that China is undergoing some massive liberalization of labor law. It ain't.

Why does Obama hate liberals?

Why does Obama hate liberal principles? What, you don't think he does? Well, Glenn Greenwald gives you a handy roundup, from his anti-Social Security debt commission through an anti-union chief of staff to presidential foot-dragging on gay rights and beyond.

The meanness and shallowness of Sarah Palin, detailed

Anybody in the center or farther left of American voters who honestly listens to Sarah Palin, aka The Quitter with a Twitter™, knows she's not that smart. But, not all of said people may yet realize how pretentious she is. How emotionally and psychologically, as well as intellectually, shallow she is. How "entitled" she can be, including in how she treats the "ordinarly people" she claims to represent.

Well now, thanks to Vanity Fair, you need be ignorant no longer.

Pettiness:

A onetime gubernatorial aide to Palin says, "The people who have worked for her--they're broken, used, stepped on, down in the dust."

Cheapness and meanness toward the ordinary people:

Palin does not always treat those ordinary people well, however—it depends on who is watching. Of the many famous people who have stayed at the Hyatt in Wichita (Cher, Reba McEntire, Neil Young), Sarah Palin ranks as the all-time worst tipper: $5 for seven bags. But the bellhops had it good in Kansas, compared with the bellman at another midwestern hotel who waited up until past midnight for Palin and her entourage to check in—and then got no tip at all for 10 bags. He was stiffed again at checkout time. The same went for the maids who cleaned Palin’s rooms in both places—no tip whatsoever. The only time I heard of Palin giving a generous tip was in St. Joseph, Michigan, after the owner of Kilwin’s chocolate shop, on State Street, sent a CARE package to Palin’s suite, and Palin walked to the store to say thank you. She also wanted to buy more boxes of candy to take home. When the owner would not accept her money, Palin, encircled by the crowd that had jammed the store to get a glimpse of her, pressed a hundred-dollar bill into the woman’s hand, saying, “This is for the staff.” That Ben Franklin was the talk of State Street the whole rest of the day.

Facebook, ghostwriting, etc.:

Palin’s most unconventional hire is a novice media consultant, Rebecca Mansour, a 36-year-old Los Angeles resident who has been identified in news stories as a screenwriter. Mansour has said that she volunteered for Obama early in the 2008 campaign and then became disillusioned. Not long after the election, with Joseph Russo, a then 23-year-old college student from New Jersey, who would also go to work for Palin, she co-founded the most popular pro-Palin blog, Conservatives4Palin, known informally as C4P (and not to be confused with the “adult swingers” Web site of that name). C4P functions as a hybrid news service, discussion board, and field headquarters for a virtual army of Palin supporters, who pride themselves on brute devotion. ...

As late as April 2009, Palin’s press spokesperson contended that C4P was “not affiliated in any way with the governor.” Mansour’s reaction to that statement suggested otherwise. The next day on C4P, she wrote, “Some readers have wondered if I felt tire tracks on my back this morning,” and went on to say, “I understand” why Palin’s spokesperson denied any connection, adding, “I’m not hurt … much.” Twelve days later she told a reporter for a McClatchy newspaper a different story: Sarah Palin, Mansour said, “has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with any of what we’re doing here.” In early July, Mansour made a trip to Alaska to meet with Palin, according to a source in Anchorage. By mid-August, her byline, long the most prominent one on C4P, had vanished from the site.

But her voice, or at least a voice that sounds much like hers, was about to turn up in another venue.

When it was first set up, in January 2009, Palin’s Facebook page might as well have been a file cabinet for official press releases written mostly in a stiff, third-person form. The same was true of her Twitter feed, which went live in April.

After Mansour’s voice disappeared on C4P, however, Palin’s voice on Facebook and Twitter started sounding increasingly provocative and irascible.

Bjorn Lomborg ... change of heart or a hypocrite?

OK, I earlier blogged about Danish climate change denialist extraordinaire Bjorn Lomborg has apparently repented of his earlier ideas.

(I)n a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.

Examining eight methods to reduce or stop global warming, Lomborg and his fellow economists recommend pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power, and more work on climate engineering ideas such as "cloud whitening" to reflect the sun's heat back into the outer atmosphere.

OK, that's the part that scares me.

Having reread the Guardian story, let me say that I'm leery of his emphasis on climate engineering. Through importation of species, Homo sapiens has done a horrendous job of biome engineering in the past. Any native of the U.S. Southwest knows about salt cedars/tamarisks. When I read ideas about deliberate "sooting" of the upper atmosphere (which Lomberg doesn't specifically name, but is a highly-discussed climate engineering idea, I cringe.)

Then, there's the fact that he's still a wee bit ... uhh, hypocritical:

Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."

Uhh, that's so less than true, as far as the spirit of accuracy.

Technically, sir, maybe you didn't deny the human element; but you minimized it damn near to the point of denial. Add in the fact that the Guardian interview coincides with the launch of a new book, the fact that big industries that may have previously been in denial could profit most from climate engineering, that you could profit from being their consultant, and I'm starting to say ...

Something is indeed rotten in the state of Denmark.

Bjorn Lomborg "repents" of climate change quasi-denialism

No, this is NOT, not an environmentalist April Fool's Day joke.

Danish climate change denialist extraordinaire Bjorn Lomborg has apparently repented.

(I)n a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.

Examining eight methods to reduce or stop global warming, Lomborg and his fellow economists recommend pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power, and more work on climate engineering ideas such as "cloud whitening" to reflect the sun's heat back into the outer atmosphere.

In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.

Now, in part as pointed out by a friend (thanks, Leo) I do note Lomborg is selling a new book. And, the Guardian interview happened to be timely.

And, having reread the Guardian story, let me say that I'm leery of his emphasis on climate engineering. Through importation of species, Homo sapiens has done a horrendous job of biome engineering in the past. Any native of the U.S. Southwest knows about salt cedars/tamarisks. When I read ideas about deliberate "sooting" of the upper atmosphere (which Lomberg doesn't specifically name, but is a highly-discussed climate engineering idea, I cringe.)

Why TPM will always be an Obamiac blog

Here's the skinny on Talking Points Memo publisher Josh Marshall's latest case of Obama suck-up-itis:

(O)nce you get past the simple fact that the terrible unemployment rate has a lot to do with the Dems' awful electoral prospects, it's very hard to make any definitive statements about why they're struggling. There are numerous theories, many of which are plausible, but very few of which have a really solid factual basis behind them. So everybody picks the theory that validates their assumptions.

Dems and Obama's poll numbers are so bad because ...

Republicans: Terrible policies and he's probably a Muslim.

Right Democrats: No CEOs in the administration. And why does he keep getting into the black thing?

Down-the-Line Obamaites: Economy's bad. Nothing he could do. Give it a rest.

Left Democrats: He wasn't liberal or tough enough and me and my eight friends are deeply disillusioned.

To his credit, Marshall has posted one reader's e-mail response. Nonetheless, this level of flippancy from a man who continues to post White House slide shows and who, like the mainstream media, relies on anonymous administration sources, isn't surprising.

Now, also to be fair, TPM won't be 100 percent Obamiac. And, it may not even be as Obamiac as Washington Monthly under Steve Benen. But, it will remain enough that way, no, too much that way.

Did ayatollahs, not CIA, overthrow Mossadegh?

The traditional story has been that Iran's 1953 prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown by a CIA coup after beginning to nationalize foreign oil companies.

Not so fast. In Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited,
Darioush Bayandor says Shi'ite clerics, including the mentor of the future Ayatollah Ruhollah Khoumeni, were responsible.

On August 15, 1953, the CIA did, indeed, stage a coup to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq. But that coup failed. By August 16, the agency had acknowledged its failure and the State Department had already ordered rapprochement with Mossadeq. Three days later, however, a few powerful clerics led by Ayatollah Borujerdi, among whose disciples was a junior cleric named Ruhollah Khomeini, orchestrated major unrest. This unrest, spurred by the clergy who felt threatened by Mossadeq’s promise of a secular democracy, facilitated the coup for which the CIA has been credited, and vilified, all these years.

Bayandor does not exonerate the CIA. Nor does he rule out the possibility that the failed first coup contributed to the instability that ultimately brought about the success of the subsequent one. But the irony of Iran and the CIA is that it shows, among other things, both the agency’s incompetence and, to a large degree, its irrelevance to the events of 1953. Indeed, Fazlollah Zahedi, the purged army general with whom the CIA had been dealing, proves to play only a marginal role in the ordeal. It is ultimately a handful of clergy—awakened from years of dormancy imposed by the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1905—who make history for Iran, and who step into the political limelight once more after the coup they themselves helped foment.

At the least, we should genuflect to Iranian "sensibilities" less than we do. It seems that, at the least, the ayatollahs didn't find Mossadegh pliable enough and so were ready to abandon him. Shades of 1979!