CommonPrejudice

It Grew Back!!!

About 4 years ago while citing a story about the possibility of teeth growing back I made passing reference to that old Monty Python skit about the man losing his leg and asking when it would grow back.

Well, that was nothing, nothing at all.

This dude actually grew back his finger (click one of the images for the story and video)

Traitors

One more note on the ex-general controversy.
I can remember getting to my local bar one night a while back when a couple of patrons greeted me with impassioned diatribes on how sleazy Moveon.org was to play word games General Petraeus' name, turning it into BetrayUs.  Can't criticize those generals after all they have done for the country, right.

Well, of course like all right wing rants there was precious little substance or consistency in their attacks (remember how whenever an ex-general came out against the Bush crime family and the illegal war in Iraq they were immediately assailed by the government and the RW blogonuts as liars or being bitter or some other insult which avoided any discussion of the actual claims raised).

Now it comes out that a multitude of ex-generals were being paid for advocating war. Further as noted in the video below by a CNN journalist, many had shares in companies getting contracts during the war. This is obviously quite scandalous. (though of course the liberal media has almost entirely ignored the controversy...what a shock).

Advocating a war because you are told to do so by the government and moveever, because this war will most probably enrich you greatly is pretty much the height of unethical behaviour by an ex-general. And yeah, if I were American I wouldn't hesitate to call these people traitors (neither would anyone who has lost a loved one in Iraq either, I'm guessing.)

Manufacturing Consent Any Way They Can

One question that you don't hear nearly enough is why did Americans, and only Americans, support the invasion of Iraq. I was in Mexico at the time and it was clear from abroad that the overwhelming sentiment across the planet was anti-invasion. Are Americans simply not as bright as the rest of the world?

I won't argue that here. People are stupid .... and smart ... everywhere.

So then was the consent by the American people, to use that only Chomsky thesis, 'manufactured'? Clearly it some way it was. And for all of Chomsky's outrageous statements on such areas of the world as Cambodia and Bosnia I've always thought his media critique has been very accurate and informative. Hell even Micheal Berube would support Chomsky on the media "22/7" (read two comments and two replies by Berube here on this issue). Berube does, though, argue that there is much more to it - and apparently does this as well in a book coming out soon that looks to be quite interesting - mentioning at least in this thread that the 'manufacturing consent' contention overlooks the competing interests within the elite. I don't doubt he makes a very strong case. I think of Greg Palast's depiction in Armed Madhouse of the two facets of the pro-invasion group, one that looked for control over world oil prices while the other advocated for war for mostly geo-political reasons. (Btw while I don't always agree with Berube he is certainly one the most intelligent and humourous commentators out there). Nevertheless if you are looking for a strong argument for the theory last week one appeared.

So for any of you who aren't familiar with the NYTimes story documenting how the media simply used paid ex-generals as supposed neutral commentators in the lead up to the war the following video does an excellent job in explaining the story (via Greenwald). It shows how, if not always the result, when the chips are down consent will be manufactured.

So watch it.

Sports Narratives

A break from the regularly scheduled programming....

I've been following the Phoenix Suns fairly closely the last several years and I can tell you that the results so far this post season have left me, shall we say, distraught.

Last night I was reading through a Suns thread here and came across a familiar narrative. While certainly sports narratives do not deal with life and death issues (or distract from them) as political narratives do the process is exactly the same. Repeat some BS enough times it becomes conventional wisdom, leaving it to us lonely bloggers to set the record straight. Anyways, here is a comment I was going to leave at the thread but decided I would put here for the record.

I'm just using the following as an example of what I hear repeated all the time on comment threads, and in newspaper columns, and on sports blogs and from the blowhards on Around the Horn about the Suns so-called inability to advance in the playoffs. It is a very familiar refrain.

"Suns are a nice team that win 50 plus a year and take a dump in the first and second round year after year after year. No need to watch the regular season because this is where we end up."

It's bad enough putting up with this crap from ESPN but man do I have to see it here on a Suns thread as well? While I don't give the Suns much of a shot this year god damn let's at least get our facts straight. Obviously, to begin with this year isn't even over yet - don't tell me you won't be making time Sunday afternoon for game 4 if the Suns win game 3 by 20. But much more importantly to my point, if they are to lose the series this will be the first time they will have lost in the first round in the Nash era, or in other words the first time in the current streak of playoff appearances. The first time.

Let's just look at what actually has happened. This is year 4. Year one the team came out of nowhere to reach the conference finals, lose to injury one of their better players prior to the final and finally succumb to an experienced Spurs team. Not the first round and definitely a successful season. Year 2 minus Kurt Thomas and Amare somehow the team makes it all the way to the conference finals again only to lose in 6 - they were even leading in that game by 7 in the second half as I recall only to finally, ultimately wear out. So don't you think that team with Thomas and Amare doesn't roll all the way to the title denying Shaq the ring? Anyways, bottom line once more a trip to the conference finals and once again you must label this a successful season considering the injuries. So last year was the year. That was when it was supposed to happen. And that "loss" I will never believe was a fair and just outcome to the series. And now it seems the time has past.

That said, I didn't want the Shaq trade because this group deserved one more shot with at least that core group (though the team really should have kept Thomas). Never forget that the day the trade was made the Suns had the best record in the West ... and if the suspensions last year hadn't happened would even beating the Spurs be an issue? I say it wouldn't. Remember how good things looked in that brief time after the victory but before it became obvious the suspensions were going to happen.

Not getting another shot with the original group and apparently going down in the first round this season are bad enough. Don't take way their history too. Sometimes I almost think the endless repetition of this giant myth is what caused the Shaq trade to happen.

I'm really tired of these mindless narratives that get spouted by so-called sports experts who really haven't the foggiest idea what they are talking about. oh yeah..and go suns.

On this Earth Day I Have Only One Worry ...

Are we going to be able to put enough people to death if the Democrats win the presidency?

So today is earth day.

We've got global food crises certain to get worse as will shortages of water.  The best and brightest scientists around the world warn that we may be past the point of no return in regards to climate change and the devastating effects this will bring about. We've got record temperatures - both high and low - all across the planet. There are record levels of storms and droughts. We've got a man-child heading what has been historically the world's leading polluter and he has only made things much worse. And we've got legions of flat-earthers decrying the uncertainty of the phenonmenon and still, unbeleiveably, referring to it as the "global warming controversy,"

There's also  a very important Democratic primary today in Pennesylvania, which if people could pull attention away from flag pins, might indicate where the United States will be going in terms of its environmental policy.

So what has LA Times columnist and certified nut Jonah Goldberg "melting away into real anxiety, even panic?" Simply that one of the justices of the Supreme Court believes that the death penalty is unconstitutional based on his life experience.

This is why we are screwed.

Now if I were to overhear drivel like this at a bar I initially would feel like mentioning to this person how deluded they were and how, while the U.S. faces wars, a devastated economy, environmental catastrophe and torture and eavesdropping scandals among other things, you decide to focus on this makes you a moron. But alas, I would probably just take a big drink of my beer and admit it's not worth it. The fact that it is a nationally syndicated columnist saying that this is what causes him great anxiety heading into the election makes this something you can't ignore no matter how much it deserves to be. If there a reasonable society an immediate court order would be issued keeping Goldberg from within a hundred yards of a keyboard.

But we know Goldberg has a national forum not likely to get taken away any time soon.

And this is why we are screwed.

At US Today another brilliant mind has this to say.

Earth Day is a Holiday for Liars

....There are several common attributes of environmentalism. High on the list is its barely hidden contempt for the human race...

Once more time:
This is why we are screwed.

As long as people so inarguably dim play an important role in the political discourse of the United States - a country that absolutely must be on board if we are to accomplish anything regarding climate change -  we can be assured that very little will be done to significantly counteract the severe damage we have already done to the planet. To be clear; their views and comments are so far beyond the pale that their mere inclusion in acceptable mainstream debate on climate change means we're screwed.

Label me a Cassandra if you'd like but for those who toss about the term without actually knowing the story you should be aware that in the end she was right.

Happy Earth Day.

Uh Oh, Another Latin American Populist

Yesterday Paraguay joined the ranks of the Latin American countries tired of the endless corruption of the traditional political parties in the region and the huge inequalities brought on by years of IMF managed economic approaches when they elected former Roman Catholic bishop Fernando Lugo.

Now you can sure the Oppenheimer and his fellow travelers will be warning against reckless populism that this election result surely demonstrates. Stepping up to the plate today is Latin Business Chronicle:

First and foremost, Lugo should realize that Paraguay's status as the poorest nation in South America is not due to Capitalism, but rather the lack of true free markets.

Besides being an empty cliche devoid of any actual specific policy advice (usually done on purpose because detailing the policies would show how little they differ from the disaster of the 1990s which led to devastating poverty, unemployment and economic instability), it is also presented without any actual evidence.

The article calls for a plan similar to Chile's and pleads to avoid following in Chavez's footsteps (couldn't see that coming, could you?) The article notes the very low rate of foreign investment in Paraguay and states that this is cause of all the underdevelopment. We know though from experience that foreign investment alone is not sufficient to develop a country. Local governments get precious little of the profits made from this investment as most of the profits are repatriated. Certainly in terms of employment and tax collection (from workers) expanding business by increased foreign investment can be a boon. But these so-called free markets that folks like those at Latin Business Chronicle call for are really a means to depress wages, limit union activity and eliminate regulations for  business, especially regarding the environment and workers' safety. The best case scenario usually is an expansion of the middle class while the poor' needs are never met. In the end a near or complete economic collapse is likely because the money that came into the country will leave just as quickly at the first sign of economic or political trouble. As almost always is the case you are left wondering where the social investment is going to come from?

We've seen this story a thousand times. It won't.

And for those who have only relied on traditional media to evaluate Venezuela's and Chile's economic performance I recommend this article by Mark Tuner from last December. He opens up by asking:

Here is a quiz for you: Which South American nation:

    a) depends on one single product for the majority of its exports?

    b) derives 35% of its total GDP from said product?

    c) has relied on the sharp rise in world market prices for its product to fuel growth?

    d) has not added significantly to its international currency reserves in the period?

    e) is often lauded as the LatAm model economy by world peers?

    f) may possibly be worried about forward macro effects of the recent drop of over 20% in world market prices for its main product?

    If you guessed Venezuela then began to doubt your choice, this analyst would not be at all surprised. The answer is Chile, and the major product in question is copper.

Turner also notes, unsurprisingly given how the business elite are usually enamored with Chile, that Chile's inflation rate is much lower than Venezuela. But much more importantly he also notes - again unsurprisingly given Venezuela's greater concern over the well being of all its population - how despite the much higher inflation rate in Venezuela real salaries there have exceeded the rate of inflation so people actually can purchase more. In Chile, despite the low inflation rate, salaries have failed to keep pace. But then again low inflation combined with low salaries is an investor's dream. Let them eat cake.

Turner notes how international reserves have greatly expanded in Venezuela whereas in Chile they have remained the same despite very high copper prices. Venezuela, Turner adds, has also done better in combating unemployment. He says:

Politically, Chile has been coming under greater pressure from its populace to spend more of its copper windfall. Polls suggest that two out of three Chileans want its government to relax the saving rules with the IMF and spend more of the windfall on social projects. This makes sense in a country that is ostensibly prosperous, but in fact runs the second highest level of social inequality in the LatAm region.

But...but.... social projects? Those aren't free markets!!

And by the way, Venezuela's record of economic growth has been outstanding the last 5 years. Of course you would never know that if you, say, relied on, the Miami Herald for your information. If you'd like another, much more accurate depiction of Venezuela today you can check this Mark Weisbrot article out [links to the actual study].

"The Venezuelan economy has been booming for five consecutive years now, with the poverty rate cut by more than half and real (inflation-adjusted) GDP increasing by more than 87 percent, with very little of that in oil," said Weisbrot.

"Real social spending per person has also tripled, with increased access to subsidized food, health care, and education for the poor. There really shouldn't be any question about these basic issues, and this debate should make that clear."

The paper also shows that the amount of poverty reduction accomplished in Venezuela during the current economic expansion, relative to the growth that has occurred, compares quite favorably to other countries - contrary to one of the main allegations in the Foreign Affairs article

Oh it seems that despite conservative critics claim's of reckless social spending by Chavez the year ended with a budget surplus.