Palau

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, washed the t-shirt 23 times, threw the t-shirt in the ragbag, now I'm polishing furniture with it.

111823113222371527

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation*

Old Money: the Mythology of Wealth In America’ – Nelson Aldrich

Observant readers will have been following the series of essays in the New York Times about class and income disparity in modern America.

Whilst I disagree completely with much of their analysis from a political standpoint (the general tone seems to be ‘Yes, Virginia, isn’t it dreadful there are class diffferences here, but hey, that’s the American way!”) nevertheless, for once the NYT should be commended for even tackling the subject. Class is, like death and old-age, one of the great unspokens in American life.

On television and in the movies now, and even in the pages of novels, people tend to dwell in a classless, homogenized American Never-Never Land. This place is an upgrade, but not a drastic one, from the old neighborhood where Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, and Donna Reed used to live; it’s those yuppified city blocks where the friends on “Friends” and the “Seinfeld” gang had their apartments, or in the now more fashionable version, it’s part of the same exurb as One Tree Hill and Wisteria Lane – those airbrushed suburbs where all the cool young people hang out and where the pecking order of sex and looks has replaced the old hierarchy of jobs and money.

This is progress of a sort, but it’s also repression, since it means that pop culture has succeeded to a considerable extent in burying something that used to be right out in the open. In the old days, when we were more consumed by social class, we were also more honest about it.

There is an un-American secret at the heart of American culture: for a long time, it was preoccupied by class. That preoccupation has diminished somewhat – or been sublimated – in recent years as we have subscribed to an all-purpose, mass-market version of the American dream, but it hasn’t entirely disappeared. The subject is a little like a ne’er-do-well relative; it’s sometimes a shameful reminder, sometimes openly acknowledged, but always there, even, or especially, when it’s never mentioned.

You can read the whole series here.

While there continues to be denial about these huge fault-lines in society regarding income, class and power, and of their effect on the lives of the average Josephine, US politicians, pundits and bloggers will never ever get a grip on what ails the US.

*Henry David Thoreau, Walden, (1854)

111815544928467581

That Gitmo/Koran Furore in Full

The Rude Pundit adresses the issues in his own inimitable style:

The Rude Pundit doesn’t suffer fundamentalists gladly. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Bible-thumpin’ Christian, a Koran-riotin’ Muslim, or a ripped-to-shit flag waver, you can take your strict adherence to your religious and/or nationalistic code and, well, flush it down the toilet. Because, frankly, if you’re willing to go nutzoid over the desecration of a book, then you’re someone who’s willing to oppress real, living people – maybe that’s forcing women to always be accompanied by a man, maybe it’s not allowing gay people to marry each other or adopt kids, maybe it’s re-electin’ a lyin’ sack of shit to the presidency. However it forces you to behave, it’s gonna end up screwin’ someone else’s freedoms over. So fuck you.

I think that pretty much covers it, don’t you?

111815467233628813

Who’re The Traitors Now?

Steve Clemons at the Washington Note has the lowdown on exactly who it was UN nominee and ’70s-German-porn-star-a-like John Bolton was spying on, via the illegal use of NSA intercepts:

June 06, 2005
MAJOR SCOOP: Assistant Secretary of State Bill Burns & Libya the Subjects of One Bolton NSA Intercept Request

John Bolton so irritated British negotiators who were working on a resolution to Libya’s WMD programs that they asked the American team on Libya to remove John Bolton from the case. Bolton was dropped.

TWN has now learned from a highly placed intelligence source, “with direct knowledge,” that one of the 10 intercept requests made by John Bolton was about Libya. The identity of the U.S. official requested by Bolton was William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. (my emphasis)

This shows a couple of things about Bolton that further underscore his vanity and irresponsibility when it comes to national security issues.

First, Bolton was NOT on a need-to-know basis in the Libya case. He had been removed from that portfolio.

Second, this shows that Bolton was in fact spying on his colleagues and their work. In this case, Bill Burns was his target.

The Bolton Battle is getting ready to rev up again — and this news on Bolton, Burns and Libya may turn a number of other U.S. Senators against his nomination.

— Steve Clemons
Posted by steve at June 6, 2005 11:03 AM

So who is exactly is Bill Burns, and what, other than the usual caveat that one doesn’t spy on one’s own side, is it that Bolton has done that’s so bad?

Title: Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
Name: William J. Burns
State of Residency: District of Columbia
Foreign Service Officer
Appointment: May 31, 2001
Entry on Duty: Jun 4, 2001

Burns is a career foreign service officer, ie a diplomat. Whatever the political stripe of the US administration, career diplomats like Burns continue. Their job is to implement policy, whatever it is, and their continued employment and terms of service are set, not by some fly-by-night politician, but by the permanent federal government. Bolton is a mere appointee who serves at the whim of his poltical masters, ie Rove and Bush.

What we have here is a loyal Bush apparatchik playing hatchetman against his own government, purely for partisan reasons. It’s as though, for example, Blair’s little chum, the newly ennobled Lord Adonis of the Stationery Cupboard, were to co-opt MI5 to spy on one of our ambassadors. (Not that he wouldn’t do it, it’s just that if he has, we don’t know about it yet)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Bolton is a traitor to his own country. And if he’ll betray his own homeland and colleagues, for very little except a pat on the head from Rove and the satisfaction of his childish pique, what, via the UN, will he do to the rest of the world?