Category Archives: Political Rants

Political Rants

No half measures.

Yes, I watched the Democratic presidential debate on CNN this past week, god help me. The best thing I can say about it is that CNN dropped the dramatic WWF candidate intro segment and went straight into the questions. That said, the fact that there were twelve candidates on stage made the event a ridiculous parody of an actual debate. Candidates are given 75 seconds to respond to a question, and 45 seconds for rebuttals. It is simply impossible to grapple with the complex issues facing our nation in any meaningful way within those time constraints. The format drives a kind of Twitter-like approach to discourse, complete with the trolling. Seventy-five seconds is something like 125 words. Try talking a nation out of decades of for-profit healthcare or a century of oil dependence in that little time. It’s a format that greatly favors the status quo.

About seven too many.

And the status quo had many defenders last night. As was predicted the previous week by talking heads and broadcast journalists, undoubtedly briefed by opposing campaigns, Elizabeth Warren was targeted repeatedly throughout the proceedings, with the most pointed attacks coming from “Mayor Pete”, Amy Klobuchar, Kamela Harris, and of course, Joe Biden. Buttigieg came after her on single payer health insurance, claiming that she was being disingenuous by not providing her opponents with sound bites of her saying taxes will go up on middle class families. I will say that Warren needs to come up with a better way of talking about the funding mechanism for single payer. She stuck to her position, but it was kind of the same phrases over and over, and though true, they lose their salience on repetition.

The most ridiculous attack came from Kamela Harris, who was trying to get Warren to take a position on compelling Twitter to delete Donald Trump’s account. Mind you, this was in the section of the debate that focused on holding social media and other big tech companies accountable through anti-trust measures, etc. Warren has proposed breaking Facebook up, and I can’t say as I disagree. But somehow Harris thought it might be politically advantageous to reduce this entire conversation to a simple question of whether or not the President should be allowed to tweet like your drunk racist uncle.  As if deleting Trump’s Twitter profile would address the antitrust issue … or, really, accomplish anything substantive. Just strange.

Bernie was set up in advance to fail, the media constantly harping on his heart trouble. He put in a very strong performance, I thought, but again … the format is so limiting it just barely makes a difference. Klobuchar, Buttigieg and the half-measure chorus were crowed about by the talking heads, but will this debate move the needle at all? I doubt it. This party’s just getting started.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Bus hat.

It’s probably best for me to start by saying that I was always against U.S. military involvement in the Syrian civil war – this was the case during the Obama administration and it remains the case now. But because our troops have been there in numbers exceeding 1,000 for years now, and that we have worked them into Syria’s complex web of security guarantees, alliances, and bitter enmities, it seems only right that we should consider the consequences of whatever decisions we make, whether it means pulling troops out or putting more in. This is a situation in which every power is in it for its own gain, and that includes the United States. That’s why the goddam war is still going on … and thanks to Trump this week, it’s likely to move into a new and more deadly phase.

The Syrian Kurds, who made the mistake of fighting for us as part of the conflict in their country, are now in the crosshairs of a massive military operation by Turkey – an incursion into northern Syria with the aim of establishing a buffer zone between the Turkish frontier and the Kurdish population, which Erdogan considers an enemy. Trump has chosen to throw the Kurds under the bus, so he has proven that he is, after all, an American foreign policy traditionalist. Our foreign policy establishment has been arranging bus hats for that dispossessed people since the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. (See Jon Schwarz’s article in the Intercept for a thumbnail history of our various betrayals of the Kurdish people.) It’s a little mystifying as to why mainstream foreign affairs talking heads are so unhappy with Trump right now. He just pulled a Kissinger.

Trump's expandables

The only fortunate thing for the Kurds of Syria is that a broad swath of American articulate opinion supports them. The trouble is, Trump doesn’t, and apparently Erdogan has something the fat boy wants, hence the policy about-face. Or maybe it’s because, as Trump incoherently said, they didn’t help us during World War II. In any case, Americans tend to love Kurds when they are useful, like they’ve been in Syria, like they were in Iraq in 1991 and after. They also hate and undermine them when they stand in opposition to friendly countries, like the Turkish Kurds in the 1990s. But that’s half a loaf, at least – other stateless peoples, like the Palestinians, don’t even get that.

Like so many others we have on our heads, this bloodbath could have been avoided.

luv u,

jp

Political Rants

Required reading.

I don’t read a lot of books these days, given my lack of personal time, but right now I’m reading a book I think every American should read. It’s called Kill Anything That Moves, by Nick Turse, it’s a few years old (maybe five or six), and it lays out the systematic slaughter of the U.S. war in Vietnam in sickening detail. Meticulously researched and documented, this book is a really useful guide to archival sources on what was certainly one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century and one that the United States has never come to terms with.

The "things" we killed for moving.

Here is a brief excerpt that describes what was done in the American effort to pacify the Binh Dinh region of South Vietnam in 1966:

During the six weeks of [Operation] Masher/White Wing, from late January to early March 1966, the 1st Cavalry Division fired 133,191 artillery rounds in to Binh Din’s heavily populated An Lao Valley and Bong Son Plain. The navy added 3,213 rounds from its ships. The air force launched 600 tactical air sorties, dropping more than 427 tons of general-purpose bombs, 265 tons of fragmentation ordinance, 165 tons of napalm, and 80 tons of white phosphorus, which damaged and destroyed more than 600 huts and other structures. Of course, troops on the ground also laid waste to many other homes at the same time. 

Bear in mind that this took place in one small area of South Vietnam over the course of six weeks. Turse concentrates a great deal on the retail violence of the war, chronicling attacks on villages by Army and Marine units. Probably the most disturbing part of this narrative, aside from the wanton bloodshed, is the familiarity of the tactics. Our troops in Vietnam would profile Vietnamese in much the same way that drone pilots profile their targets – what decides your fate is where you happen to be standing, whom you’re hanging around with, what you look like, etc. It also recalls stateside police tactics.

Our media and our political leaders spend a fair amount of time criticizing other governments for not owning up to their crimes against humanity. For decades I have heard commentators decrying the strange resistance the Japanese have toward being honest about their imperial past, for instance. But what we have done with regard to our own imperial history is at least as impressive. This war that killed millions is barely known to us, except in broad strokes. This important book takes a major step towards remedying that little issue.

luv u,

jp