Lies Abound!

Apparently Paul Krugman has decided the tax cut is evil and is doing harm to our country. While this is nothing new from him, he does bring up some solid points. One must look upon the federal budget, which has swung into the red by a loss of almost $400 billion, in the extreme long term to even begin to ponder when those Clinton-era surpluses may return. Whereas just two years ago we were deciding whether to use the Social Security surplus to pay down the national debt, we now borrow heavily just to keep the deficits from flying completely off the handle. Upon this forecasting of such good news, we learn "that 60 percent of the tax cut has yet to take effect." And why is this? Well, because while those of us in the middle class have already gotten most of our tax cut, that famous "top 1 percent" can expect $45,000 more, per year, until it expires. And now Bush wants to make the tax cut permanent.

This underlies a huge problem with the Administration that few in the public seem to be picking up. Instead of creating an agenda around the needs of the country following September 11th, Bush has kept the exact same one from the campaign trail, and fashioned each item on it as a type of "security" for the country. As Krugman shows, the Bush Administration claimed that domestic spending must be slashed to make room for the war (which, according to Krugman, has cost only $10 billion), but to stimulate the economy, the tax cuts must be made permanent. How, a decade from now, additional tax cuts will pull us out of a recession that's going on today is utterly beyond my comprehension. The White House needs to understand that while cutting spending domestically might be the easy thing to do, telling the top one percent that they shouldn't receive their government giveaway is the real way to start towards fiscal discipline. Some how I doubt such a policy change is forthcoming.

Return of The Man

It appears that Bill Clinton has been in talks for his own television talk show. While most insiders seem to agree that nothing will come of it, Eric Alterman is intrigued by the possibilities. He thinks that "The Bill Clinton Show" could aid the ex-President's (unintentional?) humanizing of the office, which, not so surprisingly, is what President Bush despises most about his predecessor. Perhaps with "Bill Moyers as a model," Clinton become the sophisticated watcher's Oprah Winfrey. However, there are a few problems with this view that will preclude Clinton from taking the air. Firstly, Oprah is widely loved, whereas half the country absolutely despises Bill Clinton, and probably wouldn't even check out the show, even out of curiosity. At least until after he dies, Clinton will probably never outgrow his polarizing media image. Then there's the problem of content. While everyone agrees Clinton is wildly entertaining and incomparably intelligent, he seems just a bit too scholarly for daytime talk shows. The talk-show watching world will not want to hear about Clinton's accomplishments in increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, while the ex-President will find that having guests speak on self-improvement and making the perfect Thanksgiving dinner gets old rather quickly for a mind as sharp as his. Finally, in the end Clinton most likely wouldn't have the time to commit the number of hours that is necessary if he is to compete on the level of Oprah. This isn't happening.

Alterman brings up another interesting point, stating that "Bush is trying to reinvent the Imperial Presidency." The President and his Administration have left no doubts to the speculation that he absolutely despises how his predecessor handled the image of the office, and was out to "restore dignity" to the presidency. He was to be the strong leader, the chief executive that made you crave for a monarchy. The image he seeks will never come about though, and the reason lies in another way he seeks to portray himself. For Bush is also to be the laymen's president, an everyman from Texas who you could talk to each week after Church, famously ignorant of detail, but with his heart in the right place. To a large degree, this latter view is the correct one Bush - he is a simple, yet generally good man who could easily be your next door neighbor (with the ex-President father and Senator grandfather, of course). So long as the Bush administration aims to show this view of the President (which, aside from being part of his personality, is a necessary part of his charm with voters), they will never achieve their larger (if trivial goal) - to not only resist but reverse the humanizing of the highest office in the land.

Hate In Berkeley

The latest example of anti-Semitic venom is finally getting me to admit that there is a real problem developing pertaining to respectful debate. For a while, I passed off a lot of it as purely anti-Israeli, which, importantly, is a completely different issue. Rapidly, though, the situation is becoming clear - many of the pro-Palestinian activists on and off campus have thrown meaningful discourse out the window and are resorting to filthy, downright frightening tactics. We all understand that this is an extremely hard time for anyone with personal or other strong attachments to the Middle East to maintain their sanity, not to mention consideration for other human beings. And since it is this lack of consideration that lies beneath much of the trouble in Israel (although it is a lack of consideration for life), I suppose it should not have been hard to foresee the hatred crossing over to our shores. Yet I cannot understand the first inkling of what would make someone scribe "Kill Jews" on a poster that compares them to the Ku Klux Klan. But I am sure that if this situation was reversed, those who support Palestine probably would have taken siege of the entire Berkeley campus, much as they did in Wheeler Hall early last month. They respect no opinion but their own, and hide behind the Berkeley institution of free speech to say and do whatever they want, regardless of consequences to other.

In my opinion, Israel is if not equally, then nearly equally to blame for the conflict that has erupted within her borders. And there is a large, if not as vocal, contingent of Israeli apologists who fervently believe that the Palestinians are poisoning their own cause. Yet those in Berkeley who support Israel remain respectful of their ideological opponents, rarely holding divisive rallies or entering anti-Arab language in to our campus discourse. It's no wonder why they are taken so much more seriously by the mainstream of Berkeley. Those who are in charge of these anti-Semitic, and by this I mean the SJP and other admittedly radical campus groups, need to learn that not everything is a struggle, that the entire world is in fact not out to get them, and that tolerance and understanding are two qualities that they must gain before any sort of compassion or empathy from the Berkeley community is sent their way.

What A Great Friend

The American government and media hailed Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf as a reformer of the Arab world - a moderate Muslim who could work with the west and bring democracy to a most un-democratic region. As it turns out, that view has not exactly been ratified by recent events. Musharraf, like many before him, has rallied the support of America to him - a leader whose political values are questionable at best. Apparently, in lieu of parlimentary elections this October, the esteemed General decided to hold a referendum on his Presidency. There was one question:

"For the survival of the local government system, establishment of democracy, continuity of reforms, end to sectarianism and extremism, and to fulfil the vision of Quaid-e-Azam [Pakistan's founder, Mohammed Ali Jinnah], would you like to elect President General Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan for five years?"

No alternate candidates, no campaigning, no ballot. Remember this is supposed to be the guy who, above anyone in the region, stands solidly with the United States and its democratic principles as we root out the pockets of terrorism in his country and others in the Arab world. The United States has a history of siding with unseemly figures for the sake of convinience (ask Saddam), but we should publicly recognize this travesty. After September 11, the US government took the initiative to keep Musharraf in power, to lift the economic sanctions levied against Pakistan, and to increase tenfold the legitimacy of his unstable government, yet to sustain a democratic election. It's time that Musharraf returns the favor by espousing a modicum of honesty and holding free and fair elections this fall.

King Of Pop?

Newsweek has a pretty substantial (for them) write-up in anticipation of Moby's new disc, 18, which comes in about two weeks. Apparently (as Rolling Stone noted this too) Moby has more or less been crowned the "face of modern music." I feel that's really yet to be seen, as he's proven nothing except the ability to sell records after selling all the album's songs into various television commercials. I'd like to see if 18 can stand up on it's own merit, because the general consensus is that this album is wholly derivative of Play. I know that Moby isn't strictly a electronic artist, but the whole genre just screams 1997 and I wonder if, other than the adult contemporary market, this record is just destined to fall flat on its face.

The Circle Of Stupidity

I think the main reason that there seems to be no hope in the Middle East conflict right now is the ineptitude of the three leaders that, theoretically, should be involved. Bush's failures, namely his reluctancy to get deeply involved, and his inability to nuance, have been duly noted for some time. As have been the shortcomings of Arafat, which include his relishment of victimization and an inability to sell a peace deal to his people. But most have not fully picked up on the true reason for Sharon's failure, which is typified by this week's jostle with the UN.

It's becoming quite obvious that Sharon has allowed the previously aggressive Israeli military to fly off the handle these past few months. Most of us outside of Israel and the West Bank have no clue what happened during the occupation of Jenin, but it is becoming clear that Israel crossed the line offensively. I have no problem with Israel defending herself, and it is hard to argue that Sharon is not justified in going after the scum that blow themselves up on busses and in markets, but it's a wonder that Sharon is wondering why Israel is seemingly all by itself in this conflict. His foreign minister says, "We must take into consideration the possibility we will be left entirely on our own," but it does not even cross Sharon's mind that perhaps a lightening up of the "defensive" actions Israel is taking might buy them a shred of international sympathy that they are sorely lacking. By blocking UN fact-finders from inspecting a supposed refugee camp, Israel is counterintuitively giving the rest of the world the finger. After the disappointment at Camp David (whose blame, to be fair, rests entirely with Arafat) and the start of the second Intifada, the Israeli public wanted a leader with a one-track track mind. Unfortunately for them, they got one.

Until the Israelis and Palestinians find leaders who can think in more than one dimensions, and until the United States can send a leader with the patience and clarity to hammer out a comprehensive, nuanced end to this carnage, all three parties will continue to spiral in a circle of stupidity.

I Care (Even if no one else does)

Well, the election is ONLY 30 months away, and the New Yorker did a great little write up on my candidate for VP, Sen. John Edwards. Of course, they seem to be hyping him for the crown, but I'm not sure a first-time office holder with only 6 years experience in elected office should run the country. Oh wait, unless they've been Texas governor. But seriously, he's young, he's People Magazine's "Sexiest Lawmaker" (if anyone cares, which apparently they do) and is being built up in some sects as a cross between JFK and Clinton (hopefully that doesn't mean he'll get shot and killed by the intern he's screwing). I think he'd be a great second to either Gore or Kerry, who have a lot more experience, and with Gephardt (who, despite his indications that he will run, will not, at least in my opinion, especially if he makes Speaker this fall), seem to be able to run policy laps around a junior freshman Senator. It's obvious that Edwards is the bright star of the Democratic Party, so let's see if we can make him vice-president (what a great contrast to Cheney), as oppossed to putting all the eggs in a very iffy and unexperience basket in 2004.

By the way, the article is not posted online, so you'll have to actually shell out a few bucks to get it, but hey, it's the New Yorker.

The Sordid Little Affair

When she's off, she's off, but when she's on, she's on. Maureen Dowd really hit the nail on the head on two Bush Administration issues in this column. Firstly, there's the often "forgotten" fact that Bush relies on his father far more heavily than anyone in the administration (or even the media) would like to admit. It's just silly to assume that a foreign policy novice would never seek the advice of his father, the man with the most impressive international rolodex in the world. Then there's the unseemly relationship Bush Sr. and about half of this administration has with the Saudi Royal Family. I mean, it's nice to have a good, working relationship, but these guys fit together like legos in their quest to buy and sell oil. The Pro-Israel conservatives have been railing on Bush of lately, and I wonder how long it is before they get on him for this cozy little relationship with the Saudis.

Here's a little blurb to shore up your confidence in our courageous, gutsy leader:
"On Thursday, W. met at the ranch with Prince Abdullah, who wanted to show the president pictures of charred and maimed Palestinian children. Mr. Bush wore a suit and tie and said "Yes, sir," "No, sir" to the 77-year-old prince, showing deference to an old family friend and not showing pictures of dead and maimed in New York and Washington."

My Boring First Post

So I decided (again) to give this blog thing a try. I feel that it's important for me to write, especially since I have more or less no outlet at the moment other than the occasional essay for school. I'm not really sure as to its purpose (other than my friend Andrew's blog which part of the now flourishing UC Berkeley blog scene. Perhaps this page will end up in that style, but at the moment I plan on focusing on my interests, which include mainly national politics (I have an unnatural obsession), music, some sports, and other things I care not to mention right now. Ok, I'll be back. Later