Dear Matt Taibbi, don't be such a one-noter

The reality, of course, is that people like Rush, Romney and Obama are all becoming cognizant of the deep frustrations that exist across the political spectrum and are growing desperate to prevent the powder keg from blowing completely – hence the intense effort to describe OWS as a top-down manipulation.

-- Matt Taibbi, writing in his Rolling Stone blog today

Yeah, but. How can anyone who mentions how far-right foamers are responding to the Occupy protests, and especially who uses words and phrases like "the deep frustrations that exist across the political spectrum" and "desperate" and "powder keg," fail to mention last year's Tea Party protests? That's last year, when the same words were used to describe those people?

What's different this year is the concept of "the 99%." It's inclusive of those Tea Party idiots for the most part, isn't it? I mean, not including the Koch brothers and whoever else funded the whole Tea Party thing to begin with -- you can't deny that there really were a lot of pissed-off people who felt disenfranchised. And now this year we have a whole additional bunch of people who feel disenfranchised.

If these groups really were likely to unite, that truly would be the far-right's worst nightmare, as they have been working to divide the country into warring camps since the days of Nixon -- and succeeding beautifully. However, until the two groups -- who don't resemble each other and probably think the other group literally and figuratively stinks -- actually develop a common cause other than "chanting" and "funny signs," I don't see much real threat to Limbaugh, the Kochs, etc.

Pretty standard, actually

People are still aflutter over a financier saying candidly in a BBC interview that "governments don't rule the world; Goldman Sachs rules the world." Some have suggested the interview was part of a series of pranks by The Yes Men, an anti-globalization activist group, but the BBC is standing by its source.

The thing is, the statement about Goldman Sachs is simply a part of the general paranoid's worldview. Google something like "Goldman Sachs conspiracy" or "Goldman Sachs +NWO" and you'll get an eyeful.

In fact, the notion that Goldman Sachs, like other mammoth global corporations, has more power than most governments in some spheres isn't even really a paranoid fantasy, but one of those notions whose half-truth makes it all the more believable, without actually being true. Put another way, it's like people who write Cris (who does tenants' rights counseling by email) "Can the landlord do this or that??" She usually answers, The landlord can do anything, but whether or not you can then object to it before the rent board, or sue the landlord, is another issue. Goldman Sachs can and will do anything it wants to, in certain spheres. The question is whether it is possible to hold anyone accountable for its decisions, or whether any government has the political will to do so.

Of course, there's also something anti-Semitic about saying "Goldman Sachs rules the world" without making a broader statement about banks and financial firms in general.

Watching the video, I thought that in the first half he did come across a little like a prankster. But by the end I thought no, he's just a young guy who is nervous about being so candid. I believe he's real. (And maybe not even anti-Semitic. He was speaking off the cuff; maybe "Goldman Sachs" is simply a way of saying "the largest, most powerful multi-national financial institutions.")

Update the next day: Apparently the fellow who made those statements isn't much of a financier or a trader at all, but an "attention seeker." Actually that doesn't make what he said any less true; it's what a lot of people believe. While I'm sure the BBC is embarrassed for giving air time to someone who turns out to be no more authoritative on the state of the world economy than any other idiot, that doesn't mean he wasn't right about a lot of things.

English rioters disappointed leftists by having no political agenda

This blog post analyzes a few think pieces on the English riots, more or less agreeing that the problem with the riots was not that they attacked symbols of capitalism but that they did so ignorantly and without any political agenda.

One wishes there were something to celebrate about the riots, but sadly there is not. Just a sense of depression, of loss, and of disgust: "And this is the fatal weakness of recent protests: they express an authentic rage which is not able to transform itself into a positive programme of sociopolitical change. They express a spirit of revolt without revolution."

I think that's why the Bolsheviks distrusted the peasants, isn't it? They felt the peasants didn't really understand the situation and needed guidance. How'd that work out?

I think the urge to simply destroy things, rather than replace them with something better, is a much stronger urge in society these days, as seen by the scorched-earth political tactics of many political parties. I was talking about this with a group at church a few months ago. In politics we admire the desire to win, we call it "fire in the belly" and so on. It's also a quality admired in athletes. But the difference between, say, the World Series champion Giants and the Democrats under Obama is that all the Giants had to do was win. They don't have to govern.

It's much easier to tear things down than to build something up -- a banal truism, but one we see proved over and over again. Again, how's that nation-building thing in Afghanistan going -- or Iraq?

Collapsitarian paranoid of the day: former New Orleans cop

What if gasoline hit $5 a gallon and unemployment was still hanging around the current ~15%? What if there were a few small protests that turned a bit violent -- not even on the scale of what we see in Europe -- but a few townhall meetings that get out of hand? The level of comfort in this country is quickly sliding downhill and it will only take a few provocations, a few simple emergencies and all hell will break loose.

That's from a post by "a former New Orleans police officer who has seen what societal collapse looks like first-hand during Hurricane Katrina" and now lives in Oklahoma (!) and has a website called "Truth is Treason." Man, that's credibility! That's JUST who I'd find believable about the sociology of the supposedly coming world collapse.

"A few town hall meetings that get out of hand?" That's what's going to trigger widespread panic?

Let's just try to imagine how that would happen. Gas is $5 a gallon, or 20% higher than it is now. (Or if you're in Oklahoma, maybe 25% higher.) Unemployment is 15%, which is not only what it pretty much is now, but is a laughably low number to justify anything like widespread discontent. And then... and then! A few townhall meetings get out of hand. To the barricades! No, to WalMart to stock up on water and ammo!

Maybe if you live in Oklahoma, suffering through the worst drought in 80 years, unemployed, bombarded by tornadoes for six months of the year, it all starts to sound believable. But really -- things like this are why people on the coasts mock people in places like Oklahoma.

Ron Paul and Lou Dobbs get hard thinking about the collapse

When the hoi polloi "don't get what they want," they "will be in the streets," Rep. Ron Paul says to a suitably excited Lou Dobbs. Both of whom have plenty to gain and nothing to lose from encouraging the fat-ass couch potato Fox News viewer to view the roiling masses with horror.

Because we just saw it in England, didn't we! Five nights of rioting and looting by the underclass. Except it wasn't quite all the underclass; plenty of privileged middle-class and even rich kids went out too, to see what they could grab.

He's right about one thing, if this is what he even means: that it's economic policies, not politics per se, that animates people. The Republicans' only problem is that it's their economic policies that have put the hoi polloi in this position. However, the smash-and-grab rioters of England were not doing it to feed their families, but to get hundred-dollar Nikes. Pure opportunism. And actually they have nothing to do with the kind of panic foreseen by the collapsitarians, no latter how much that crowd is pointing to the riots and yelling "See? See?!"

More hysteria from the collapsitarian center

Yes, the center, not the fringe. Given that the collapsitarians are all on the fringe anyway, it still makes sense that the movement itself has a left, right and center. Anyway:

Since "terrorism" is now a term we can use to describe just about any action deemed a threat to the public and government infrastructure, the possibilities for what the next "terror attack" will look like are endless. It can come in the form of suicide bombers at your local shopping mall, a cyber attack on financial markets launched via the internet, or any number of other potential threats that have been recently highlighted by our Department of Homeland Security. There need be only a single event that occurs at an opportune time and is pushed by the mainstream media and all hell will break loose.

Imagine, for a minute, what America would look like if nationwide curfews were implemented, civil rights were suspended (including confiscation of guns), the US dollar crashed, ATM's and credit card transactions were restricted, and food and gas purchases were limited.

-- Gerald Celente

The reasonable-sounding rhetoric in that example masks very poorly its hysterical premise: that somehow "a single event" such as a suicide bomber in a first-world country would be enough to push the entire world financial system into collapse. Frankly, a suicide bomber in a mall probably wouldn't have much effect, given that malls failed as a retail model years ago and are now passing from the scene and such an attack is likely to only blow up closed storefronts and lonely discount shoe stores. Now if you blew up a NASCAR race, that would get some attention. An attack on America!

Meanwhile, Dilbert jumped on the bandwagon in Sunday's strip:

Obama visits NC diner, gets mixed reception but lots of grub

Obama visited a diner in North Carolina and got a generally respectful reception except for one nutbag. Most reports are focusing on her, but note the last graf of the story (emphasis mine):

Obama ordered some food to go for himself and his aides. They ordered chicken, collards, baked beans, slaw and wings. The tab was $13.91.

Now that's value. And that's the white diner -- the one for black folks was down the block.

technorati: Obama, North Carolina, economy

The petits fours of the bourgeoisie

I'm posting on Open Salon a lot, and today's post was one of my typically oblique free-associations that nobody likes but me.

Yuppies know their comforts often come at the expense of others. Those fantastic strawberries at your dinner party, organic though they may be, were raised and picked through an immigrant's back-breaking labor. My comfortable brand-name sneakers protect my middle-aged joints, at the expense of the blighted lives of the Chinese factory workers who made them. Und so weiter. This is what it means to be an affluent first-worlder in a top-heavy global economy. One's pleasures are another's pain; in fact, the pain of not just one other, but a thousand.