can you imagine what THAT's going to be like?
I can't wait to see all the Conasons, Lyonses, Toobins, Bugliosis, John Deans, Blumenthals, etc., that she'll have on to deal with the reality of the situation.
any guesses on who she'll have on as her experts?
I'll bet anything that Ken Starr will be there.
here's hoping they;ll vacuum Babs Olson out of her ashtray for some useful contribution.
perhaps David Bossie, or Dan Burton?
how bout David Schippers?
Newt?
Livingstone?
two legs of the new Trifecta this week: first Saddam, then the Impeachment Anniversary.........what's the other?
I know this won't have Saddam's legs, but it's just another episode int the "governance by publicity stunt," first espoused by the estimable Jeff Dorchen, in his excellent radio column, "The Moment of Truth"
well worth checking out every Saturday here:
http://www.thisishell.comevery Saturday morning, 9AM-1PM, CST
his archives are here:
http://www.oblivio.com/mejeffdorchen/archives.htmlthe original editorial:
http://www.oblivio.com/mejeffdorchen/moments/moment_beans.htmlNow, if you find you are unable to see what I mean when I say the US under demagogic corporate rule is like a big, slow-motion suicide cult, do not fret. You may still be able to get a job at Fox News Channel. You probably already work there. If not, perhaps your brain is actually a tiny nucleus, and you are a one-celled organism. In which case you probably work at the American Enterprise Institute, and God bless you.
The question is, when policy is based on such mangled yet pervasive premises, what exactly does a policy-maker do? To illustrate the paradox of our present situation, let me compare policy making under the prevailing economic logic to riding a bicycle based on the theory that a bicycle will take you anywhere you want to go if you just put a bag of magic beans on the seat.
First you need a motley collection of gullible fools. We'll call them The Markets. The Markets believe in the magic bean theory. So when someone puts the magic beans on the seat, The Markets get all excited and start saying, "The bicycle's getting ready to go!" They tell everyone who will listen that the bicycle is on its way. And so for a while the theory is convincing.
But what about when the bicycle doesn't go? Then it's up to the Bicycle Rider to convince The Markets that there aren't enough beans in the bicycle-seat beanbag. Or the person putting the bag on the seat isn't the right kind of person. Or the bag itself isn't pretty enough and needs new decorations. And so policy-making becomes an exercise in manipulating the parameters of the bicycle-seat-beanbag theory.
So, for example, if we just make Arnold Schwarzenegger the Governor of California, then for a while The Markets will believe and get everyone else to believe that the California bicycle will go. That euphoria will last a little while. now, for crux:
Then maybe a big corporation will fire a bunch of people, and The Markets will get excited again. But again, the bicycle will not have moved, and eventually another dazzling spectacle, another publicity stunt, will have to be arranged. Or maybe a new technology will be developed, and The Markets will resume jabbering happily. But still the bicycle will not move, and as the confetti settles and the party balloons sag and wrinkle, the sobering image of a motionless bicycle with a bag of magic beans on its seat will again come into focus.
Yet there's really no finite supply of publicity stunts. In fact, the art of governing has become the art of producing publicity stunts. And a really good policy maker is a guy who can come up with an engine for producing a long chain of publicity stunts that seem to follow logically from one to the next, based on some kind of principle or other. Like "family values" or "the strong, independent American." Or "Jesus is Lord." Or "poor people just don't have what it takes." Or "War on Terrorism."
Now go back to FDR. I don't know why, I just see his policy-making as more authentic. I'm no historian, obviously. But I just I don't see the New Deal as a series of publicity stunts. Certainly FDR's attempt to manipulate the makeup of the Supreme Court was fascistic. But was it a publicity stunt? Maybe I'm wrong, but the jobs programs seem like a genuine attempt to get money, food and housing to people who didn't have any by creating jobs the corporate sector was unable or unwilling to provide. and here, from the site, in his words, regarding fair use:
"Notice: The copyright on these essays will only be invoked if someone besides Jeff Dorchen tries to make a profit with them or uses them without giving Jeff credit."