Watching coverage of post-election demonstrations in Iran feels surreal. A throwback to 30 years ago when I lived there. Here’s the URL to my “Tehran Diary,” which was the cover story of the April 1979 issue of The Times Magazine, chronicling my family’s experiences in the run up to and beginning of the Islamic Revolution:  http://www.anatomyofatrial.com/pages/documents/TehranDiary0001_000.pdf

Why aren’t people — particularly the news media — asking these would-be freeloading teabaggers howling about not wanting to pay taxes if they drive on public roads and highways, use public sidewalks and transportation, walk/bike/picnic in city/country parks, play golf on municipal courses, have snow removed from their streets, have police and fire departments to respond to their emergencies, eat food produced on government-subsidized farms, have access to realively safe food and medicines, clean water, relatively unpolluted air, a court system when they need it? The list is almost endless. I say anyone who doesn’t pay taxes doesn’t get benefit of any government-provided services. Then see what kind of freedom they enjoy.

New York Times headline: “Obama’s Farm Subsidy Cuts Meet Stiff Resistance “

The $9.7 billion in farm subsidy cuts over the next decade would affect family farms as well as agribusiness.  While I understand the need for farm aid, given the vital role farming families play in feeding the nation and continuing a part of American culture, and abhor the corporate welfare to the huge profitable agribusiness industry, it’s probably a pretty safe bet that the very people who are on the receiving end of federal assistance in the form of farm subsidies are among those who wail the loudest about Obama leading the country in to socialism.  Being on the dole is OK as long as you’re on the receiving end.

David Brooks’s column in todays New York Times, headline “Greed and Stupidity”, questioned whether the Wall Street meltdown was due to greed or stupidty. It was, he decided, primarily stupidity. “To my mind, we didn’t get into this crisis because inbred oligarchs grabbed power. We got into it because arrogant traders around the world were playing a high-stakes game they didn’t understand,” he concluded.

I disagree!

Greed and stupidity went hand in glove. Wall Street is but one part of capitalism Wild-West style that is akin to cannibals eating their young . Rampant consumerism, oligarchs’ unstoppable and compounding amassing of the nation’s wealth, CEO’s insanely ever-escalating compensation, credit companies extending ever-more credit to consumers who can’t pay it back then punishing them by raising interest rates to felonious heights is simply unsustainable. All of that has been enabled and propelled by a Reaganomics-enthralled and campaign-contribution fed Congress that kept writing and rewriting the cookbook.

Greed and Stupidity

Most snake-oil salesmen attract a crowd. Only suckers believe them. The goal of this carnie and his water works, like Jimmy Swaggart,  is obvious. Attention and moolah.

An article in today’s New York Times about Japan’s deepening economic dive says that country’s ‘lost decade’ — i.e. the ’90s when Japan’s ballooning economy crashed — is about to be repeated. Seems defunded Japanese who emerged from the ’90s convinced they need to save for future rainy decades like the one just past are part of Japan’s worsening economic woes. Instead of saving, so goes the current prevailing economic theory, Japanese need to be spending.

So, let’s see. 

(1)  We can’t count on the amoral biz sector, which valules only the bottom line, ever greater profits and lavish compensation for its elite; sheds ‘expensive’ experienced, loyal, productive employees for cheaper ‘temporary/part-time’ workers, and cannibalizes its pension funds leaving retirees to fend for themselves.

(2)  We can’t count on govenment because  the Antoinette Nero-cons fight tooth and limb for ‘hard-working Americans’ to keep their own money, wail over the future of their children and grandchildren being ‘mortgaged’ after they for the past eight years emptied the national coffers and maxed out the country’s credit cards, decry ‘pork’ projects in any government attempt to aid anyone/group/sector in need as wasteful and ’stinky’ then scramble for the most and choicest cuts of their own fatted porky pig, and advocate replacing the social safety net with private -sector investments because people should be ’self-reliant and ‘responsible,’ use our ‘own bootstraps’ and not depend on government ‘handouts.’

(3)  We can’t count on private sector investments because the financial ‘house of cards’ (title of a CNN program that aired a week or so ago, which should be a must see for every American) architects — many of whom are above-mentioned Nero-cons or their progeny — who promoted and continue to promote policies that resulted in the current nose dive in the value of said investments, leaving those who rely on them with robin-size nest eggs or none at all.

(4)  We can’t count on our own self-reliance because not only have our bootstraps, but the boots themselves been gobbled up in the recession. As ‘responsible’ Americans, we should save. Supposedly, that’s one of the reasons we’re in this economic mess, i.e. we were on a spending binge and weren’t saving. Yet we learn from today’s NYTimes article that spending is what’s needed to rescue the economy and that saving will plunge it further into tank, prolong the agony and delay any possibility of recovery — at least in Japan.

‘Mr. Schock, 27, said of his constituents. “They know that this bill will not do anything to create long-term, sustained economic growth.”’

That quote is included in the New York Times’s Peter Baker’s story today, “Bipartisanship Isn’t So Easy, Obama Discovers“,

I keep hearing things like this from Mr. Schock and Sen. John McCain’s ‘mortgaging our children and grandchildren’s futures’, but nowhere have I heard or read anyone rebutting such flawed rationale with the fact that:  A traffic accident victim whose life hangs by a thread while a priest fingers his rosary preparing to give last rites needs TRIAGE to stanch the bleeding and stabilize her/his vitals. This is not the time for the ER personnel to try to work out their patient’s longterm health plan or dither over whether s/he will be able to pay for her/his medical treatment. The future that the Schocks and McCains of the world are so worried about might be bleak beyond belief if emergency measures aren’t taken to save the patient.

I’m mad as hell at the Repub obstructionist Nero-cons (yes, NERO-cons! who apparently think they don’t have to do anything except let the past 8 years of failure a la tax cuts finish the country (except for them and their rich cronies) off — and I’m not even directly affected so far as being able to pay my mortgage and bills, live on my retirement, and still have health care is concerned!

Under the Nero-cons’ stewardship, this country’s pyramid scheme of the ever-greater need for people to consume, consume, consume is the perfect example of corp. execs eating their young to maintain their fat-cat lives.

This crisis (thanks in large part to them and their pea-brained distain for a effectively functioning government that has led to ’starving the beast’) is NOW, not down the line a year or more when people start getting tax returns. And how the heck will a few dollars more, thanks to a lower or no payroll tax for a few months, in one person’s pocket restore the country’s infrastructure and educate our children/grandchildren?  What will people use the pitance of  a extra dollars thanks to a tax cut do with it? Pay off debt and maybe buy a chicken once in a while instead of macaroni and potatoes.

If Obama’s plan to create jobs NOW isn’t enacted, the children/grandchildren whose futures McCain and company are so worried about being mortgaged won’t have a future — unless their vision  of a great future is the 3rd-world model of a few rich families living on tiny gated-mansion islands surrounded by an ocean of enraged, desperate, starving throngs beating down their doors.  All I gotta say is the Nero-cons had better beware the rising tide.

New York Times Headline: Peanut Case Shows Holes in Safety Net

Rats, roaches, rusty roofs. For at least the past five years, those conditions prevailed at a peanut plant in Georgia that processed products for children’s lunches and the nation’s snack food. Conditions that enabled salmonella to florish — and kill.

Enter the questions:  How could that happen?

Answer:  Ronald Reagan and his political progeny. How so?

Aren’t these oversight agencies part of the ‘gov’ment’ Reagan in the 1980s said is the problem, a mantra his descendent Nero-phytes have intoned ever since? The ‘gov’ment’ said Nero-phytes say is too big, that is responsible for all that god-awful spending? Aren’t these among the agencies that have been starved of funding so they can’t pay inspectors, which, of course, proves that, indeed, ‘gov’ment’ doesn’t work, therefore is the problem? Besides, who needs a safety net any way? Aren’t we strong, self-sufficient ‘Amer’cans’ who pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps and look out for ourselves? If we want untainted peanuts, we should go pick our own.

“Tax cuts” remains this nation’s theme song. Looks like we’re getting what we pay for.

A friend sent me an article (pasted in below) taking President-elect Barack Obama to task for some of his administration picks who have Clinton ties and for what the writer seems to think is counter to U.S.-International best interests.

The sense I get from this article is that people either (1) weren’t listening, (2) are expecting perfection vis a vis Obama meeting their own personal expectations and agendas or (3) need to find fault in order to fulfill their roles as professional critics.

In the three weeks — three weeks! — since the election, I see Obama doing exactly what he said he would do:

– He is indeed making sweeping changes. Traditionally newly elected presidents sack everyone in any position of significance with the outgoing administration and bring in replacements wholesale, at times, as we have seen, with little to no regard for their competence and with great regard for their partisanship, loyalty and cronyism. That’s the first major change I see Obama making. He is appointing people he has determined will be competent and effective.

– He repeatedly said during his campaign at in his victory speech that we are all Americans first, not Democrats and Republicans, not conservatives and liberals, etc., but Americans, and if elected he would be president of all of the people, not just those who elected him — which is opposite of one of the most infuriating aspects of Bush and his m.o., which was to politicize everything. Obama is demonstrating his intention to do just that, be a leader of all Americans to the extent possible. The William Pfaffs of the world point accusatory fingers at a Hillary Clinton appointment. Hillary Clinton missed being the Democratic nominee by a hair and, in the view of some, she rightfully won but was robbed. These folks further villified Obama for not picking her as his running mate. Well, how best to get her and her devotees inside his tent than to give her a significant post in his administration — one in which she has considerable expertise and clout? Mr. Pfaff and other critics seem to forget that she and his other selections, such as Bob Gates/Defense, are OBAMA’s appointees who will be part of HIS team and charged with carrying out HIS policies. They will have to work out/overcome whatever differences they might have had or touted in the run-up to his winning the nomination. If not, he can fire them. I personally admire the self-confidence his making such appointments demonstrates.

– He repeatedly said his administration would be transparent. He has already set that tone by holding more press conferences in just two days — going on three today — than Bush has had in six months. or longer.

– He said he would listen to the people. He has two websites devoted to just that and, from what I read/hear, is paying attention to them. Further, this allows all of us who want to make positive contributions and/or constructive comments to be an extension of the Smart Team his is assembling as his administration

– So he’s reaching back into past administrations and selecting people with experience and strong, effective track records. What if he weren’t doing that, but instead were chosing only unknowns, neophytes, Chicago cronies? What would the critics be saying then? “What’s that neophyte president-elect doing filling all of these important jobs with similarly inexperience people?!?” Obama is in a total no-win situation. He’s got to have people on his team who know their way through that uber minefield of Washington D.C.  While all of the attention and accompanying criticism is on those with past administration connections, omitted from their punditry are those who are new to federal government service, such as Arizona Gov. Janet Nepolitano (Sec. of Homeland Security) and University of California, Berkeley, economic historian Christina Romer (Council of Economic Advisors Chair) or that those with ties to past administrations Obama has picked for top jobs who will be serving as mentors to up-and-comers or that some such as Larry Summers were passed over for top jobs but because of their expertise and experience are being put in positions where they can mentor new comers who have been picked for top spots.

I say, lay off and give the guy a chance. He isn’t going to meet your or my every expectation or hope, but he is doing what this country needs right now. He’s imparting a sense of stability and assurance and providing solid leadership that not only we, but the rest of the world needs, which is reflected in the international response to his election and his actions — and he isn’t even president yet.

The Americans who voted for Barack Obama as president were promised change they could count on, but it rather looks as if they may actually be asked to make do with a mildly refurbished Clinton administration, with many of the same officials and nearly all of the same policies. The policies are drawn from the same centrist Democratic Party sources as those of Bill Clinton, and Obama’s admirers might even find themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State — which makes no sense whatsoever. 

Are there no significant differences of view on war and peace between the two of them? Why did the American (and international) public have to endure a year and a half of Democratic party primaries in addition to the national election contest if the Democratic race could have been settled by the flip of a coin between people who believed in the same policies and thought the same thoughts? 

Where is the sweeping change Barack Obama was promising the electorate?  Looking back, he was rarely specific about the changes he intended to make. He constantly invoked the principle of change, without going much into the messy details, for which — admittedly — he was criticized at the time. 

Many who voted for him, as did this writer, relied upon his evident qualities, in comparison with his predecessor and most of his competitors, which were that he clearly was very intelligent, as well as balanced and mature: He was an adult, who spoke to his audiences as fellow-adults. This was his great difference from Hillary Clinton. Personally very intelligent, she has spent too long in the shady political precincts of ambition and calculation. She could never have made the speech Obama made on race. (Possibly he will never again be able to make such a speech. He has himself said that we must settle down now to being disappointed by Obama.)

The disappointment problem is international. Because of the enormous expectations Obama’s election has aroused abroad, above all among America’s European allies, any Obama-Clinton restoration of Clintonism would be met with incomprehension and disappointment. This is not because the Clinton administration was so awful, but because it was so confused in perception and lacking in foreign policy direction that it was easy for George W. Bush to merge it into the Great War on Terror. He had simply to add fear, security hysteria, lies about mass destruction weapons, and torture.

Europeans had never thought of Americans as torturers. When it turned out that the sponsors and defenders of torture occupied the highest offices of government in the United States, with the chief legal enablers of torture in the White House Counsel’s office itself, and heading no less than the Department of Justice, a chill passed through the Western alliance.  It was noted that the chosen euphemism for torture by president, lawyers and the CIA was “enhanced measures,” a direct translation of the term employed by the Gestapo. 

I was just in Brussels to speak to the European Ideas Network, sponsored by the Christian Democratic-Center Right-Conservative group, the largest in  the European Parliament. The audience seemed taken aback when I answered their question about what will change in European-American relations under Barack Obama by replying, “Probably not much.” 

The president-elect has said he will stop torture and extra-legal imprisonment, but on fundamental matters of transatlantic relations he clearly has indicated that he wants an alliance in which the Europeans contribute more.  (This will undoubtedly be a welcome change from the Bush effort to split the European Union by encouraging hostility toward the West Europeans by the pro-American former Warsaw Pact governments.) 

The U.S. contribution to the Georgia fiasco has undermined its reputation among the East Europeans. In the future, there probably will be more American consultation and good will in transatlantic relations, and perhaps even in dealing with Russia (there certainly is nothing to gain from hostility). However, Barack Obama himself said in his Berlin speech that he expects the Europeans to contribute a lot more to “winning” the war in Afghanistan.

This is not a popular idea; the European governments have been encouraging regional diplomatic solutions for Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Most Americans may be surprised to know that there is West European concern (as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told a Brookings audience in Washington last week) that the new American administration might try to take all this over for itself, and thereby wreck the progress already made. After all, it was Barack Obama who said that he would himself talk