Needlenose

So it’s that time of year, at long last — the time when bloggers run out of ideas and resort to making lists we reflect thoughtfully on the past year and make resolutions to improve ourselves in the next one.

2010 was a particularly rough year for progressives, and so a few well-considered principles for dealing with the challenges that lie ahead should prove to be especially useful.  Here’s a start on my list:

1.  I will not throw things at the TV/computer* when a White House official/congressperson/ corporate media talking head tells me there’s nothing more that the government can do to create jobs.  (*Note: This includes not throwing the computer itself, if it is a laptop.)

2.  I will not throw things at the TV/computer when President Obama or a surrogate informs me that the latest Trojan-horse proposal by Republicans to destroy a progressive goal/program is a “useful starting point” for “compromise” on the issue.

3.  I will not throw things at the TV/computer when some talking head argues that the latest piece of blatant judicial invention from the corporatist Supreme Court majority is in fact the logical result of their strict adherence to the Constitution’s intent.

4.  I will not throw things at the TV/computer when a GOP presidential contender is described as“capturing the imagination of the American people” because the utterly batshit insane portion of the conservative base has to be treated like the true heart of America in a way that progressives can never dream of.

5.  I will not throw things at the TV/computer when… wait, this is all sounding awfully repetitive and downbeat, isn’t it?

Maybe instead of making resolutions to restrain myself, I should turn this into a year-long drinking game instead — you know, drink a shot when any of the above things happens.  It would be more fun.

Then again, alcohol poisoning would be a pretty awful way to die.

Happy new year (if you can bear to think about it)!

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)

Via Greg Sargent, the New York Times today offered a look ahead at President Obama’s political preparations for the next two years:

Mr. Obama discussed the pitfalls — and opportunities — of divided government with former President Bill Clinton during a long meeting this month. . . .

Despite all his time studying the Clinton administration, Mr. Obama told his aides that he had no intention of following the precise path of Mr. Clinton, who after the Democratic midterm election defeats of 1994 ordered a clearing of the decks inside the White House, installed competing teams of advisers and employed a centrist policy of triangulation. In fact, several advisers confirmed, the word “triangulation” has been banned by Mr. Obama because he does not believe it accurately describes his approach.

This has the potential to be the most notable linguistic self-deception by a Democratic president since Clinton claimed that oral sex wasn’t really sex.  But Sargent, at least, seems willing to buy the administration’s spin:

Triangulation just isn’t Obama’s style, and his scolding of liberals seems to be rooted in genuine frustration with them for disagreeing with him about what’s politically possible, given today’s realities. To whatever degree Obama is using his disagreement with the left for positioning purposes, it’s more about temperament than ideology: His role is that of the voice of sanity trying to talk sense into uncompromising partisans on both sides. This just isn’t Clintonian triangulation in any sense.

Actually,  that “voice of sanity” posturing was what Clinton’s version of triangulation was about.  For all the symbolic hippie-punching Clinton may have done, he also stood up to the Republican attempt to shut down the government in order to force spending cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment.  In the process, Clinton defined those issues (where public opinion was solidly behind the Democratic/liberal position) as the core difference between him and the GOP, and thereby cemented his re-election in 1996.

Frankly, we would be fortunate if this was the lesson Obama learned from Clinton’s experience.  And for those interested in grasping slim reeds of hope, the NYT story does float this possibility:

Mr. Obama intends not only to extend a hand to Republicans but also to begin detaching himself more from Congress and spending more time making his case directly to the American people.

“In a world of divided government, getting things done requires a mix of compromise and confrontation,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director. “What are the things you can do without Congress? In some cases, that involves executive orders, but it also involves using the bully pulpit of the presidency to make a political argument about the direction of the country.”

Well, golly.  If only he’d figured that out before his party lost its clout in Congress!

In the meantime, progressives who feel like Obama has given them nothing but lumps of coal in their stockings all year are hereby informed that the administration has banned the use of that term as well.  Please use the phrase “victory nuggets” instead.  Merry Christmas!

(Cross-posted at Firedoglake.)

Always starts like this...

Does the reheating of the North/South Korea conflict, one of the last vestiges of the Cold War, pose the risk of escalating into a Hot War?  It seems like the Koreans are ready to have a go at each other.  Normally bellicose PRC is urging calm in the region, but it appears they have little control over their old puppet state.  Normally (under Obama) peaceful USA gleefully supporting S. Korea sabre-rattling in the form of more military exercises at the flash point.

Japan, meanwhile, seems to have finally woken-up from the threat of China’s recent, rapid military build up of naval & air power (useful primarily for bullying the neighborhood).

My crystal ball is fuzzy here.  If S. Korea sinks a ship or two, does the N. Korean regime go down (much as Great Britain’s Falklands was a positive agent of change in Argentina), or does it spark a fierce counter-attack, dragging first China then the US into a Hot War, followed quickly by actions against Taiwan and disputed territories in the S. China Sea?

China’s bellicosity and military build up smacks up against the Einstein maxim that you can’t simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. The bad news for our allies in the region is that China can most likely kick American ass in any short-term ‘limited’ engagement.  Worse, I doubt that any military action in the region would stay limited – Dear Leader has nukes, and would most likely use them in the case of an existential threat to his state.  No idea if Taiwan (or even Japan for that matter) might have a few secret nukes stashed.

Even a limited regional nuclear exchange would have dramatic climactic consequences.

I’m not really sure there is much the US can do at this point.  If we don’t respond firmly, we go down the path of appeasement, forcing our allies to fend for themselves, almost guaranteeing a disastrous outcome down the road.  At this point, I think it’s pretty much up to China – either they will start acting like adults, tone down the militarism and bellicosity and promote peace in region, or they will continue down their current path and trigger the inevitable showdown.

*Update 12/23/10* I believe Kim Jong Il reads Needlenose, and made sure today that we are all clear that he considers any threat to be an existential threat worthy of going nuclear.

Harry Reid finally notices that Repugs are stupid.  Well at least Senator Milquetoast is getting a little feisty!

On related topic – I would bet most of these guys vote Repug.

Turkey stuffed with pork!!

Turporken is the holiday meal on Capitol Hill, basically Obama’s turkey tax deal now stuffed with pork, the time-honored way to get bi-partisan support for legislative shit sandwiches. Here are the details:

“Altogether the bill includes more than 6,000 pet projects worth $8 billion, including:

• $80 million to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon.
• $2.5 million for bike paths in Illinois.
• $4 million for the Kentucky National Guard to eradicate marijuana.
• $500,000 for transportation improvements at the Bronx Zoo.”

The biggest pork of course is reserved for corporate welfare:

The legislation contains $11 billion in energy tax breaks, including tax credits for biodiesel, energy-efficient homes, marginal oil wells and alternative vehicle refueling property. Alternative-energy industry lobbyists calculated correctly that Republicans would not bring down the tax bill over a few energy credits.

And billions in subsidies for polluting and wasteful ethanol producers remain intact.