this is step one - realizing that trump himself has little control over what's happening around him.
but, step two is realizing that, while trump himself may be basically retarded, the state around him is not. i don't mean the whitehouse, i mean the state. frankly, i don't think that steve bannon is that bright, either. and, i don't think that jared kushner is even interested in actually governing. pence may end up president in the end, but he can't walk and chew gum at the same time, either.
there isn't anybody in the actual white house that knows what they're doing; all of the direction is coming, ultimately, from different arms of the actual state. the article presents trump's stupidity as unusual, but it is not: the stupid president is really the norm since the second world war. clinton was really the sole counter-example. trump is a buffoon, but so was obama and dubya and reagan and carter and ford and nixon and johnson and kennedy and eisenhower, too. the elder bush' buffoonery is at best questionable. as a literal rhodes scholar, clinton truly stands alone as the only halfways-intelligent president the country has had in the lifetime of most living people.
but, they all had smart people around them. what is different about trump is that he does not. and, he is going to need to find some smart people to help him.
in the mean time, what that means is recognizing the increased power of the state around him. i should clarify that when anarchists throw this term state around, it means more than the government - it means the collusion between the government and the market, and refers mostly to the upper echelons of capital. so, lockheed martin is the state. robert mercer is the state. the koch brothers are the state. steve mnuchin and goldman sachs are the state. the heritage institute is the state. and, the more you understand how stupid trump is, and how incompetent the people directly around him are, the more you realize how important these state actors are, in their ability to manipulate what he does.
so, step one is realizing that trump is, indeed, hopelessly transparent. he's even transparent when he's trying to bluff; hopelessly, so. but, step two is realizing that this distributes power to the state around him, who are much better poker players and can and must be analysed in order to get your head around the policy that they hand to the president in order for him to sign into law.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/12/15621140/interpret-trump
Friday, May 12, 2017
fwiw, i meant to see pile tonight.
knowing it was an early show, and reasoning that if i'm going to pay cover i'd like to hang out a bit, i looked into what was happening at the bar after the show and learned that:
1) the show is over at 10:30.
2) if i wanted to stay past 10:30, i'd have to pay cover a second time.
it's friday. i don't really want to pay to get into a bar at 9:00 and then be told i have to leave at 10:30. whatever scheduling conflicts exist, that's a shitty deal all around. i actually really don't mind the early show, it's the whole getting pushed out thing that's kind of unjustifiable.
it's not really the bar's fault, though, either. there's a production company in between that shouldn't have let that happen. again: not because it's an early show, and not because there's another event afterwards, but because cover expires at 10:30. i mean, who heard of such a thing, right?
even so, i'd probably have trekked out anyways if there was an all-night option but for some reason everything is closing early tonight. i don't know why. just a slow night, for whatever reason.
if there was a conflict at the venue, the show really should have been moved. as it is, it's just not worth getting down there...
fwiw, i've also seen pile twice, recently.
knowing it was an early show, and reasoning that if i'm going to pay cover i'd like to hang out a bit, i looked into what was happening at the bar after the show and learned that:
1) the show is over at 10:30.
2) if i wanted to stay past 10:30, i'd have to pay cover a second time.
it's friday. i don't really want to pay to get into a bar at 9:00 and then be told i have to leave at 10:30. whatever scheduling conflicts exist, that's a shitty deal all around. i actually really don't mind the early show, it's the whole getting pushed out thing that's kind of unjustifiable.
it's not really the bar's fault, though, either. there's a production company in between that shouldn't have let that happen. again: not because it's an early show, and not because there's another event afterwards, but because cover expires at 10:30. i mean, who heard of such a thing, right?
even so, i'd probably have trekked out anyways if there was an all-night option but for some reason everything is closing early tonight. i don't know why. just a slow night, for whatever reason.
if there was a conflict at the venue, the show really should have been moved. as it is, it's just not worth getting down there...
fwiw, i've also seen pile twice, recently.
so, this is literally a solution in search of a problem.
...and the media is criticizing the government for not finding the problem fast enough.
the absurdity just escalates.
i've been over this several times: the purpose of canadian peacekeeping was always to avoid the proxy conflicts of the cold war. various liberal governments, and especially his father's, were keen to avoid conflicts like vietnam, and so instead offered to provide logistical support in what amounted to empire building. a lot of the criticism on the left points to peacekeeping as this orwellian concept, and it's not exactly that it was ever wrong so much as that it always misses the pragmatism of it; it may be true that canada has been functionally occupying large swaths of africa for decades, but that's a better option than carpet bombing southeast asia ever was.
with the cessation of the cold war proxy conflicts, and requests for canadian contributions, the tactic of using peacekeeping as an escape tactic fell into disuse, as it should have.
the thing is that canadians see it as a source of national pride. it's more than national pride, even, it's existential. this is why the media is latching on to it, as an antidote to the lingering unpopularity and cynicism of the previous government - which lingers on in seemingly non-negotiable but very unpopular policy directions.
so, what trudeau is doing, here, is political. it's for internal consumption. but, it's misguided on both fronts.
1) the russians do not have presences in africa or latin america to counter. the functional value of peacekeeping as an escape is no longer existent. this is not going to appease trump the way it appeased nixon.
2) thanks to the effects of koch brothers propaganda, canadians under the age of 70 don't have the same attachment to the idea of a global police force that they once did. to young people, this is globalism. it's the new world order.
i don't know how to get out of the obligation to participate in the colonial project, at this point. the liberals are going to have to put their brains together and think something up. maybe, we could contribute to an anti-terrorism force. and, what africa needs, today, is engineers. but, i do know that this is likely to backfire, as a pr tactic.
it's an idea whose time has passed.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/12/trudeau-says-government-taking-appropriate-time-to-decide-peace-mission.html
...and the media is criticizing the government for not finding the problem fast enough.
the absurdity just escalates.
i've been over this several times: the purpose of canadian peacekeeping was always to avoid the proxy conflicts of the cold war. various liberal governments, and especially his father's, were keen to avoid conflicts like vietnam, and so instead offered to provide logistical support in what amounted to empire building. a lot of the criticism on the left points to peacekeeping as this orwellian concept, and it's not exactly that it was ever wrong so much as that it always misses the pragmatism of it; it may be true that canada has been functionally occupying large swaths of africa for decades, but that's a better option than carpet bombing southeast asia ever was.
with the cessation of the cold war proxy conflicts, and requests for canadian contributions, the tactic of using peacekeeping as an escape tactic fell into disuse, as it should have.
the thing is that canadians see it as a source of national pride. it's more than national pride, even, it's existential. this is why the media is latching on to it, as an antidote to the lingering unpopularity and cynicism of the previous government - which lingers on in seemingly non-negotiable but very unpopular policy directions.
so, what trudeau is doing, here, is political. it's for internal consumption. but, it's misguided on both fronts.
1) the russians do not have presences in africa or latin america to counter. the functional value of peacekeeping as an escape is no longer existent. this is not going to appease trump the way it appeased nixon.
2) thanks to the effects of koch brothers propaganda, canadians under the age of 70 don't have the same attachment to the idea of a global police force that they once did. to young people, this is globalism. it's the new world order.
i don't know how to get out of the obligation to participate in the colonial project, at this point. the liberals are going to have to put their brains together and think something up. maybe, we could contribute to an anti-terrorism force. and, what africa needs, today, is engineers. but, i do know that this is likely to backfire, as a pr tactic.
it's an idea whose time has passed.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/12/trudeau-says-government-taking-appropriate-time-to-decide-peace-mission.html
the correct person to explain this would be chretien, though.
"well, you know, i knew pierre and i knew prime minister blair, and they were of course very different. i don't know what..."
they mean the third way.
"the third way? well, when we talked about the third way, we meant asia. india. i don't know what..."
clinton also called himself "third way".
"well, i don't know what you mean. if we had a third way, and they had a third way, but maybe i had the same third way, you know with clinton and blair, even if it was different. so, maybe i had two third ways."
wouldn't that be a fourth way?
"no, because they're two different third ways."
but, if you are to enumerate the number of ways, sir...
"no, because it's still third, it's just two different times."
*pause*
"i don't know what this other third way is. our third way was about nixon. you know, he didn't like pierre much, and we wanted independence from the queen, so we had to look at the rest of the world. and, we didn't want to, you know, join with the russians, either, although we didn't want to hate them, too. it's just silly to go around hating countries. we want peace. so, we thought it made sense to have relationships with other countries, too. and, india was a big country in the commonwealth, with similar ideas about independence and about mixed markets, so we thought maybe we could build closer ties. i think prime minister blair was just a kid. i don't know this other third way, but if it's clinton and blair, it's probably me too."
"well, you know, i knew pierre and i knew prime minister blair, and they were of course very different. i don't know what..."
they mean the third way.
"the third way? well, when we talked about the third way, we meant asia. india. i don't know what..."
clinton also called himself "third way".
"well, i don't know what you mean. if we had a third way, and they had a third way, but maybe i had the same third way, you know with clinton and blair, even if it was different. so, maybe i had two third ways."
wouldn't that be a fourth way?
"no, because they're two different third ways."
but, if you are to enumerate the number of ways, sir...
"no, because it's still third, it's just two different times."
*pause*
"i don't know what this other third way is. our third way was about nixon. you know, he didn't like pierre much, and we wanted independence from the queen, so we had to look at the rest of the world. and, we didn't want to, you know, join with the russians, either, although we didn't want to hate them, too. it's just silly to go around hating countries. we want peace. so, we thought it made sense to have relationships with other countries, too. and, india was a big country in the commonwealth, with similar ideas about independence and about mixed markets, so we thought maybe we could build closer ties. i think prime minister blair was just a kid. i don't know this other third way, but if it's clinton and blair, it's probably me too."
the reason that michael hudson is repeating things he was told by partisan ndp hacks is that he didn't bother to question their honesty. and, that's his fault.
but, the reason they told him what they told him comes down to projection. the current outgoing leader of the federal ndp, thomas mulcair, was damaged badly in the last election by pro-thatcher comments that he had made in the past, and which made him seem decidedly blairite.
it's a shame that dr. hudson didn't take the time to verify the things he was told before he repeated them.
but, the reason they told him what they told him comes down to projection. the current outgoing leader of the federal ndp, thomas mulcair, was damaged badly in the last election by pro-thatcher comments that he had made in the past, and which made him seem decidedly blairite.
it's a shame that dr. hudson didn't take the time to verify the things he was told before he repeated them.
so, what was pierre trudeau actually like?
castro is maybe not so good....
a better comparison is to hugo chavez. the elder trudeau was a fiery, charismatic, populist orator with a strong authoritarian streak, as demonstrated most famously in what canadians know as the october crisis. he nationalized the oil industry in the 70s (with support from the ndp...), with the intent to use oil revenue to fund social services, like universal health care. he was a very strong advocate of multilateral institutions, and tended to piss off the americans a lot due to this; canada was actually on the brink of joining the non-aligned movement in the 70s. we were trying to kind of sidestep nato by building closer ties with india. if trudeau called this a "third way", it had nothing to do with blairism.
reagan fucking hated him.
like chavez, he's also responsible for rewriting the country's constitution to place his own ideological biases of social liberalism at the constitutional centre of the country.
there's a stronger comparison between tony blair and jean chretien, but even that is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination. chretien opposed iraq, for example.
we never really got to our blairite moment until recently.
castro is maybe not so good....
a better comparison is to hugo chavez. the elder trudeau was a fiery, charismatic, populist orator with a strong authoritarian streak, as demonstrated most famously in what canadians know as the october crisis. he nationalized the oil industry in the 70s (with support from the ndp...), with the intent to use oil revenue to fund social services, like universal health care. he was a very strong advocate of multilateral institutions, and tended to piss off the americans a lot due to this; canada was actually on the brink of joining the non-aligned movement in the 70s. we were trying to kind of sidestep nato by building closer ties with india. if trudeau called this a "third way", it had nothing to do with blairism.
reagan fucking hated him.
like chavez, he's also responsible for rewriting the country's constitution to place his own ideological biases of social liberalism at the constitutional centre of the country.
there's a stronger comparison between tony blair and jean chretien, but even that is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination. chretien opposed iraq, for example.
we never really got to our blairite moment until recently.
"pierre trudeau was something like tony blair" - michael hudson demonstrating his ignorance of canadian history
"a brilliant and courageous politician." - fidel castro describing pierre trudeau, who was in fact a close friend of his.
i'm not saying that what castro said is right or wrong, i'm just asking you to consider the source. the right spent years attacking him as a communist.
and, unfortunately, you have to consult the right-wing smear campaigns to get an honest assessment of the man, at this point, as the canadian left is more interested in partisan attacks than responsible history.
as the chinese would say, maybe it's too soon to write the history, anyways.
"a brilliant and courageous politician." - fidel castro describing pierre trudeau, who was in fact a close friend of his.
i'm not saying that what castro said is right or wrong, i'm just asking you to consider the source. the right spent years attacking him as a communist.
and, unfortunately, you have to consult the right-wing smear campaigns to get an honest assessment of the man, at this point, as the canadian left is more interested in partisan attacks than responsible history.
as the chinese would say, maybe it's too soon to write the history, anyways.
i wrote extensively on this point before and after the election, and it's there in the side (you can even search...), but i'll summarize the point for the greater good.
we're unravelling many layers, here. i'll admit that my very recent statements can be easily misunderstood if you haven't been reading this space for the last several months.
1) i spent a lot of time analysing polls, and concluded that they were generally skewed in favour of donald trump by using sneaky sampling tricks.
2) i argued strongly that the media was overwhelmingly pro-trump from the very start, although this was often done in sneaky ways, like bringing kellyanne conway on and then letting her win the argument (and letting her put down all kinds of code).
3) putting the situation in context, i developed the following theory - before the election actually happened:
a) the clinton emails were leaked not by russia, but by the fbi.
b) the purpose of leaking the emails was to create an official story that the media and establishment could cite as to how it is that trump could possibly win, because:
c) the deep state had already decided that it was going to pick trump over clinton.
so, yes - it's an establishment cover. but, that doesn't relieve comey of responsibility so much as it is the explanation of why it's his responsibility.
i further speculated, citing some specific and curious quotes, that clinton appeared to be at war with specific sections of the security establishment, who saw a clinton presidency as a potential security nightmare. i don't think assange is an intelligence agent, but i think he was badly manipulated by american intelligence (and that he has no idea what's actually happening in the world anymore). specifically, clinton was for sale to foreign influences. she couldn't be allowed to win.
i didn't know how they were doing this, i just knew that it was obvious that it was happening. after the election, the methods were revealed: software like crosscheck, voter id laws (this is what carried wisconsin, not opposition to nafta), restricted access to voting stations (arizona was brutal...), etc.
so, when i said that comey was directly responsible, i should have clarified the point a little. but, i do still think it is the case.
and, i cannot in good faith oppose his firing.
i will also add that i predicted, before the election, that the deep state was going to use the russian conspiracy theory both as a distraction from it's own responsibility in controlling the outcome of the election and as a vehicle to carry out the final phase of operation "fuck clinton" - the installation of mike pence as president. that was the plan from the start.
we're unravelling many layers, here. i'll admit that my very recent statements can be easily misunderstood if you haven't been reading this space for the last several months.
1) i spent a lot of time analysing polls, and concluded that they were generally skewed in favour of donald trump by using sneaky sampling tricks.
2) i argued strongly that the media was overwhelmingly pro-trump from the very start, although this was often done in sneaky ways, like bringing kellyanne conway on and then letting her win the argument (and letting her put down all kinds of code).
3) putting the situation in context, i developed the following theory - before the election actually happened:
a) the clinton emails were leaked not by russia, but by the fbi.
b) the purpose of leaking the emails was to create an official story that the media and establishment could cite as to how it is that trump could possibly win, because:
c) the deep state had already decided that it was going to pick trump over clinton.
so, yes - it's an establishment cover. but, that doesn't relieve comey of responsibility so much as it is the explanation of why it's his responsibility.
i further speculated, citing some specific and curious quotes, that clinton appeared to be at war with specific sections of the security establishment, who saw a clinton presidency as a potential security nightmare. i don't think assange is an intelligence agent, but i think he was badly manipulated by american intelligence (and that he has no idea what's actually happening in the world anymore). specifically, clinton was for sale to foreign influences. she couldn't be allowed to win.
i didn't know how they were doing this, i just knew that it was obvious that it was happening. after the election, the methods were revealed: software like crosscheck, voter id laws (this is what carried wisconsin, not opposition to nafta), restricted access to voting stations (arizona was brutal...), etc.
so, when i said that comey was directly responsible, i should have clarified the point a little. but, i do still think it is the case.
and, i cannot in good faith oppose his firing.
i will also add that i predicted, before the election, that the deep state was going to use the russian conspiracy theory both as a distraction from it's own responsibility in controlling the outcome of the election and as a vehicle to carry out the final phase of operation "fuck clinton" - the installation of mike pence as president. that was the plan from the start.
the british spectrum is fucked.
to begin with, labour can't win without entering into a coalition arrangement with the snp. but, that's not actually the story behind their collapse into perpetual opposition status.
the reality is that labour has been cratered by the ukip. and, this is the same basic story as exists in france, as well as in the united states.
neither side of the labour split really understands what it needs to do to win. the corbyn wing isn't going to magically create left of centre votes out of nothing (and, like sanders, corbyn is hardly a leftist ideologue). nor are moderate tory voters going to move to some concept of new labour. further, the liberals are as moribund as they ever were...
snp can and should be dealt with in a coalition. the place where the votes that labour needs are sitting with is ukip. so, how can labour disarm their prejudices and bring them back into a class-focused party?
it doesn't matter who their leader is; so long as labour is bleeding support to ukip, the tories will remain in power.
to begin with, labour can't win without entering into a coalition arrangement with the snp. but, that's not actually the story behind their collapse into perpetual opposition status.
the reality is that labour has been cratered by the ukip. and, this is the same basic story as exists in france, as well as in the united states.
neither side of the labour split really understands what it needs to do to win. the corbyn wing isn't going to magically create left of centre votes out of nothing (and, like sanders, corbyn is hardly a leftist ideologue). nor are moderate tory voters going to move to some concept of new labour. further, the liberals are as moribund as they ever were...
snp can and should be dealt with in a coalition. the place where the votes that labour needs are sitting with is ukip. so, how can labour disarm their prejudices and bring them back into a class-focused party?
it doesn't matter who their leader is; so long as labour is bleeding support to ukip, the tories will remain in power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)