In 2004 CBS told Reuters that during the SuperBowl, “We have a policy against accepting advocacy advertising.”

Oh, Really?!

CBS allows on a “pro-life” ad:

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/press/pressreleases/a000001434.cfm

But not of course MoveOn.org or Peta ads:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-01.htm

If the media were anymore “liberal” it would be shameless!

At last they have succeeded at their greatest triumph. Let the Rapture begin…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/

“money quote” from the dissent (Justice Stevens):

In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it [emphasis added]

For more on “corporate personhood” (or in my opinion, lack thereof), see:

http://rutrow.org/2008/05/19/corporations-are-people-too/

I’m serious. The end is here. It’s done.

UPDATE:

Make no mistake. This is not simply a judicial decision. It is a coup. The Supreme Court has handed the country to the corporate interests and by extension to the Republicans. Turd Blossom now has his permanent majority.

Actually when you really look at it the coup happened in 2000, when the Supreme Court handed the election to George W. Bush ultimately giving him the option to seat these judges.

UPDATE 2:

I still think it probably does bode badly for the future of democracy, but Glenn Greenwald here, here, here, and here nearly has me convinced that not only was it the right decision, but even that “corporate personhood” is necessary.

Taibbi hits the nail on the head again in this article:

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2010/01/04/fannie-freddie-and-the-new-red-and-blue

The money quote however is:

For what we’ve learned in the last few years as one scandal after another spilled onto the front pages is that the bubble economies of the last two decades were not merely monstrous Ponzi schemes that destroyed trillions in wealth while making a small handful of people rich. They were also a profound expression of the fundamentally criminal nature of our political system, in which state power/largess and the private pursuit of (mostly short-term) profit were brilliantly fused in a kind of ongoing theft scheme that sought to instant-cannibalize all the wealth America had stored up during its postwar glory, in the process keeping politicians in office and bankers in beach homes while continually moving the increasingly inevitable disaster to the future.

Says it all to me.

The always excellent Matt Taibbi hits the nail on the head:

Anyone who wonders why the Obama administration seems to be bending over so far backwards to appease conservatives and industry leaders in the health care debate and Wall Street in the financial regulatory reform debate can find their answer there: those groups make Obama pay for their financial/political support with real actions and policy concessions, while Obama’s “base” will continue their feverish support in exchange for mere gestures and marketing hocus-pocus, for news about the new family puppy or an appearance on Jay Leno.

That’s a pretty profound point. If we don’t ask, frankly demand, something of Obama, that’s what we’re going to get - nothing.

Full post can be read here.

A post by the always excellent Brad Delong got me thinking about anti-stimulus arguments.

A common argument on the right is that it was WWII that ended The Great Depression^TM not New Deal^TM stimulus, and therefor claiming the efficacy of New Deal stimulus is not an argument for modern stimulus. On the face of it it’s hard to argue that WWII wasn’t at least part of the equation here and if you leave it at that, well you might just say, “Yeah, it was WWII, not the New Deal that saved the day.”

The problem, and the big thing that everyone misses (including myself until I had an epiphany this morning) is that while it’s certainly sad and deranged stimulus, WWII was stimulus. In fact it was deficit stimulus on a massive scale.

That is, the “war matériel” was not donated out of the goodness of the hearts of the various businesses, but rather was funded by the deficit spending of both Alied and Axis governments. It was also funded by extraordinary tax levies, as high as 87% on upper incomes. See (click to see full size):

Tax For Victory, 1943

Taxes aside, the point is that the argument that WWII ended the depression is actually an argument for stimulus and in fact an argument that stimulus ended the depression. Again deranged stimulus, but stimulus nonetheless.

Yes, on a moral level it’s hard not to argue that said stimulus ideally as Gigot phrases it, “might have put it to more productive” uses, but given the economy and the unwillingness at the time, without other non-war stimulus to fill the gap it’s also hard to argue that the unspent capital would have magically gone to other “job-creating uses”. That is, given the bleak outlook for employers, without WWII or further New Deal stimulus, one has to severely doubt the hoarded (or un-borrowed deficit) capital of the Depression would have actually been used to produce jobs.

The point is, something had to be done, and even though (at least in theory) WWII wasn’t planned, it provided a convenient substitute for other potential deficit stimulus.

Of course again, going back to the taxes above, it wouldn’t be deficit spending if we were willing to tax more, even temporarily. And in fact through much of the great boom following WWII, taxes remained extremely high both on personal and corporate levels. Moreover it was considered patriotic, a duty, to pay those taxes for the benefit of the whole.

But nevermind, we live in new (and more selfish) days.

With all due respect to the President, I’ve got a question to ask:

When has this worked?

I admit I have a degree of ambivalence - I do think Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn Rule” applies (ie: “You break it, you bought it”)(somehow incidentally I doubt they have that rule). We put our foot in it both in Afghanistan and Iraq and to some extent we’re responsible for putting the pieces back together.

On the other hand, again, “When has this worked?” What historical example can be given where a long term and unpopular occupier has “won” against entrenched insurgents? Let’s look at the historical examples:

• Korea (US)? Nope.
• Indochina (French)? Nope.
• Vietnam (US)? Nope.
• Algeria (French)? Nope.
• Afghanistan (Soviets)? Nope.
• Iraq (US)? Nope.

So, what “miracle” is going to make this little gem of a war different? Particularly when we have a large part of the Muslim world working against us and funneling in arms and aggressors (hmmm, sounds a lot like a certain previous Afghanistan engagement alluded to above).

There are only two ways in reality to “win” this, one of which is already too late:

1. Get in, kick out the Taliban and Al Qaeda, rebuild the country winning hearts and minds in the process, and get the hell out.
2. Be absolutely ruthless.

Option 1 has long since passed. GW blew that chance big time.

Option 2 we don’t have the stomach for, which since it’s immoral, I am happy about. Honestly the only way to win this at this point would be to just kill, destroy, and demoralize with impunity. We’d have to be everything we claim not to be. Frankly we’d have to be like Saddam Hussein - again absolutely ruthless.

However our current tack isn’t much better. Sure, it isn’t ruthless, but it slowly and more silently does much the same thing. Thousands of innocents still die, and god knows what’s happening under the covers. In the end it’s the worst of both worlds - the death and destruction still happens but with none of the winning to go along with it. It’s just a lot more palatable for the majority of Americans who believe the patriotic schlock of moral superiority they feed us.

So what is the definition of insanity? Thinking you can win a type of war that has never been won, over, and over, and over, and over again.

Andrew Sullivan says in regards to the horrible killings in Texas:

These human beings - citizens who risked their lives for the rest of us - were gunned down defenseless as they sought medical help. Because of religious fanaticism. [emphasis added]

I disagree. This man was (is) sick. It may have been a convenient excuse, but my guess is if he was an atheist he still would have found a reason.

That’s not to say that fanaticism wasn’t a catalyst, or isn’t a problem. I just personally don’t believe this really comes down to religion, nor is it ultimately helpful to frame it that way.

On the other hand, I don’t blame Andrew for doing so either.