Category Archives: Political Rants

Political Rants

A short ending to the longest war

There’s a lot that’s been said about what happened in Afghanistan over the past couple of weeks. Most of what you’ll hear on cable talk shows is a brand of imperial outrage that would be hard to mock with any justice. I would need a pith helmet and some bad white shorts, for starters. As I’ve said in previous posts, the imperial world view runs deep in our commercial media. It’s like the setting moon illusion – they just can’t help but see things that way.

I’ve got a few thoughts on this issue. Don’t expect to see me invited onto any daytime news shows anytime soon. What I’m about to say would likely make heads explode on Morning Joe.

First, do no harm

A lot of the criticism of Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan is deserved by this administration. I’ve said often enough that their foreign policy is abysmal, and now they’ve managed to make a mess of practically the only part of it that I agreed with. They’ve known this day was coming since before the inauguration – what the hell were they thinking?

I think the most reasonable explanation is that the Biden administration is terrified of taking in too many refugees. Sam Seder said this on Majority Report a few days ago. It’s like they don’t want to be yelled at by Republicans, so they let these Afghanis swing in the wind. That’s the thanks you get for working with us. You’re welcome, people of Afghanistan!

Bravery and cowardice defined

Another thing I’ve heard is outrage that Biden suggested the Afghan government forces didn’t fight hard enough. This is where the imperial worldview is crucial. Most television commentators I’ve seen appear to consider fealty to American war aims as the standard by which to judge bravery or cowardice.

Let’s face it – many Afghans took part in the U.S. supported military because they needed money. There’s nothing wrong with that. If they folded in the face of the Taliban advance, it’s because they didn’t want to be the last people to die defending a government that no one believes in. Who can blame them?

We always take this condescending view of our allies in-country whenever we invade and occupy another nation. The same stuff was said about the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), or the South Vietnamese forces. Somehow we expect these folks to fight to the death for our national objectives, and that’s plainly irrational.

Let them in

There’s no question but that we owe a massive debt to all Afghans for using their country mercilessly over the course of the last 45 years, first to bludgeon the Soviets, and later to satisfy post-9/11 bloodlust. The least we can do, at this point, is bring a large number of refugees stateside. I know Tucker Carlson and various other white supremacists think that this is some kind of “great replacement” conspiracy, but fuck those guys. If we suddenly care about Afghans, we should help the ones who need help.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

Missed us by that much: nuclear brinkmanship

This week was the 76th anniversary of our having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seems like yesterday, doesn’t it? What an insane thing to do – though to be frank, at that point in the war our bombers were laying waste to Japanese cities with conventional bombs, including a 1000 plane raid on Tokyo. (The commander liked the number.)

When we pay homage to those whose lives were lost or permanently altered by this episode, we do so in the knowledge that things went from bad to worse over the years that followed. The system we set up over the arc of the Cold War was aptly described as a “Doomsday Machine”. Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg reviews this system in great detail in his recent book, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner.

Planning for first strike/use

One thing that wasn’t particularly surprising about Ellsberg’s book was the fact that U.S. nuclear policy has always been based on the idea of first strike or first use. The reasoning is pretty simple – launch an overwhelming strike that eliminates the enemy’s ability to launch their own attack, partly by targeting their nuclear arsenal. The other component is that of blackmail, in essence – do as we say or we will blow up your cities.

What Ellsberg makes clear is that their actual plan in the 1950s and early 60s was, in the event of a general war, to bomb both the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China to smithereens, even if the Chinese were not a party to the conflict. Of course, we know now (and they likely knew then) that any large exchange of H-bombs would result in virtual omnicide, but our war planners tried not to dwell on that notion.

Planes, trains, and autonomous vehicles

This insane “war” plan – really, an annihilation plan – was built on the flimsiest platform back in the 1950s. Supposedly only the president could give the order to use nuclear weapons. That authority, according to Ellsberg, was delegated to regional commanders, either explicitly or implicitly (there was supposedly a letter from Eisenhower to his commanders setting out the authority, though no one seemed to be able to produce a copy).

The plan relied on bombers back then and a very unreliable global communication system that could be disrupted by the weather. Later on, it was ICBMs with MIRV’ed warheads (multiple independent H-bomb warheads in a single missile), but the game was the same – use them or lose them.

It got to such a point of madness that during the Carter administration, planners seriously considered a massive construction project out west to support the MX missile program. It was like an enormous shell game, with thousands of miles of track, mobile launchers, bunkers, pools, fake missiles, all to throw the Soviets off.

Still crazy after all these years

Suffice to say that we still live with the remnants of this madness. After a number of close calls, when the entire ramshackle enterprise almost came crashing down on us all, we are still apparently willing to extend the life of these weapons yet another generation.

The longer these weapons exist, the greater the danger that they will be used. If our leaders really wanted to keep us safe, they would take the lead in ending the nuclear standoff once and for all. Their failure to do so speaks volumes.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.
Political Rants

Making The case for Postal banking.

The end of the eviction moratorium this past week and the response by the Squad says a lot about the limitations of the administrative state. Mass evictions should not be a problem. The large COVID relief package passed last year included something like $40 billion in rental assistance, distributed to the states. As of now, only about $3 billion has been allocated to the people who need the help. That’s maybe 8%.

What the fuck? Why is it that when we go through the ridiculously baroque process of applying federal funds to a problem like this, the money often doesn’t get spent? David Dayen talked about this a bit on the Majority Report on Monday. Put simply, after decades of neoliberal attack on the administrative state, the means of getting government aid to people are sclerotic and dysfunctional.

Loudest voice in the room

There’s a reason why we have such an atomized, ineffective system for helping poor and working people. Ordinary people don’t have armies of lobbyists at their disposal. The eviction moratorium is a good illustration of this. The 7 to 11 million people who were at risk of homelessness as a result of the moratorium’s end are underrepresented. Their landlords, by and large, are anything but.

The difference this time around was that a formerly un-housed person became a member of the House of Representatives. Cory Bush, along with some of her allies, became, in effect, lobbyists for renters. And, amazingly, they were successful. Though I know the thought of it is intensely painful to many armchair leftists on Twitter, we should celebrate this small victory, because it is significant. In so doing, however, we must bear in mind that money still talks very, very loudly.

Why we need postal banking

What do we do about a system that easily transfers billions to corporate bankers but can’t seem to manage rent relief for people in trouble? Well, we need some method for delivering direct payments to Americans in a reliable, low-friction way. In my humble opinion, that method is setting up postal banking.

As many of you may know, postal banking is not a new idea. In fact, the Postal Service offered banking services back when I was a little shaver. The idea I prefer is one that is a bit broader than the old version. My preferred version is this: Every American – and I mean every one – gets a postal banking account. Just like getting a Social Security number, they open an account for you when you are born and you have it all your life. It would be a free, interest bearing account that allows for savings, electronic transfers, etc.

My personal preference would be that the Federal Government deposit some amount, say fifty bucks, as a little birthday gift for every newborn. But whether or not that comes to pass, your postal bank account would serve as the deposit account for any federal benefit payments. Now, if you prefer to use a private bank account, you can always transfer your funds to that bank, even set up auto transfers. But no matter what, that account would be there for you.

Put some bank in the reconciliation bill

I think this is an idea whose time has come. It would make the transfer of that $40 billion in rental assistance dead simple. It would give poor and working people access to banking services. It would, in short, make an enormous difference, and help float our beloved Postal Service as well.

Let’s put it in the reconciliation package, people! Call your reps!

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.