Archive for the ‘DCology’ Category

DCology: Karl Rove, 9/11 and the Washington Post

March 8, 2010

Dana Milbank says everything(1) he wrote on the Bush administration for the Washington Post would have to be wrong if Karl Rove is right in his most recent book. The Rove book is a sign of the boat rocking somewhat in DC, in addition to the usual self-justification and money-making.

Another “Washington Post” story today calls it a Japanese “fantasy” that “suggests that shadowy forces with advance knowledge of the plot played the stock market to profit from it [9/11–MIM].”(2)

People have short memories, but that was George W. Bush himself saying that. One might want to look into what did and did not happen after those comments and that way one might figure out why Rove has an unusual position in the matter.

The 9/11 truthers usually grab onto something as a euphemism for something else. Some is disinformation, but some is based in kernels of truth.

1. Related discussion


DCology: Axelrod

March 8, 2010

White House politician David Axelrod has been called a “Moonie” in his support of Obama.

CARP is the name of a Moonie front group from MIM’s days on campus.

I take his follow-up comments today as a challenge to boost the readership of this website.


Republican update

January 23, 2010

Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda
by Michael Steele
Regnery Publishing, DC: 2009, 208 pp. hb.

Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government
by Glenn Beck & Kevin Balfe eds.
Threshold Editions, NY: 2009, 325 pp. hb.

In the good old days, MIM did not have to read Republican or Democratic Party campaign books. As we have been sucked into mainstream bourgeois politics, we find we cannot do without Michael Steele or Glenn Beck and similar writers.

Michael Steele is the Chair of the Republican National Committee. However, we would advise anyone but beginners to skip his book Right Now. Attentive readers should have heard all the corporatized politics before without shelling out $27.95 for a campaign flyer.

Steele says he thanks George W. Bush for preventing terrorist incidents after 9/11, but mostly Steele harkens back to Reagan. He admits that Bush ended up growing the federal government at a faster pace than Democrat FDR.

“From 2001 to 2004, while the federal government was under mostly Republican control, discretionary spending (that is, optionial spending–what’s not mandated by law) rose by almost 50 percent. In other words, for every dollar we were spending in 2001, we were spending $1.50 by 2004.” (p. 15)

Beck wisely started his book with a chapter on economic development, because the less one knows about economic development the more books one can sell about it. In addition, there are jokes and cartoons throughout, so I can see why many would buy Beck’s book for entertainment. I had many a good laugh.

More libertarian than thou

Steele continues the awful Bush rhetoric about freedom, while Bush headed the world’s leading prison-state percentage-wise. There could hardly be greater totalitarian Doublespeak than the following from Steele in capital boldface:


Steele goes so far as to define conservatism as being for individual rights against liberal Democratic community emphasis. (pp. 77, 87) If this were true, debate would be simpler, but Beck’s program and the facts about imprisonment prove Steele wrong.

Beck spends many pages explaining that every government program starts small and temporary. Then Beck calls for a $40 billion wall with Mexico. (p. 146) That’s while admitting Medicare started at an estimated cost of $12 billion a year. (p. 208) Medicare is now $456 billion a year (not inflation adjusted) and 15% of the federal budget.(Steele, p. 21)

That’s not to mention that Beck does not have a chapter on how all the wars are expanding government. The sociology of bureaucratic self-interest does not just apply to Democratic programs. Steele and Beck are communitarians too: their community is rich men,  prison guard unions, military contractors and the Berlin Wall Fan Club.

Nonetheless, Beck has to toe the oppressor communitarian line in order to gain millions of listeners and readers for Fox News. Maybe some day Beck will be as libertarian as the Maoist Internationalist Movement. At MIM, we admit we plan a spike in imprisonment when the socialist revolution arrives imposed by the international proletariat. President Lincoln undertook draconian repressive measures and Lincoln was a Republican. Nonetheless, we agree with Lincoln and the radical Republicans after him that there is a spike in repression followed by an offer to the oppressors to get over how they did things in the past. That’s in contrast with now when the United $tates leads the world in imprisonment per capita decade after decade, not just on an emergency or transitional basis.

The Cold War fanatics like to talk about “Soviet satellites” or how the Russians dominated Eastern Europe with Russian-imposed governments until Reagan and Gorbachev ended the Cold War. Yet the imprisonment rate in all of Cold War Eastern Europe was lower than in the United $tates today, because Amerikan rulers hate the Amerikan people more than Russians hated the peoples they dominated. Before imperialism twisted language into Doublespeak, rulers who hated their own people that much would have been called unpatriotic. Now they are called “tough on crime.” Hitler was tough on crime too.

What it’s like never to hit the nail on the head

With MIM claiming to be more libertarian than people calling themselves libertarian and more patriotic than the rulers, we have made some nasty funnies and uncovered how Amerikkkans always manage to frame issues incorrectly. They always argue for incorrect positions against other incorrect positions regarding a stupid question.

The one question where Beck does get the root of a question correctly is the Second Amendment. Too often we hear the question is rural hunters vs. urban-pacifist-vegetarians. Beck correctly states the original premise of the United States and how it was that citizens were supposed to prevent tyranny. The founders had a sociological theory of tyranny and it’s very similar to the types of questions Mao and the Gang of Four raised in the Cultural Revolution. The Maoists talked about pitting a militia against the army in case revisionists took over the army.

Beck also correctly points out that the weak public discussion of the Second Amendment exposes educational problems in the United $tates. It’s a character problem in which a minority of liberal Democrats tries to sleaze their way around a simple statement in the highest law of the land. So one can have the studies on one’s side, but the solution is supposed to be amending the constitution.

A proper education teaches not just how to conduct studies of gun control but also character and integrity. The United $tates has no moral code like Confucianism or Khomeini’s version of Islam. If in addition the law means nothing, all decisions end up made by liberal elitists, otherwise known as the ole’ boys’ network. In this it is better to be a one-party dictatorship, because at least the party that dominates a society cannot avoid accountability and responsibility for what happens.

Steele says the Republicans are the party of individual freedom; (pp. 87, 90) thus, he lives in the same world of denial as Beck. Perhaps Republicans think of themselves as growing the total size of the government more slowly than Democrats. Beck and Steele would like to move back to that definition of Republican, with Beck going so far as to call Bush “progressive-lite.” In fact Beck sees every president since FDR as progressive except for Reagan.

Former diplomat Jack F. Matlock Jr.’s 2010 book Superpower Illusions is another excoriating Clinton and Bush with favorable references to Reagan. When Republicans need to run in insurgent mode, the insurgency turns to Reagan with proclamations how the Republican Party got away from its roots. In this way, intellectuals can take cover behind Reagan while taking shots at the last 20 years of history.

Card playing

May 28, 2009

Past presidents have used the Supreme Court pick to make deals to obtain what they want on other agenda items. Obama did not. When Hillary Clinton received an honorary degree at Yale, Obama went with the Yale law grad that will shore up his Puerto Rican vote, against Clinton who won it handily in the campaign in 2008. That’s nothing to say against Sotomayer, but there is no larger political calculation there.

From this we can see that Palestine is not to be found in Obama’s agenda.

Not only is Obama involved in evading the truth about Palestine, but also he is still trying to diminish Palestinian cards. Zionists claimed victory in U.$. publications; although, that is not a straight-forward matter.

People like this then wonder why there is terrorism.

Obviously, it appears to some that I$rael has the upper hand to the extent of being insurmountable, when I would think that people with a grip on reality would see two cards on the table sufficient to bring about change.

Oh well, when people play 21, they have to show their cards to win or lose. Amerikans can try to cheat on the rules, but it’s not likely the Third World is buying.

Obama nominates Latina judge: report

May 26, 2009

President Obama is going to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.(1)

Yesterday’s coverage warned of a potential Senate filibuster.(2) I predict that this will not apply to Sotomayor.

Meanwhile, news on the Mideast front continues to be negative regarding the U.$. role.


Intra-imperialist pressure

May 23, 2009

MIM has a different take on intra-imperialist pressure. Obama can look at it as all helping him — Cheney, Gingrich and Palin included.

Netanyahu has been giving Abbas a hard time for years obviously. Lately Glick gives Abbas such a hard time that she draws no distinction between Fatah anti-Semitism and Hamas anti-Semitism.

When Netanyahu called for Jerusalem forever united, that was the perfect excuse to get angry McCain style and go to Congress. The I$raelis don’t care about unity government; they can trade not sending Palestinians to the Hague for not sending Amerikans to the Hague. And the I$raelis provide numerous excuses to spend some political capital in DC.

Meghan McCain: food for thought for ex-comrades

May 21, 2009

“‘The Democratic Party isn’t necessarily a better place for the gay community than the Republican Party is. . . .
It can be a party for a 24 year-old pro-sex woman. It can be.'” — Meghan McCain(1)

Meanwhile Sarah Palin called Obama “‘as predictable as Alaska’s winter snow.'”(2)


Open letter to Nancy Pelosi

May 20, 2009

Dear Nancy Pelosi:

Only today do I understand the media insinuations regarding you.

I had thought I had lost over a document I wrote, that that’s what made me a loser. And since I was being asked to trust someone who had violated every small agreement I made with her, usually days later, there was no way that I could reach a larger agreement. I wasn’t going to agree to take the blame for what happened with that persyn. Behind every great man stands a womyn they say. The corollary is also true.

Only this month do I understand another insinuation. Now that I understand it, I also understand another insinuation, which vindicates you. I thought a certain media outlet was going to attack my document. Actually, it planned an attack on me over the insinuation I learned this month. It proves that many would like to posture in my defense, but there is really no way for me to be translated into Liberalism.

I never planned on being translated into Liberalism. Now I understand your self-interest, the “RCP”‘s self-interest and that of a certain military-industrial complex family which was the first to leak an insinuation, but in a form I did not recognize.

Do I really want to compare our relative behavioral merits even on gender questions? Actually, no. That’s for Liberals.

Henry Park

The principles of opportunism

May 20, 2009

The “RCP”-Obama campaign has demonstrated the principles of opportunism.

They came to victory with the following tactics:
1. Knowing what people want to hear and saying it.
2. Backstabbing the revolutionaries.
3. Unaccountability, the ‘ole boys’ network.

Unfortunately, those tactics do not create any change. The “RCP” won’t be accomplishing anything that Bill Richardson could not have done, except that the “RCP” set back the revolutionaries along the way.

Backstabbing works great for campaigns, notso great for diplomatic reputation. Calling everything “academic” besides the three principles of opportunism does not work so well for espionage/counter-espionage, understanding patterns of dynamics of bureaucratic infighting or economics or anything else.

Their principal task was “create public opinion; seize power.” Notice it did not say public opinion for what class or party, nor what kind of power. So they meant seize power for Ted Kennedy and create public opinion from leaked FBI rumors and other opinion leaked from self-interested state officials.

Teaching people to say, “I’m not an expert in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, so don’t be counting your debate against me as against the party” is teaching unaccountability both at the top and below. The only result can be the racist and patriarchal ‘ole boys’ network.

What the “RCP” did was train people to persynalize things that are not persynal. This kept their followers interested in gossip. This way they would not have to prove intelligent enough to understand even an article as elementary as our article on trade deficit and class struggle and they could write off everything having to do with reality as “academic” — a totally back-assward understanding. If a persyn can’t understand that article, his/her chances of understanding diplomacy, espionage and economics are slight.

Flushing out bullshit

May 20, 2009

I find it unlikely that Robert Gates, Dennis Blair or Leon Panetta are responsible for the failures we have seen in the Mideast so far. It’s more likely the politicians’ fault.

They say “fire” can’t be taught. If it were lynched out less, there would be more fire around. There are non-lynched, non-homophobic ex-comrades of mine who could be recruited to be deputies in various departments. Instead of just finding one, certainly two to four could do the work. There are also anti-lynching judges out there.

I took my best shot at trying to help and I don’t expect to be involved in the Mideast after the 31st.

This is not about ideas that Gates lacks to get out of Afghanistan. If it were, he could just hire my ex-comrades. I’m “self-effacing” to stereotype enough to let them do that. This is about the Democrats’ needing my agreement to my own crucification. They also need me to eroticize my own lynching. And on behalf of the interests of all Asian-Amerikans out there, I give you a giant FUCK YOU. 25 years of that shit is enough.