Fatal Misreadings

Everybody remembers Ronald Reagan's misreading of Bruce Springsteen's Born in the USA. Not to be outdone David Brooks misreads Springsteen's entire body of work and proves once again that he lacks self-awareness. He has for some time now acted as a moral scold and reducing complicated socioeconomic phenomena to simple morality tales. He, it seems, is exempt from his desire for a more austere morally serious world. In order to better misunderstand Springsteen he and some of his

friends. . . financial sanity to the winds and went to follow him around Spain and France.

He finds himself baffled that Spaniards would chant "Born in the USA" because they weren't. Springsteen's popularity, he insists, is the result of

a paradox that the artists who have the widest global purchase are also the ones who have created the most local and distinctive story landscapes.

Here is the problem. Born in the USA is about being the victim of Neoliberalism war on humanity. In Spain right now that war is coming to a successful neoliberal conclusion. Springsteen's global popularity results from his writing songs that are thematically coherent and he often speaks to and for people who are being crushed by the  combined force of a cynical state apparatus allied with corporations or who are in a desperate struggle to make sense of a life that just plain didn't work out.

These concerns aren't narrowly local and have nothing to do with Brooks' "paracosm" blather. The Neoliberals have successfully transformed much of the world in a way that hurts most of us. And with rare exceptions few people look back on their lives and see them unblemished by compromise and failure. The fact that he explores these universal themes with upbeat music and fantastic stage show is just more evidence that Homer sang like rock star.

Over to the Daily Beast serial dolt Andrew Sullivan reads an article on Mexico that argues the root cause of the mess and violence in Mexico, which really sounds like a hellscape of a place to live, is

The PAN is often described as center-right, the PRI as center-left, and the country’s third party, the Party of the Democratic Revolution (P.R.D.), as left-wing. But these labels carry little weight in Mexico today. “The parties have no ideology,” a magazine editor in Mexico City told me. “That aspect is meaningless. Power here is about money.” The P.R.D. candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a popular former mayor of Mexico City, who nearly won the Presidency in 2006, has moved toward the center this year, dropping his confrontational rhetoric. Indeed, in 2010 the P.R.D. and the purportedly rightist PAN combined forces successfully, backing the same candidates for governor in three state elections. The PAN and the PRI are both avidly pro-business. But it was the PRI that presided over the privatization of more than a thousand state companies during the nineteen-eighties and nineties. Carlos Salinas, during his sexenio, privatized hundreds of companies, as well as Mexico’s banking system, turning a lucky circle of his friends into billionaires. This creation of a new economic élite, with effective monopolies in fields such as transportation, mining, and telecommunications, resembles the creation, around the same time, of the new crony-capitalist oligarchy in Russia. And in Mexico nearly all its beneficiaries owe their fortunes to the PRI, not the PAN.

 In other words,  Mexico is a hellscape of a place to live because of ideological convergence around notions of privatizations and reverance for "job creators" leading to massive economic inequality and chronic underfunding of necessary state functions, which is another way of saying Neoliberalism.

Sullivan, who really is a silly little may, insists that the article is

[a] must-read from William Finnegan reports on the country's organized crime epidemic, fueled by the Drug War.

Like Brooks' misreading, which serves to protect his readers from the cold hard fact that more people suffer under and find the new economic system a misery making machine, this reading obscures the real cause of the worlds problems by pointing toward one of Sullivan's hobby horses, legalization, while ignoring or more precisely lying about  the actual cause of  the world's misery: neoliberalism, which is his preferred ideology.

Both men should do the decent thing and resign to spend more time gardening.

Again With The Idiocy

First a video as a reminder:



It's not a series of political opinions or policy suggestions, Limbaugh's rantings over at least three day is just one of many examples of his use of lies to create a false image of an "enemy" in order to use vile language and vitriol to whip his ill-informed and willfully ignorant listeners and fellow "cultural warriors" into a frenzy.

So when Andrew Sullivan decries the boycott or quotes child-scribe Ezra Klein centrist Kevin Drum worrying about the knock on effect of the boycott on legitimate political discourse, it might help lay their fears to rest to remember that legitimate political discourse doesn't require lies, abuse, and horrid little men and women.

If the boycott tends convince pundits to stop lying or even just stop using vile language society will be a net gainer.

Rights, Responsibility, And Boycotts

This  vile, lying, cretin, both Maher and Sullivan, "think" ought not be punished because speech is a right. Liberty, the 18th century liberals and radicals, used to say is not  license. Here is a taste of his vile lies and bullshit:



Not one word he utters here about the pill or Fluke is true or has any basis in reality. He is a horrid little man.

see also.

Andrew Sullivan

is just plain silly. Watching how a democratic polity polices unhealthy and undemocratic speech he finds that although

[i]t's a free country. . . [he] get queasy with boycotts to target disgusting but free speech.

So if vile, lying, vindictive, morons spread malicious lies and vitriolic bile on their fellow citizens, Sullivan suggest, the solution is to live and let live; after free speech. This is the kind empty-headed  silliness that insists that the existence of a natural or man-made right means that there can be no consequences for its exercise. Clearly this is wrong. Worse yet just today Limbaugh, show that his infinite capacity for growth is all about girth, (allegedly) read a book and didn't like its conclusion and so he complained of about

all of these young, single, white women, overeducated — doesn’t mean intelligent.

If the man isn't show the error of his ways day after day he will continue to poison the well.

A Fundamental Lack of Seriousness

Many who have looked at the Ryan plan think that it is insane gobbledygook with the sole purpose of ruining workers and enriching the rich. As Balloon Juice has documented, Andrew Sullivan isn't one of these folks largely because he isn't particularly bright. Recently, Sullivan argued concerning health care and the "inability" of giving it to all is

  where my Christian-informed conscience rears its benign head. As a human being, I find it extremely hard to deny another human being the ability and means to cure their sickness, if it is available.

Leaving aside the fact that to be human is not the same as being Christian, Sullivan ignores the Christian solution to the problem of scarcity and unequal distribution. John the Baptist told

 the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? ⁸ Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. ⁹ The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
 ¹⁰ “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.
 ¹¹ John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
 ¹² Even tax collectors came to be baptized. “Teacher,” they asked, “what should we do?”
 ¹³ “Don’t collect any more than you are required to,” he told them.
 ¹⁴ Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
   He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.”

The argument here is pretty straight forward. You want to be saved? Take care of your fellow men and women and stop engaging in greedy behavior.

Christ was as explicit:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

So if his "christian-informed conscience" really is rearing "its benign head" his concern ought not to be the political or economic difficulties associated with the equitable distribution of the things of this world but rather the vital necessity of the equitable distribution of the things of this world. To argue that worldly matters make it impossible to be a Christian is to admit that he isn't a Christian. Christianity isn't a noun; it's a verb. See also.

Andrew Sullivan Good For Nothing

He writes:

The Council has more authority than the Pope - something non-Catholics also sometimes forgivably fail to understand.

Since Trent, General Councils can only be called by the Pope and their findings are only valid if the Pope ratifies them.  In other words, nope dope.

Andrew Sullivan Good For Something

I found these cartoons, which mash up The New Yorker and Charlie Sheen, via Sullivan and they are funny as all get out.

What is really odd is that Sheen sounds like Glenn Beck, or maybe that's not odd at all.

The End is Near: History Remains a Discipline

Andrew Sullivan right twice on Wisconsin and concerning Libya. To make up for that unusual occurance -- which might otherwise be the first warning of the end time's nearness -- fortunately, he misreads Darton's essay, which doesn't explore the analogy between 1789 and 2011 but rather denies its validity and, indeed, cast very cold water on the notion of comparing revolution altogether.

Relatedly, the French have decided to intervene on the side of the forces of order:

Defense Conseil International (DCI), a French state-owed training company, has three crowd-control specialists acting as advisers to the Bahrain Army, chief executive Jean-Louis Rotrubin said at the IDEX trade show.
The advisers, drawn from the French Gendarmerie Nationale and elite GIGN special forces unit, are part of a program to train Bahrain special forces in non-lethal crowd control and the avoidance of the use of deadly force, he said. The program is just beginning.
DCI also has sent French personnel to Libya to train pilots and maintenance crews, aimed at bringing the Libyan Air Force’s Mirage F.1 fighters back into active service. Up until three years ago, an embargo prevented the delivery of spare parts, which meant Libya was unable to fly the Mirage F.1, Rotrubin said.

Why it's just like when France intervened in Spain and (what would become) Italy in 1821. Except, of course for nothing like that at all.

Renegotiation Isn't Another Word for Dictation

Andrew Sullivan exposes his ignorance:

Like the NYT, the WaPo and many other news sources, the Dish has focused on the horrors in Bahrain, the looming confrontation in Iran, riots in Libya, and the sudden earthquake in the Middle East, not a newly elected governor trying to curtail government spending, especially on healthcare for public sector unions. Readers are very irate. Well, we make choices here. But we're of no party or clique, which may be why I'm not that galvanized by a partisan mudfight. But, no, I don't see it as outrageous that a freshly elected GOP governor and legislature want to renegotiate some deals with public sector unions, and I see no reason why the president should intervene. Joe Klein makes a lot of sense here:

Anyone who thinks Joe Klein makes sense isn't paying attention. Sullivan focuses on events far away because, you know, folks demanding that alleged democracies behave democratically is so much more exciting than folks demanding that an alleged democracy behave democratically if there is no chance of invading them.

There is no "renegotiation" going on. Walker presented a bill with no debate stripping unions of the various rights necessary to behave like unions.  His inability to get the facts of the matter straight in country where he speaks the language and thinks he's competent to weigh in on all manner of matters really calls into question his ability to understand countries so far away.

Furthermore, as a good Catholic, Sullivan ought to be front and center demanding that the state live up to the standards set by Popes Benedict and John Paul for dealing with union

How Wrong Can One Man Be?

Recently, Andrew Sullivan made fun of Bill O'Reilly for, it seems, insisting on the eternal mystery of God's creation. In response to a reader's suggestion that if Sullivan is, as he claims, a "man of faith" Sullivan believes the same nonsense as O'Reilly. Sullivan, never one to avoid being wrong, argued

I do not believe that God "put the moon there". That kind of specificity, when science can easily explain how all this occurred, is not orthodox Christianity. If O'Reilly meant that there is a profound mystery about our existence and consciousness in the universe(s) that we inhabit, and that that mystery cannot be explained by science alone, I'm with him. It's just so depressing to see Christianity represented by someone who sounds like your uncle after too many drinks at Christmas.

The Bible is very clear on who created the heavens and the earth, hint it was God. There nay some dispute between your different orthodoxies, as there is necessarily more than one, about the 6 days as metaphor or fact but there is no dispute about God the creator. Sullivan is a Catholic and the orthodox Catholic position is that God the heavens and the earth.  You can judge for your self, by reading the Catechism on creation, but as I understand the orthodox Catholic position on this issue God both created the world, the laws that govern it, and granted humanity the reason necessary to understand those laws as a means of further revering God's greatness and goodness.

Or to quote:

279 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."¹¹⁶ Holy Scripture begins with these solemn words. The profession of faith takes them up when it confesses that God the Father almighty is "Creator of heaven and earth" (Apostles' Creed), "of all that is, seen and unseen" (Nicene Creed). We shall speak first of the Creator, then of creation and finally of the fall into sin from which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to raise us up again. 

Skip down a bit and:

283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."¹²¹

Which leads to the important point that:

284 The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin: is the universe governed by chance, blind fate, anonymous necessity, or by a transcendent, intelligent and good Being called "God"? And if the world does come from God's wisdom and goodness, why is there evil? Where does it come from? Who is responsible for it? Is there any liberation from it?

Honesty the Best Policy

President Obama's spokesmodel said:

“If the president is presented with a bill that undermines critical priorities or national security through funding levels or restrictions, contains earmarks or curtails the drivers of long-term economic growth and job creation while continuing to burden future generations with deficits, the president will veto the bill.”

 Andrew Sullivan read it to mean that

Obama just said that even the Republicans' small cuts in defense would "undermine ... national security."

I take this an a nearly perfect example of intellectual dishonesty. Not only didn't the president say anything like that, he might, for all anyone knows, be referring to Boehner's refusal to let an unwanted project die as it does anything.  It's the sort of carefully moderated banality you'd expect from any politician. It certainly doesn't mean anything like what Sullivan's interpretation bolstered by a truncated quotation suggests.

It would be nice if folks would make some sort of rudimentary attempt at getting the facts right

I Was Worried

I was worried that the current administration was in the process of getting the budget very wrong indeed when I read that Andrew Sullivan is back to blogging. I rushed to his site to see what pearls of wisdom he had and found this:

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you're fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama's cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America's fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

And was immediately reassured. Sullivan has been wrong about every important issue about which he has ever written anything, to say nothing of being consistently wrong when undertakes to discuss political process. So to modify Runyun's old saw about betting on the fastest and the strongest as a guide for pundits, it might not be the case that Sullivan is wrong this time but that's the way to bet.

Eponymous

Andrew Sullivan accidentally makes sense.  He has a series of awards named after different bloggering types; one is for Yglesias, whose career Sullivan had something to do with, officially it's supposed to be for attacking your own side or being glibly contrarian.  Today, however, it seems he gives it to someone who, like Yglesias, can ignore reality:

As we sadly learned with all the sound and fury that attended the Republican Revolution of 1994, the real risk isn't that a tidal wave of right-wing kookery will wash over the land. The greater likelihood is that the GOP rebels will quickly lose their reformist spirit after a few fizzled confrontations with the bipartisan Beltway establishment and end up governing much like the Democrats they replaced," - W. James Antle III, The American Spectator

Yes, if you ignore Fox News, Clinton's impeachment, endless Republican investigations, Iraq, Afghanistan, don't tax yet spend policies, refusing to protect the needy and the week, larger ever larger defense budgets, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Tea Parties, and so on, there was no wave of right wing kookery.

Words! Words! I'm Sick of Words and Their Meanings.

Andrew Sullivan is a silly man.  He once insisted that opponents of the the Invasion, who he labeled 

"[t]he decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead . . .may well mount what amounts to a fifth column" (part one, part two).  Then, he wrote this:   "[W]e might as well be aware of the enemy within the West itself - a   paralyzing, pseudo-clever, morally nihilist fifth column that will   surely ramp up its hatred in the days and months ahead."

The  internal links no longer work for me, and one can understand why.  If  you or I had written something that monumentally silly, stupid, and mean  spirited the desire to scrub it would be irresistible.  Sullivan has  since equivocated and sort of recanted.  He continues his campaign to prove that Sarah Palin is actually a character in East Enders, and yet people  link to Sullivan without pointing out that this man is profoundly silly.

Remember the debate on torture? Sullivan, shockingly, was right on that one. What I have in mind here, however, is the argument the pro-torture camp used.  It went something like this: what is torture anyhow? Torture opponents, which is to say reasonable and decent human beings, got bogged down in this semantic turn. Today, because of Obama's go ahead to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen actively engaged in fighting against US troops, Sullivan launched an attack on the use of assassinate as the proper term when the state in engages in assassination.  He would rather use the phrase "killed in wartime" which is his "plain English word." Obviously killed in wartime isn't a word; it's a phrase.  And, more importantly, its a phrase that obscures reality.  Does the President have the legal right to assassinate American citizens actively fighting against US troops?  I have no idea, but there is something queasy-making about the idea, and Sullivan's desire to obscure this reality lies behind the move to turn the debate over the legality and moral consequence of giving or approving this Presidential power into a discussion of the appropriateness of the word assassination.

Sullivan also writes, concerning the tactical, operational, and political problems, errors and grotesqueness growing out the current war on terrorism and other related nouns that:

I have  had only a few days to chew on these complicated eddies some more, but  have ended up closer to where I started than I first thought I would in  the full blast of criticism.)

I'm not sure you can chew on a eddy, and if you have to create an obfuscatory phrase to justify a policy of assassination, it's more likely than not that you're wrong.  Again. And, as by the way, you don't unleash "warfare" whose awesome power does this and that.  You mobilize your military and then send young, middle-aged, and old men and women to go kill people knowing full well that some horrible things will happen and if you failed to chew these eddies when you cheer led the Invasion, then you're not really not being serious.

UPDATE:
Link fixed.

UPDATE
Link really fixed