PMSimon.com

From today's L.A. Times obituaries:

The possibility that Paul Sweezy would one day be recognized as America's leading radical economist seemed unlikely early in his life: His father was a Wall Street investment banker whose income afforded Sweezy a privileged education at such bastions of the ruling class as Philips Exeter Academy and Harvard University. But his family wealth, he would later acknowledge, was what gave him the freedom to spurn capitalism and carve a path to its polar opposite.

Yes, the leading economic proponent of Marxism in America was a rich, privileged guy who never had to work at a real job. His entire life was theory.

And he was wrong.

That part's not in the obit. It calls Sweezy "the defining voice of Marxism in North America, revered by several generations of leftists as 'the living proof,' The Nation's Daniel Singer once wrote, 'that, even in the very heart of imperialism it was possible to resist and to stick to one's principles.'" It doesn't mention how the Communist systems he thought would better serve America than democracy and capitalism led to mass murder, endless failed "five year plans," bread lines, and societies where people had no incentive to achieve- why would they? After all, no matter how good you were, how hard you worked, you got the same as the slacker f-up doing a less important job. Sweezy's utopia was the world of assembly-line workers, brain surgeons, and artists united in common wages, common gray government flats, common everything.

But that's not how HE lived. Buoyed by a trust fund, comfortably ensconced in the affluent Westchester suburbs, owning a New Hampshirte farm as well, never having to depend on his abilities, his work ethic, or the quality of his work for a living, he could just tell everyone ELSE how to live. And that's what he did, secure in the knowledge that when the socialist structure came to America, he'd still have his home, his trust fund, his farm, and he'd never have to work again.

And if you think, well, he was just a socialist utopian, and maybe he didn't exactly support Stalinism and the like, he thought Castro had it right, which means he thought repression of free speech, persecution and murder of opponents, and seizure of people's homes was "right." That's what he wanted for America. That's what he thought would work. Maybe Steven Spielberg would agree, but you won't find too many other people using Cuba as a paragon of success.

So he's gone now, and he lived long enough to see the utter failure of his theories, yet I'm sure he was blinded to that failure- to his death, he wouldn't ever admit that the socialism he touted couldn't, wouldn't, didn't work. And, judging by the paper this morning, neither will the L.A. Times.

 Share

John Kerry discusses his core supporters:

"I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy.' Things like that."

This is important to him, the idea that foreigners want him to win. I've heard this from some of my more anti-Bush friends: they hate him overseas, they all want Kerry to win, we have to listen to that because we all have to live together in perfect harmony, side by side on my piano keyboard, oh Lord, why don't we? It's even trotted out as proof that Bush is worthless: if the French wouldn't vote for him, if he's not willing to sign Kyoto, if he won't defer to the U.N., even, well, see? He's a bad, bad man.

But what I don't understand is the willingness of so many people to cater to people who do not have the best interests of America at heart, whose view of the world's best interests come from a decidedly anti-capitalist perspective, who haven't been elected by the American people or anyone else. Of course it's important to take a global view on issues, but someone has to stand up for America in these matters.

That would be the President. It makes whoever has to do it unpopular sometimes, but it goes with the territory. Kerry is one of those guys who wants the world to love him, and that's dangerous- I want things to be good for everyone in the world, but when there's a conflict, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, I want someone who'll have the balls to represent MY interests, this country's interests, the interests of freedom and democracy. I don't want someone who really, really cares if Blacque Jacques Shellaque... er, Chirac thinks he's ginchy.

"We need a new policy"?

I want a President who realizes who "we" is.

 Share

Everything you need to know about the entertainment industry's values:

First, from a story about Michael Moore in the O.C. Weekly:

Still, notwithstanding the booing that went on at the Oscars last year (Moore insists the heckling came from the suits in the gallery, not the creative types down below), Moore would be the last to deny that the entertainment industry has done well by him. When I point out the obvious, that he’s become part of the corporate enemy he’s been attacking ever since Roger & Me, he responds rather lamely that a lot of former ’60s radicals are working in the business now (some were even in SDS!) and that even Miramax’s Harvey Weinstein is a standup guy with "very committed political beliefs and a desire to see change."

And from Peter Biskind's book about Miramax, "Down and Dirty Pictures," here's how that "standup guy" shows his "very committed political beliefs":

The English Patient was turning into a money machine, grossing $78.6 million in the U.S. and $150 million foreign, for a total of $228.6 million worldwide. The ancillary markets, mainly video, piled on even more millions. But the picture, recall, was (producer Saul) Zaentz' baby, and six years later, Zaentz complained that hadn't seena penny from Miramax, other than the $5 million Harvey paid to the talent, but not Zaentz, early on....the cast and crew of The English Patient have never seen a penny of the remaining $7 million.... According to sources, over the course of the six years, payment was always just around the corner. "You'll be paid in October." October came and went. "You'll be paid in April." April came and went.... Zaentz threatened to sue Miramax. Harvey's response was always, "Go ahead. We're the Walt Disney Co., we have two hundred lawyers here sitting around at their desks with nothing to do. You wanna pay $1 million to hire a lawyer? Be my guest." (pp. 275-276)

And there's much more in Biskind's book about Standup Guy and very committed progressive liberal Harvey Weinstein- let it suffice to say that he allegedly does not treat the peons working for him the way you'd want to be treated. Yet in populist Michael Moore's book, he's a true man of the people, standing up for the little guy. I'll bet the corporate "criminals" against whom Moore rails have provided more "little guys" with gainful employment, decent salaries, and humane working conditions than this Standup Guy.

See, Harvey's a liberal, so in Michael Moore's book, he's Good. Those corporate leaders? Probably not liberal, so Bad.

But you knew that.

 Share

Here's what bothers me about John Kerry's slam on Bush:

Kerry told a worker in Chicago that he was ready to fight back against his Republican foes, adding in an exchange picked up by television and radio microphones that "these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen."

It's not that he said it. I know that it's what he really feels, as does most of the Anybody But Bush crowd. It's that he and his campaign won't own up to what he said:

Spokesman David Wade said Kerry was referring to "the Republican attack machine" and not specifically to Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney, although he said Bush had "a pattern of standing by while other people ... do his dirty work for him."

No, he was referring directly to Bush and his administration. And that's fine- we know that's where he stands. But if he says it, he has to back it up. And he can't blow it off or explain it away- there's no ambiguity here. The mic was open, he got caught, and he has a choice- say yes, that's what I said, I meant it, here's why... or lie and claim he was referring to something or somebody else. He's doing the latter. That's what you do if you're the weasel kid on the playground afraid to get hit back- you sucker-punch, then deny you did anything.

(And, no, this isn't the same as the infamous Adam Clymer "asshole" comment- "asshole" is an opinion, not an allegation of fact, and Bush never tried to claim he was talking about someone else or meant it in a different sense. The comment stood by itself. Bush didn't say Clymer was crooked or biased or anything else, just that he was an asshole. If Kerry called Bush an asshole, well, it might be as unseemly as Bush's use of the term, but it wouldn't be the same as calling him a crook and a liar. You don't need to prove someone's an asshole. Besides, almost everyone's an asshole these days, certainly in politics)

Wouldn't it be refreshing if Kerry stood up and said this:

"Yes, I called the President a crooked liar. That's how I feel. And here's why:..."

Okay, he may not have anything further to say- the "Bush lied" crowd tends to be a little short on specifics- but at least he'd be honest. But it appears that's way too much to ask from him.

 Share

In the AP story about world reaction to the terrorist acts in Madrid:

The secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, said the 22-nation association "condemns such terrorist acts that aim at killing innocent civilians."

I don't have to point out the hypocrisy here, do I?

Or have I just missed the Arab League's condemnation of "suicide bombers" killing Israeli citizens?

Nope. From the Arab League Beirut Declaration of March 2002:

We address a greeting of pride and honour to the Palestinian people's steadfastness and valiant intifada against the Israeli occupation and its destructive war machine.

We greet with honour and pride the valiant martyrs of the intifada....

Apparently, "condemns such terrorist acts that aim at killing innocent civilians" has exceptions.

 Share

Aw, hell, I'm tired. Let's let someone else do the work, OK?

Here's friend Johnny Angel's article about Sex Pistol Steve Jones and his new gig as a radio DJ:

click here

You'd think, after a zillion articles for the paper over the last few years, that the LA Weekly web site could spell Johnny's name right.

Enough logrolling for tonight. There's a couch and a TV calling my name. Pardon me.

 Share

From a BBC message board set up for reaction to the Madrid bombings:

Hi. I'm also shocked about what has happened in Madrid. I can't understand how somebody can do such a horrible thing. I hope that we will know who did it soon. In my opinion it wasn't ETA. They are killers, but I think they are not able to do this. If it was Al Qaeda, I think that our president should feel responsible for what has happened, because people shouted on the streets against the Iraq war. God bless all the victims and families

Alex, Barcelona, Spain

And here it comes.

The anti-war contingent will never hold terrorists responsible for their own actions. Murdering innocent civilians? Spain, they believe, brought it on itself for supporting the ouster of Saddam. Why, they think, Spaniards ought to have expected it.

They fall just short of saying "well, you DESERVED it."

Morality shouldn't be a tricky thing. Murdering innocent civilians- targeting them- is immoral, amoral, wrong. That shouldn't be a debatable topic. Blaming something else- the government's position on Iraq, suffering in another country, someone's religion- is... natural, I suppose, to those so blinded by politics and hatred that they can't even bring themselves to blame the perpetrators.

This should be simple. If you see innocent people murdered, and the phrase "well, that's terrible, but, you know, you have to understand WHY the bombers felt so desperate that..." comes to mind, you have a problem. Murder- cold-blooded, deliberate murder- is wrong. There's no "but." Wrong.

If you still don't get that, I don't want to know you.

 Share