I have too many damn tabs open

[solarbird]

Okay, so, what tabs has solarbird kept open but not written anything about? Let's see!

DavidKC writes about why he can't figure out why queers are supposed to like Senator Clinton more than Senator Obama. He has some of the same issues I do with her claiming of the previous Clinton legacy and all that entails. He has other issues as well. Also, the useless and horrible Human Rights Campaign can't bring itself to endorse the queer candidate in a race because it's not what the DSCC wants, which gets Dan Savage all cranky, and Jesus made journalist Matt Taibbi puke.

A mostly-uncovered story went by about how Pulitzer-winning AP photographer Bilal Hussein's kangaroo court trial went all pear-shaped on the US military. They're now claiming he was released as part of an amnesty; Mr. Hussein's lawyer says that's bullshit, and that the military knows it but is using that as cover. Eric Boehlert discusses how much of the military's broken case came from authoritarian warbloggers.

PRWatch.org answers a question I've been asking myself since the (continually ignored by most media!) story about the Pentagon and Bush Administration's massive domestic psy-op/propoganda campaign came out; doesn't this break the law? Oh yes, it does, quite clearly, though, again, nobody gives a fuck because there is no Constitution and there is no law. The closest there's even been to a response from any of the most guilty media parties has been Brian Williams's blog, saying that they did nothing wrong and they're proud of their coverage, and generally spewing crap like that. What a sham.

Oh, and Glenn Greenwald reports that an assortment of telecom-purchased Democrats are quietly working to revive the PAA for the sole purpose of providing retroactive immunity for telecom lawbreaking. Again.

Finally, Iran claims to have dropped the last of its dollar-based oil transactions. Note the timing of that with the upswing in sabre-rattling against Iran. Fun times.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

A mostly-uncovered story went by about how Pulitzer-winning AP photographer Bilal Hussein's kangaroo court trial went all pear-shaped on the US military. They're now claiming he was released as part of an amnesty; Mr. Hussein's lawyer says that's bullshit, and that the military knows it but is using that as cover.

Bilal Hussein wanted to play "neutral" in the war between Civilization and the Terrorists, and he wound up spending years in prison for it.

Good.

[solarbird]

There is no civilisation without law. I hope that you eventually come to realise that in a way that does not involve becoming a victim of it.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I am well aware that there is no civilization without law, hence I have already come to the "realization" that you (rather condescendingly) imagine that I must. However, what you seem not to grasp is that armed rebellion against a lawfully-constituted authority is illegal, as is attempting to behave "neutrally" between said lawfully-constituted authority and the rebels in the midst of such a rebellion. Always has been, always will be, and you don't get an exemption from this because you have a press card.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Finally, Iran claims to have dropped the last of its dollar-based oil transactions. Note the timing of that with the upswing in sabre-rattling against Iran. Fun times.

So, you don't think that we're mad at Iran for launching armed incursions into Iraq, or worried about their nuclear weapons programs and declared intention to destroy Israel? It's mostly about whether or not they conduct their oil transactions in dollars?

[solarbird]

I think Iran is a crazy, scary government that the US government has aided tremendously through the insane fucktardisation of Iraq, and the creation of a pro-Iran hollow government in Baghdad and the long-term destabilisation of the most effective stop against Iranian ambitions to the west. I do not trust the current US government in any way either on this threat or to deal with it. It is imperative that this situation be remanded to the next administration, whoever that might be, to prevent another hideous disaster.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

... and the creation of a pro-Iran hollow government in Baghdad ...

Why do you consider the democratically-elected government in Baghdad, which is more and more militarily capable, to be "hollow" in a way that Saddam's was not? Has your attitude on the "hollowness" of democracies versus dictatorships changed since 2003? I remember, back in the 1980's, liberal Democrats used to complain about American support of dictatorships, and urge for the spread of democracies in the Third World -- what, since then, has changed, other than the fact that supporting democracy in the Third World would now put oneself on the same side as a conservative Republican President?

I do not trust the current US government in any way either on this threat or to deal with it. It is imperative that this situation be remanded to the next administration, whoever that might be, to prevent another hideous disaster.

I trust the McCain Administration to attack Iran and eliminate its nuclear capabilities. I even think that the Clinton II Administration might do likewise.

[solarbird]

Why do you consider the democratically-elected government in Baghdad, which is more and more militarily capable, to be "hollow" in a way that Saddam's was not?

First, the "more and more military capable" is a complete fabrication. If you go through the last few years and look at announcements about the number of combat-ready battalions and other claims, you'll see a very clear thank-you-Big-Brother-for-increasing-the-chocolate-ration-to-20-grammes effect.

Secondly, "hollow" doesn't refer to the form of a government, but whether it can in fact function as a government and do things like enforce its laws and project force to intended effect. This one doesn't and can't. It projects power nowhere; its decisions are basically guidelines even in the more supportive areas. Its brokenness is akin to the Somali government.

In that sense, the Saddam regime was not a "hollow" government in that it was fully capable of enforcing its degrees and reigning - for worse more often than better, of course - as a functional sovereign power. It may have been a nasty dictatorship government operating at the personal whims of a Stalin-wannabe, but it wasn't a hollow government. Similarly, North Korea's government is not "hollow." Evil, but not hollow.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

First, the "more and more military capable" is a complete fabrication.

This statement is false. Just a year or two ago, it was incapable of successful combat operations. Recently, it won victories against the Mahdi militia in Southern Iraq.

[solarbird]

...with, as always, lots of American help.

[solarbird]

Let me put this another way.

I hope to the gods it's about that. Just like I hope the Iraq war was really about oil and control over oil resources. I desperately hope that the Cheney Energy Task Force (still secret!) back in 2001 told Mr. Cheney that the oil situation was fucked and that the US had to grab an assload of oil fields right fucking now.

Why do I hope that? Because at least that has a firm connection to reality, unlike all this other bullshit. And so does the dollar link. The US is entirely dependent upon foreign countries for financing of its massive deficits, both internal and external. Entirely. When that stops happening, the US falls over, and there's no fucking way around that at this point. From a pure power-politics standpoint, the US has to keep the world on an oil/dollar standpoint - and really, if it wants to be sane about this, has to simultaneously transition away from needing that system. Sadly, it's not doing the latter. But I do hope that this administration is not so very very out to lunch that they aren't at least going to try, as inept as they are, to manage the former.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Because at least that has a firm connection to reality, unlike all this other bullshit.

I don't believe that terrorism, and the threat posed by nuclear-weapons-capable nuclear states, is "bullshit."

From a pure power-politics standpoint, the US has to keep the world on an oil/dollar standpoint ...

I disagree. Being the country which issues the currency of record and exchange is an advantage, but not a decisive advantage. See, it's only an advantage insofar as we choose to inflate, and if we choose to inflate we pay for it down the road. Inflation is just another way of taking out a loan.

[solarbird]

I don't believe that terrorism, and the threat posed by nuclear-weapons-capable nuclear states, is "bullshit."
I don't either. I just didn't think that Iraq rose to the level of either. (Iraq supported some local terrorists; mostly the same ones our good friends, the Saudis support.) And I think history has demonstrated that I was correct.

Being the country which issues the currency of record and exchange is an advantage, but not a decisive advantage.
Historically, no. At this point, however, it's not so much the "decisive advantage" but the "desperate necessity."

See, it's only an advantage insofar as we choose to inflate,
...ooooooookayyyy...

and if we choose to inflate we pay for it down the road. Inflation is just another way of taking out a loan.
I don't think you understand the seriousness of the current economic, credit, and current-accounts situations.

If foreign governments get the idea that we're going to monetise the debt, or even seriously try to price-inflate (as opposed to monetary inflation - it's different) a dollar devaluation, they're going to take these as defaults on the debt, which they are.

You get to do that once, after which, your currency is not only no longer a reserve currency, but is an actively distrusted currency. This would be ruinous. There would be a bond market collapse, rates would go through the sky, and it'd be hello 1933 all over again, particularly with 22% of GDP going to pay interest alone on private debt. That's not government debt; that's private debt. 22% of GDP goes to interest on that. Add onto that the current-accounts and government deficits (and pls. to use real figures, not the bullshit ones that exclude things like the Iraq War costs) and, well, I sure hope you like soup lines.

The only thing keeping the US financed are foreign powers. And arguably, the only thing keeping the US from sudden austerity and 22% T-bill rates is that same financing. That's what you've got, and if they decide the debt they hold is bad, then I doubt they're going to be so willing to send good money after bad, which is why keeping the dollar important is vital.

The fact that the US is relying - at least in part - on the implicit threat of default to continue this support should be terrifying to anyone with a rational economics mind. The "Mexican standoff" economic model strikes me as extremely unlikely to remain stable.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I don't believe that terrorism, and the threat posed by nuclear-weapons-capable nuclear states, is "bullshit."

I don't either. I just didn't think that Iraq rose to the level of either. (Iraq supported some local terrorists; mostly the same ones our good friends, the Saudis support.) And I think history has demonstrated that I was correct.

I was actually talking about Iran.